U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Marine Outboard and Personal Watercraft SI Engine Technologies and Costs

Preliminary Report

July 2006

021348

This page deliberately left blank.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Marine Outboard and Personal Watercraft SI Engine

Technologies and Costs

Final Report

July 2006

Prepared for

	U.S Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Prepared by:

	Louis Browning and Seth Hartley

ICF International

394 Pacific

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 677-7100

This page intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \t "Heading 3,3"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735141"  1.
Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc86735141 \h  1-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735142"  2.	Background	  PAGEREF _Toc86735142 \h
2-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735143"  3.	Technology Description	  PAGEREF
_Toc86735143 \h  3-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735144"  3.1.	Baseline Technologies	  PAGEREF
_Toc86735144 \h  3-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735145"  3.2.	Advanced Technologies	  PAGEREF
_Toc86735145 \h  3-3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735146"  3.2.1.	2-Stroke Direct Fuel Injection
Technologies	  PAGEREF _Toc86735146 \h  3-3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735147"  3.2.2.	2-Stroke Indirect Fuel Injection
PAGEREF _Toc86735147 \h  3-4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735148"  3.2.3.	4-Stroke Port (Multipoint) Fuel
Injection	  PAGEREF _Toc86735148 \h  3-4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735149"  3.2.4.	4-Stroke Throttle Body Fuel
Injection	  PAGEREF _Toc86735149 \h  3-5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735150"  3.2.5.	Electronic Control Modules
PAGEREF _Toc86735150 \h  3-5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735151"  3.2.6.	Catalysts	  PAGEREF _Toc86735151
\h  3-5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735152"  4.	Cost Methodology	  PAGEREF
_Toc86735152 \h  4-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735153"  4.1.	Hardware Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc86735153 \h  4-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735154"  4.2.	Fixed Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc86735154
\h  4-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735155"  4.3.	Operating Costs	  PAGEREF
_Toc86735155 \h  4-3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735156"  5.	Results	  PAGEREF _Toc86735156 \h  5-1

 List of Figures

  TOC \h \z \c "Figure"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc86735136"  Figure 2-1.
Examples of Outboard and PWC Configurations	  PAGEREF _Toc86735136 \h
2-2

 List of Tables

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865168"  Table 2-1
Outboard and PWC Engines/Boat Sales Estimates (2000-2003) (NMMA)
PAGEREF _Toc87865168 \h  2-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865169"  Table 3-1 Engine Sizes Used for Costing
PAGEREF _Toc87865169 \h  3-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865170"  Table 3-2 Advanced Technology Packages
PAGEREF _Toc87865170 \h  3-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865171"  Table 3-3 Catalyst Characteristics for
Outboard Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865171 \h  3-6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865172"  Table 3-4 Catalyst Characteristics for
Personal Watercraft Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865172 \h  3-6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865173"  Table 4-1 Production Levels (units per
year)	  PAGEREF _Toc87865173 \h  4-3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865174"  Table 5-1 2-Stroke Direct Fuel Injected
Outboard Marine Gasoline Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865174 \h  5-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865175"  Table 5-2 2-Stroke Indirect Fuel Injected
Outboard Marine Gasoline Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865175 \h  5-3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865176"  Table 5-3 4-Stroke Electronic Fuel
Injected Outboard Marine Gasoline Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865176 \h  5-4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865177"  Table 5-4 Migration Costs from 2-stroke
to 4-stroke Outboard Marine Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865177 \h  5-5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865178"  Table 5-5 Three-way Catalyst costs for
4-stroke MPI Outboard Marine Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865178 \h  5-5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865179"  Table 5-6 2-Stroke Direct Fuel Injected
Personal Watercraft Marine Gasoline Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865179 \h
5-6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865180"  Table 5-7 2-Stroke Indirect Fuel Injected
Personal Watercraft Marine Gasoline Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865180 \h
5-7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865181"  Table 5-8 4-Stroke Electronic Fuel
Injected Personal Watercraft Marine Gasoline Engines	  PAGEREF
_Toc87865181 \h  5-8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865182"  Table 5-9 Migration Costs from 2-stroke
to 4-stroke Personal Watercraft Marine Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865182 \h
 5-9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865183"  Table 5-10 Three-way Catalyst costs for
4-stroke MPI Personal Watercraft Marine Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865183
\h  5-9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865184"  Table 5-11 Three-way Marine Catalysts
Cost Estimates	  PAGEREF _Toc87865184 \h  5-10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865185"  Table 5-12 Research, Development and
Prototype Testing Costs per Month	  PAGEREF _Toc87865185 \h  5-11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865186"  Table 5-13 Durability Testing Costs per
Month	  PAGEREF _Toc87865186 \h  5-11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865187"  Table 5-14 Annual Cost Savings by
Converting from 2-Stroke to 4-Stroke for Marine Outboard Gasoline
Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865187 \h  5-13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865188"  Table 5-15 Annual Cost Savings by
Converting from 2-Stroke to 4-Stroke for Personal Watercraft Gasoline
Engines	  PAGEREF _Toc87865188 \h  5-14

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865189"  Table 5-16 Summary of Incremental
Outboard Technology Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc87865189 \h  5-15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc87865190"  Table 5-17 Summary of Incremental
Personal Watercraft Technology Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc87865190 \h  5-16

This page intentionally left blank.

Introduction

	The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) final
rule on spark-ignited (SI) marine engines, published in August, 1996,
established emission limits for marine gasoline outboard engines and SI
engines used in personal watercraft and jet boat applications, resulting
in cleaner and better performing marine engines.  The standards set in
1996 included an increasingly strict regulation of HC and NOx emissions
phased in from 1998 to 2006, but did not include a CO cap.  In 2002
USEPA proposed a rule on evaporative emissions standards that included a
notice of intent for future regulation of outboard and personal
watercraft emissions.  USEPA is now considering new emission standards
for outboard and personal watercraft.  The new standards under
consideration would likely require technologies similar to those needed
to meet new emission standards recently adopted by CARB. These would
include the use of four-stroke engines or two-stroke engines with direct
injection technologies.

	In some cases, updated technology is expected to be implemented to
reduce emissions, such as adding fuel injection technology or exhaust
after-treatment.  In other cases, migrating to cleaner technologies
already in existence, such as moving from two- to four-stroke engines,
will be required to meet new standards.  The purpose of this report is
to provide details on incremental technology and estimated costs for
marine outboard and personal watercraft SI engines that could be fleet
averaged to meet reduced emission levels.  ICF International determined
prices for technology packages for marine outboard SI engines, which
include migrating from a base package of uncontrolled, carbureted
two-stroke engines to direct fuel injection and indirect fuel injection
systems for two-stroke engines, as well as migrating to four-stroke
engines.  For four-stroke engines, the base was taken as uncontrolled,
carbureted engines, and advanced systems investigated were migration to
throttle body injected and multipoint fuel injection systems.  The
addition of a three-way catalyst inside the exhaust manifold for
four-stoke, multipoint fuel-injected engines was also investigated.
Because the technology mix needed to comply with any new, lower emission
standards for outboard marine and personal watercraft engines is not
known and is likely to be achievable through a mix of technologies and
engines, this array of technology packages are representative of what
might be available on marine outboard and personal watercraft SI
engines.  All technology packages considered are open-loop systems and
are available in some form on marine outboard or personal watercraft
engines available today.

	The cost estimates include fixed and variable costs and rely on
information gathered from engine and equipment manufacturers and
experience in costing other SI engine technologies.  Representative
engine models of different sizes are used to develop incremental
technologies. Early drafts of the technology package descriptions and
cost estimates were submitted for review to industry contacts.  Their
comments were incorporated in the results presented in this report.

	The following sections discuss background information on marine
outboard and personal watercraft SI engines (Section 2), describe
baseline and advanced technologies (Section 3), and present the cost
estimate methodologies (Section 4) and the results obtained (Section 5).

Background

	Marine outboard and personal watercraft (PWC) engine manufacturers
occasionally purchase engine blocks, but typically produce outboard and
personal watercraft engine packages themselves. This includes installing
fuel systems, exhaust and intake systems, and features that permit
optimal performance as marine engines.  This process includes
waterproofing, adding a fuel system, gear packages, and exhaust systems.
 Engine manufacturers may also be watercraft manufacturers, particularly
for PWC and jet boat applications, and in that capacity install their
completed engines in boats.

	Outboard and personal watercraft engines come in both four-stroke and
two-stoke configurations.  Fuel delivery in either can currently be
carbureted, or fuel injected (port, throttle body, or direct fuel
injected).  Almost all systems are currently open loop, and they
typically have no exhaust after-treatment, although at least one
manufacturer sells a PWC system with a catalyst housed in the exhaust
and a closed loop system.  There are large variations of technologies
currently used in outboard and PWC engines, including a range of fuel
injection technologies, and engine powers ranging from less than 10 to
over 300 hp.  The largest emitting engines, 2-stroke carbureted, tend to
be grouped toward smaller sizes, and are expected to be phased out over
the next few years.  Essentially all outboard and personal watercraft
engines are gasoline powered.  Three examples of outboard and PWC
engines are shown in Figure 2-1, for a large two-stroke DFI outboard
(Mercury’s Optimax 225), a small, carbureted four-stroke outboard
(Tohatsu’s 9.8 hp Four-Stroke) and a four-stroke PWC (Yamaha’s FX
High Output model). 	According to the National Marine Manufacturers
Association’s (NMMA) estimates, shown in Table 2-1, the sales of
outboard boats and engines, as well as PWC and jet boats all fell from
2000 to 2003, although most showed a modest increase in 2004, the most
recent year of data.  Outboard boats accounted for about 55% of the
total mechanically propelled recreational boat sales in the United
States in 2004, the largest fraction of any boat type. PWC accounted for
about 20% of the total mechanically propelled recreation boat sales in
2004, while jet boats made up about 1%.

Figure   STYLEREF 1 \s  2 -  SEQ Figure \* ARABIC \s 1  1  Examples of
Outboard and PWC Configurations

Sources:

1.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mercurymarine.com/mercury_225_optimax_saltwater"
http://www.mercurymarine.com/mercury_225_optimax_saltwater .

2.   HYPERLINK "http://tohatsu.com/outboards/9_8_4st.html"
http://tohatsu.com/outboards/9_8_4st.html .

3.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products/unitinfo/3/wvr/37/350/0/yamaha_fx_
high_output.aspx"
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/products/unitinfo/3/wvr/37/350/0/yamaha_fx_h
igh_output.aspx .

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  2 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1  Outboard and
PWC Engines/Boat Sales Estimates (2000-2004) (NMMA)

Year 	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004

Outboard Boats	241,200	217,800	212,000	207,100	216,600

Outboard Motors	348,700	299,100	302,100	305,400	315,300

Personal Watercraft	92,000	80,900	79,300	80,600	79,500

Jet Boats	7,000	6,200	5,100	5,600	5,600

Source:  HYPERLINK
"http://nmma.org/facts/boatingstats/2004/files/market1.asp"
http://nmma.org/facts/boatingstats/2004/files/market1.asp

Technology Description

	Because there is expected to be a mix of technologies implemented
fleet-wide to meet possible future emissions standards of reduced HC+NOx
and CO emissions, this study focuses on a range of technologies and
develops incremental costs in migrating between these technologies.  The
baseline technologies are considered to be uncontrolled, carbureted two-
and four-stroke engines. Advanced packages include direct fuel injection
and indirect fuel injection systems for two-stroke engines, as well as
migrating to four-stroke engines, and migration from carburetion to
throttle body injected and multipoint fuel injected systems for
four-stroke engines.  The addition of a three-way catalyst inside the
exhaust manifold for four-stoke, multipoint fuel injected engines was
also included in the pricing.  Common sizes of outboard and personal
watercraft engines were used for costing purposes and these are shown in
Table 3-1.  Other engine models of similar sizes will have similar
changes and costs.  Note that not all manufacturers produce engines in
these configurations and that not all configurations are available for
all sizes today from any manufacturer.  Where not available, estimates
were made based on similar sized engines and comparable technology.
Table 3-2 lists the advanced technology packages for 2 and 4 stroke
engines.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1  Engine Sizes
Used for Costing

Engine Type	Horsepower	Displacement	Cylinders

Outboard Engines	9.9 hp	0.25 L	2

	40 hp	0.76 L	3

	75 hp	1.60 L	3

	125 hp	1.80 L	4

	225 hp	3.00 L	6

Personal Watercraft Engines	85 hp	1.65 L	2

	130 hp	1.85 L	3

	175 hp	2.50 L	4

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  2  Advanced
Technology Packages

	2-stroke	Indirect Fuel Injection 	Direct Fuel Injection	Migration to
  4-stroke

4-stroke	Throttle Body Injection	Multipoint Fuel Injection	MPI with
Oxidation Catalyst

Baseline Technologies

	The baseline technologies considered for each of the five outboard and
three PWC engine models consist of carbureted fuel delivery systems not
calibrated for low emissions.  This includes both 2-stroke and 4-stroke
engine models. Note that a carbureted 4-stroke engine is also considered
an advanced technology option for carbureted 2-stroke engines.  Many
manufacturers produce engines in both these configurations in a range of
sizes, although new carbureted 2-stroke engines are expected to be
phased out over the next few years. Currently, carbureted engines are
more popular in smaller engine sizes to provide low-cost, entry-level
marine engines for their clients.

	Two-stroke engines fire every engine revolution and have fewer moving
parts than their 4-stroke counterparts.  This gives 2-stroke engines a
high power to weight ratio.  However, the fuel short circuiting inherent
in conventional 2-strokes, the consumption of oil, and the reduced fuel
efficiency and engine durability of conventional carbureted 2-stroke
engines makes them much less environmentally friendly than 4-stroke
engines.  Carbureted 2-stroke engines are as much as 25-40% less
efficient than comparable 4-strokes or direct fuel injected 2-strokes.

	Four-stroke engines fire every other engine revolution, thus allowing a
single complete stroke for both charging and clearing the combustion
chamber.  Conventional 4-stroke engines are heavier than their 2-stroke
counterparts, but more fuel-efficient and produce fewer emissions by
eliminating fuel short circuiting and isolating lubricating oil from the
combustion process.

	All baseline engines are carbureted.  The technology behind carburetors
has changed little over time.  Generally, any improvement in the
efficiency of carburetors has been obtained by reducing tolerances in
the manufacturing process.  Generally, carburetion provides fuel to
multiple cylinders unevenly, has less control of air/fuel ratio
particularly during transients, often is set rich of stoichiometric, and
requires the user to operate a choke, all of which make carburetion less
ideal than fuel injection.  Carbureted systems are less expensive and
mechanically and electrically simpler than fuel injected systems,
however.

Advanced Technologies

	A mix of advanced technologies is likely to be applied to the suite of
new engines produced to comply with lower emission standards.  As shown
in Table 3-2, these packages differ for 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines.
For both 2- and 4-stroke engines, fuel injection is likely to replace
carburetion, while 2-stroke engines are likely to be replaced with
cleaner 4-stroke engines.  Two types of fuel injection systems are
already established for each of the engine cycles, and are considered
here: direct and indirect injection for 2-stroke engines and port and
throttle body injection for 4-stroke engines.  Additionally, exhaust
after treatment with a three-way catalyst inserted into the exhaust
manifold is considered for the port fuel injected 4-stroke engines.  All
engines configurations for outboard and PWC engines considered here are
open loop without catalysts and closed loop with catalyst.

	Note that in comparison of technologies, migration from 2-stroke
carbureted to 4-stroke carbureted engines is considered.  This is not
really a migration to an advanced technology; however it will result in
significant emissions reductions for the reasons discussed above.  This
comparison also appears below.

2-Stroke Direct Fuel Injection Technologies

	Direct fuel injection (DFI) in 2-stroke engines reduces the problem of
fuel short-circuiting that is responsible for the typically poor
efficiency and emissions rate associated with 2-stroke engines.  This is
done by inducting air only into the combustion chamber and injecting
fuel into the combustion chamber directly after the exhaust ports have
been covered by the piston.  Converting a conventional 2-stroke engine
to a DI engine is accomplished by replacing the cylinder head with one
that allows an injector beside the spark plug, removing the carburetor,
and installing an additional higher pressure fuel pump, engine control
module, and various sensors and wiring to properly meter the fuel
delivery.

	DFI technology has been adopted well by the market for its enhanced
performance and fuel economy characteristics.  It is most popular on
larger outboard and personal watercraft engines, as it provides the good
power to weight ratio associated with 2-stroke engines but improves
greatly on the efficiency and emissions rate of the engine.  There are
currently three types of DFI systems: ETech (cam-assist) used by BRP and
others, Orbital (air assist) used by Mercury Marine and others, and a
proprietary Yamaha system.  These systems differ primarily in the
pressures under which they operate and the method used to atomize the
fuel.

2-Stroke Indirect Fuel Injection

	Indirect injection (IDI) for 2-stroke engines is very similar to
throttle body injection for 4-stroke engines.  In this case, the
carburetor is replaced with a mixing chamber where the fuel, air, and
oil are pre-mixed before being inducted into the combustion chamber.
This system has advantages over conventional carbureted 2-stroke engines
in that the air-fuel mixture is more precise for a given load, the fuel
and oil are properly pre-mixed, and the system is generally less
expensive.  However, this technology does not necessarily deliver the
enhanced emissions performance of direct injected 2-stroke engines
because short circuiting is still possible.

	Component-wise, IDI differs from DFI in the replacement of fuel
metering solenoids with injectors, the addition of a fuel distributor,
and the replacement of the air compressor and air regulator with a high
pressure fuel pump and a pressure regulator.

4-Stroke Port (Multipoint) Fuel Injection

	A port fuel injection (PFI) system includes an injector per cylinder, a
fuel rail, a pressure regulator, an electronic control module (ECM),
manifold air pressure and temperature sensors, an additional higher
pressure fuel pump, a throttle assembly, a throttle position sensor, and
a magnetic crankshaft pickup for engine speed.

	PFI systems also require a cool fuel system in order to prevent vapor
lock problems.  When a boat’s engine is turned off, its heat can turn
the fuel in the fuel line into vapor.  If an attempt is made to restart
the engine, no fuel is supplied to the engine as the fuel injector
cannot inject vapor and because of the positive vapor pressure in the
fuel line, the pump will not pump liquid fuel into the line.  Cooling
the fuel using a cool fuel system will keep it in liquid state and
eliminate the occurrence of vapor lock.  Since fuel cooling is necessary
for all fuel injected systems, it only becomes an emission-related cost
if a manufacturer upgrades a carbureted system to a fuel injected system
in order to meet emissions standards

	In general, PFI systems provide better fuel distribution between
cylinders than carbureted fuel systems.  PFI allows for better fuel
control during transients than carbureted engines.

4-Stroke Throttle Body Fuel Injection

	Throttle body injected (TBI) systems essentially replace a carburetor
with a throttle body into which a precise amount of fuel is injected and
mixed with air before induction into the combustion chamber.  This
allows reduced cost over PFI systems on 4-stroke engines as there is no
need for a fuel rail and there are fewer injectors needed (typically one
to two) for the engine (although they are typically larger and more
expensive than those for PFI systems).  TBI systems do not allow the
same precise fuel distribution among cylinders as offered by PFI
systems, but the performance is enhanced over traditional carbureted
systems.  TBI systems are also less expensive than PFI systems.

Electronic Control Modules

	Electronic control modules (ECM) control fuel injection and ignition
timing in uncontrolled fuel injected systems.  Carbureted systems may
also use an ignition control module (ICM), which has limited functions.

	Currently, fuel injected systems’ ECMs are 32-bit systems.  Although
fuel injected systems’ ECMs will be required to perform more tasks to
meet emissions standards, the 32-bit processors are still adequate for
these additional requirements.  A large portion of ECM costs are related
to software development which is considered a fixed cost.

Catalysts

	Three-way catalysts are likely to be incorporated only on some outboard
and personal watercraft models as an additional control mechanism for
emissions reduction.  The catalyst envisioned for these engines is
likely to be a small “brick” located inside the exhaust system with
a volume about 35% of the total engine displacement.  Although catalysts
are not common on outboard and personal watercraft engines, at least one
manufacturer (Yamaha) has provided high-end PWCs and jet boats with
catalysts in the exhaust system for several model years.  Southwest
Research Institute has also tested catalysts in inboard engines and
found that adequate emission reductions can be realized with reasonable
catalyst life.

	Table 3-3 describes the three-way catalysts envisioned for marine
outboard engines and Table 3-4 for PWC engines.  Platinum/Rhodium
precious metal catalysts will most likely be used.  A precious metal
loading of around 1.0 gram per liter of catalyst size are expected to be
used.

	According to catalyst manufacturers, a ceramic substrate will be
sufficiently strong to withstand the vibration and temperature
variations marine systems are subjected to.  To avoid underestimating
costs, costs were calculated with the ceramic substrate mounted in a
steel can. In practice, the substrate can be mounted with or without a
shell in the exhaust system.  One catalyst is envisioned per engine.
The total cost of adding a catalyst includes the catalyst, housing and
retooling the exhaust manifold, as well as labor, markup, and warranty
costs.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  3  Catalyst
Characteristics for Outboard Engines

Engine Size	9.9 hp Engine	40 hp Engine	75 hp Engine	125 hp Engine	225 hp
Engine

Catalyst Size	0.09 L	0.27 L	0.56 L	0.63 L	1.05 L

Substrate	Ceramic

400 cells per inch	Ceramic

400 cells per inch	Ceramic

400 cells per inch	Ceramic

400 cells per inch	Ceramic

400 cells per inch

Washcoat	75% cerium

25% alumina oxide	75% cerium

25% alumina oxide	75% cerium

25% alumina oxide	75% cerium

25% alumina oxide	75% cerium

25% alumina oxide

Precious Metals	Pt/Rh   4/1

Loading 1.0 g / L	Pt/Rh   4/1

Loading 1.0 g / L	Pt/Rh   4/1

Loading 1.0 g / L	Pt/Rh   4/1

Loading 1.0 g / L	Pt/Rh   4/1

Loading 1.0 g / L

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  4  Catalyst
Characteristics for Personal Watercraft Engines

Engine Size	85 hp Engine	130 hp Engine	175 hp Engine

Catalyst Size	0.58 L	0.65 L	0.88 L

Substrate	Ceramic

400 cells per inch	Ceramic

400 cells per inch	Ceramic

400 cells per inch

Washcoat	75% cerium

25% alumina oxide	75% cerium

25% alumina oxide	75% cerium

25% alumina oxide

Precious Metals	Pt/Rh   4/1

Loading 1.0 g / L	Pt/Rh   4/1

Loading 1.0 g / L	Pt/Rh   4/1

Loading 1.0 g / L

Cost Methodology

	In order to determine costs for technologies that manufacturers are
likely to employ to comply with potential future emission regulations,
representative models of the five outboard and three PWC engines
described earlier were chosen among several manufacturers’ engine
lines and cost information was collected for each.   No single model’s
costs were used to develop the estimates presented in this report, but
rather representative averages of all costs collected were used for each
technology.

	The technologies described in Section 3 have benefits that go beyond
emission control.  Assigning the full incremental cost of these
technologies as an impact of emissions standards may therefore
overestimate the true cost of emission control.  The costing described
herein only focuses on emissions-related improvements and not
performance-related ones. All costs are reported in 2005 dollars and
represent the incremental costs associated with various technology
packages engine manufacturers might employ in different aspects of their
production lines to meet new emission standards.

Hardware Costs

	The hardware cost to the manufacturers varies greatly with emission
technology package.  Generally, as engines and fuel delivery systems
become more complicated, one of the largest incremental costs will be
the enhancement of ECMs.  Other fuel system components, such as air
compressors, pressure regulators, injectors, and the various sensors
used in the systems also add significant costs to the enhanced
technology packages.  Manufacturer prices of all components were
estimated from various sources, including confidential information from
engine manufacturers and previous work performed by ICF International on
spark-ignited engine technology.  Discounted dealer and parts supplier
prices were used to verify the range of component prices, as were prices
obtained directly from engine manufacturers.

	Three-way catalyst component information was obtained directly from
catalyst manufacturers and current ICF work with three-way catalyst
technology and costs for sterndrive and inboard SI engines.  The prices
of precious metal per troy ounce represent average prices over the last
three years. Washcoat and steel prices represent current estimates. The
labor cost is based upon a small scale production of catalysts of a
similar size of 15,000 units per year and an average labor time of a
half hour per unit, which includes the time necessary to install the
catalyst in the exhaust manifold.  To minimize costs, all manufacturers
with similar-sized engines will most likely use a similar catalyst.
Labor rates used are estimated $17.50 per hour plus a 60% fringe rate
for a total labor cost of $28 per hour.

	All hardware costs to the engine manufacturer are subject to a 29%
mark-up which represents a typical mark-up of technologies on new engine
sales.  This mark-up includes manufacturer overhead, manufacturer
profit, dealer overhead and dealer profit.  A separate supplier mark-up
of 29% is also applied to the catalyst.  The 5% warranty markup is added
to the hardware cost to represent an overhead charge covering warranty
claims associated with the new parts. This is a lower rate than what
would be typically used because of the long history of similar
electronic fuel injection systems in other applications.

Fixed Costs

	The fixed costs to the manufacturer include the cost of researching,
developing and testing a new technology.  It also includes the cost of
retooling the assembly line for the production of new parts.  The fixed
costs are listed separately for the development and durability testing
costs.  The advanced fuel system technology needed to reduce emissions
is already in part present in a considerable share of many current
product lines, thus further development needed is minimal.

	The number of units per year per engine family and the number of years
to recover are used to determine the fixed cost per unit in 2005
dollars. The present cost estimate uses the average engine sales shown
in Table 4-1.   The numbers of units per year are estimates derived from
confidential information received from manufacturers.  The numbers
reflect the variation in average production between large and small
businesses that share the market.

	Five years is used as the length of time to recover an investment in
new technology.  This is a typical value for the marine outboard and
personal watercraft industry.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1  Production
Levels (units per year)

Engine Type	Horsepower	Sales

Outboard Engines	9.9 hp	5,000

	40 hp	5,600

	75 hp	6,400

	125 hp	5,900

	225 hp	4,700

Personal Watercraft Engines	85 hp	1,700

	130 hp	5,300

	175 hp	1,000

Operating Costs

Migration from conventional 2-stroke engine technology to 4-stroke or
direct-injection 2-stroke engine technology reduces fuel consumption
from 15 to 40% due to less fuel short-circuiting.  Fuel cost savings for
use of 4-stroke and direct-injection 2-stroke engine technology over
conventional 2-stroke engine technology have been analyzed using an
average gasoline price of $1.92 per gallon.  Additionally, a price of
$2.96 per quart was used for 2-stroke engine oil versus $2.31 per quart
for 4-stroke engine oil.  A load factor of 0.21 has been used along with
an activity of 34.8 hours per year for outboard engines and 77.3 hours
per year for personal watercraft.  An average life of 9.9 years was used
to calculate total fuel savings for PWC engines.  For outboard engines,
the average life ranged from 13.3 years for 225 hp engines to 26.1 years
for 9.9 hp engines.  A discount rate of 3% per annum over the life of
the engine was used to calculate present values.

This page intentionally left blank.

Results

	Outboard and personal watercraft engine manufacturers were initially
contacted to gather information on component costs for the technology
packages under consideration.  Preliminary cost estimates for the
systems were later submitted for review to the same industry contacts.
Their comments were incorporated in the final version of the cost
estimates.  These are presented in the tables at the end of this
section.

	Tables 5-1 to 5-5 show a detailed development of cost estimates for
each of the technology packages for each engine and a comparison of the
costs across technologies for similar sized engines for outboard
engines.  Tables 5-6 through 5-10 show a detailed development of cost
estimates for each of the technology packages for personal watercraft.

	As discussed above, migration from conventional 2-stroke engines to
4-stroke and direct-injection 2-stroke engines was also considered in
the mix of available technologies.  The results of this comparison are
shown in Tables 5-4 for outboard engines and Table 5-9 for personal
watercraft.  Although carbureted 4-strokes are not considered an
advanced technology, they do have significant emissions reductions and
cost savings over carbureted 2-stroke engines.  Also, because 4-strokes
are common in the market today, no increased research and development or
warranty costs are included in this comparison.  Further, this
comparison is not necessarily for carbureted to carbureted engine
models.  Particularly for larger engines, carburetion is less common.
In these cases, the model comparison was between engine models with
similar fuel delivery technologies available for engines of that size.

	Table 5-11 details catalyst prices per unit.  The total catalyst price
depends on the number of units used for each engine, although the
current layout envisions only one catalyst per engine.  Manufacturer
prices per unit vary between $33 and $93.

	Table 5-12 describes the composition of the research and development
costs.  The research and development costs for engine manufacturers
consist of the engineering design costs, the product development costs,
and the prototype testing costs for the first engine line built.  The
actual cost per engine for research and development that is included in
Tables 5-1 to 5-10 is based on six months of R&D at this rate.  For
systems with catalysts, another 3 months of R&D are included. The design
and development costs are essentially engineer and technician hours plus
prototype testing costs.  This may increase in the future as a result of
new emission standards.  Base engineer salaries are taken as $66,000 per
year and base technicianTable   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC
\s 1  1  2-Stroke Direct Fuel Injected Outboard Marine Gasoline Engines

Carb - > DFI Costs	9.9 hp, 2 cyl	40 hp, 3 cyl	75 hp, 3 cyl	125 hp, 4 cyl
225 hp, 6 cyl

	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI

Carburetor	$28 	N/A	$38 	N/A	$45 	N/A	$55 	N/A	$80 	N/A

     Number Required	     1 	 	      3 	 	      3 	 	       3
 3

Fuel Metering Solenoid (each)	 	$18 	 	$20 	 	$22 	 	$24 	 	$26

     Number Required	 	2

3

3

4

6

 Air Compressor	 	$80 	 	$100 	 	$120 	 	$140 	 	$165

 Air Regulator	 	$15

$15

$17 	 	$20 	 	$22

 Throttle Body/Position Sensor	 	$30

$35

$35 	 	$40 	 	$50

  Intake Manifold	$8 	$13 	$10 	$15 	$11 	$20 	$15 	$25 	$15 	$30

  Fuel Pump	$7 	$10 	$10 	$10 	$15 	$10 	$16 	$10 	$18 	$10

  ECM	 	$85 	 	$90 	 	$95 	 	$100 	 	$105

  Air Intake Temperature Sensor	 	$5 	 	$5 	 	$5 	 	$5 	 	$5

  Manifold Air Pressure Sensor	 	$10 	 	$10 	 	$11 	 	$11 	 	$11

  Injection Timing Sensor/Timing Wheel	 	$5 	 	$8 	 	$9 	 	$10
$10

  Wiring/Related Hardware	 	$20 	 	$30 	 	$30 	 	$50 	 	$60

Hardware Cost to Manufacturer	$43 	$309 	$134 	$378 	$161 	$418 	$196
$507 	$273 	$624

Labor @ $28 per hour	$1 	$14 	$2 	$17 	$2 	$21 	$2 	$24 	$3 	$28

Labor overhead @ 40%	$1 	$6 	$1 	$7 	$1 	$8 	$1 	$10 	$1 	$11

OEM markup @ 29%	$13 	$95 	$40 	$116 	$48 	$130 	$58 	$157 	$80 	$192

Warranty Markup @ 5% 	 	$13 	 	$12 	 	$13 	 	$16 	 	$18

Total Component Costs	$58 	$437 	$176 	$530 	$211 	$590 	$257 	$713
$357 	$873

Fixed Cost to Manufacturer

R&D Costs	$0 	$679,956 	$0 	$692,712 	$0 	$704,832 	$0 	$718,440 	$0
$738,482

Tooling Costs	$0 	$150,000 	$0 	$150,000 	$0 	$150,000 	$0 	$150,000 	$0
	$150,000

Units/yr.	5,000	5,000 	5,600	5,600 	6,400	6,400 	5,900	5,900 	4,700
4,700

Years to recover	5	5 	5	5 	5	5 	5	5 	5	5

Fixed cost/unit	$0 	$46 	$0 	$42 	$0 	$37 	$0 	$41 	$0 	$52

Total Costs ($)	$58 	$483 	$176 	$572 	$211 	$627 	$257 	$753 	$357
$925

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$425 	 	$396 	 	$415 	 	$496 	 	$568

R&D Costs	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI

R&D Costs 	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$0
$474,611

Durability Testing 	$0 	$205,346 	$0 	$218,101 	$0 	$230,221 	$0
$243,829 	$0 	$263,871

Total R&D per Engine Line	$0 	$679,956 	$0 	$692,712 	$0 	$704,832 	$0
$718,440 	$0 	$738,482

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  2  2-Stroke
Indirect Fuel Injected Outboard Marine Gasoline Engines

Carb - > IDI Costs	9.9 hp, 2 cyl	40 hp, 3 cyl	75 hp. 3 cyl	125 hp, 4 cyl
225 hp, 6 cyl

	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI

Carburetor	$28 	N/A	$38 	N/A	$45 	N/A	$55 	N/A	$80 	N/A

      Number Required	1

3

3

3

3

	 Injectors (each)	 	$17 	 	$17 	 	$17 	 	$17 	 	$17

     Number Required	 	2

3

3

4

6

 Fuel Distributor	 	$10 	 	$12 	 	$15 	 	$20 	 	$25

 Pressure Regulator	 	$15 	 	$15 	 	$20 	 	$30 	 	$35

 Intake Manifold	$8 	$13 	$10 	$15 	$11 	$17 	$15 	$35 	$15 	$35

 Throttle Body/Position Sensor	 	$30 	 	$35 	 	$35 	 	$40 	 	$50

 Fuel Pump	$7 	$20 	$10 	$20 	$15 	$30 	$16 	$40 	$18 	$45

 ECM	 	$85 	 	$90 	 	$95 	 	$100 	 	$105

 Air Intake Temperature Sensor	 	$5 	 	$5 	 	$5 	 	$5 	 	$5

 Manifold Air Pressure Sensor	 	$10 	 	$10 	 	$11 	 	$11 	 	$11

 Injection Timing Sensor	 	$7 	 	$8 	 	$9 	 	$10 	 	$10

 Wiring/Related Hardware	 	$20 	 	$30 	 	$30 	 	$40 	 	$60

Hardware Cost to Manufacturer	$43 	$249 	$134 	$291 	$161 	$318 	$196
$399 	$273 	$483

Labor @ $28 per hour	$1 	$7 	$2 	$8 	$2 	$11 	$2 	$12 	$3 	$14

Labor overhead @ 40%	$1 	$3 	$1 	$3 	$1 	$4 	$1 	$5 	$1 	$6

Markup @ 29%	$13 	$75 	$40 	$88 	$48 	$96 	$58 	$121 	$80 	$146

Warranty Markup @ 5% (a)	 	$10 	 	$8 	 	$8 	 	$10 	 	$11

Total Component Costs	$58 	$344 	$176 	$398 	$211 	$437 	$257 	$546
$357 	$659

Fixed Cost to Manufacturer

R&D Costs	$0 	$679,956 	$0 	$692,712 	$0 	$704,832 	$0 	$718,440 	$0
$738,482

Tooling Costs	$0 	$100,000 	$0 	$100,000 	$0 	$100,000 	$0 	$100,000 	$0
	$100,000

Units/yr.	5,000	5,000 	5,600	5,600 	6,400	6,400 	5,900	5,900 	4,700
4,700

Years to recover	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5

Fixed cost/unit	$0 	$43 	$0 	$39 	$0 	$35 	$0 	$38 	$0 	$49

Total Costs ($)	$58 	$387 	$176 	$438 	$211 	$472 	$257 	$585 	$357
$708

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$329 	 	$262 	 	$260 	 	$328 	 	$351

R&D Costs	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI

R&D Costs 	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$0
$474,611

Durability Testing 	$0 	$205,346 	$0 	$218,101 	$0 	$230,221 	$0
$243,829 	$0 	$263,871

Total R&D per Engine Line	$0 	$679,956 	$0 	$692,712 	$0 	$704,832 	$0
$718,440 	$0 	$738,482

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  3  4-Stroke
Electronic Fuel Injected Outboard Marine Gasoline Engines

Carb -> EFI Costs	9.9 hp, 2 cyl	40 hp, 3 cyl	75 hp. 3 cyl	125 hp, 4 cyl
225 hp, 6 cyl

	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI

 Carburetor	$28 	N/A	N/A	$38 	N/A	N/A	$45 	N/A	N/A	$55 	N/A	N/A	$80 	N/A
N/A

      Number Required	1

	3

	3

	3

	3

 Injectors (each)	 	$21 	$17 	 	$21 	$17 	 	$21 	$17 	 	$21 	$17
$21 	$17

      Number Required

1	2

1	3

1	3

2	4

2	6

 Fuel Rail	 	 	$40 	 	 	$55 	 	 	$65 	 	 	$70 	 	$80 	$80

 Pressure Regulator	 	$10 	$15 	 	$10 	$15 	 	$15 	$20 	 	$20 	$30
 	$25 	$35

Intake Manifold	$8 	$13 	$13 	$10 	$15 	$15 	$11 	$17 	$17 	$15 	$25
$25 	$15 	$30 	$30

Throttle Body/Position Sensor	 	$30 	$30 	 	$35 	$35 	 	$35 	$35
$40 	$40 	 	$50 	$50

Fuel Pump	$7 	$15 	$20 	$10 	$15 	$20 	$15 	$20 	$25 	$16 	$25 	$30 	$18
	$30 	$35

ECM	 	$85 	$95 	 	$90 	$100 	 	$95 	$105 	 	$100 	$110 	 	$105
$115

Air Intake Temperature Sensor	 	$5 	$5 	 	$5 	$5 	 	$5 	$5 	 	$5 	$5
	 	$5 	$5

Manifold Air Pressure Sensor	 	$10 	$10 	 	$10 	$10 	 	$11 	$11
$11 	$11 	 	$11 	$11

Injection Timing Sensor	 	$5 	$5 	 	$8 	$8 	 	$9 	$9 	 	$10 	$10
$10 	$10

Wiring/Related Hardware	 	$20 	$20 	 	$30 	$30 	 	$30 	$30 	 	$40
$40 	 	$60 	$60

Hardware Cost to Manufacturer	$43 	$214 	$287 	$134 	$239 	$344 	$161
$258 	$373 	$196 	$318 	$439 	$273 	$368 	$533

Labor @ $28 per hour	$1 	$4 	$4 	$2 	$4 	$6 	$2 	$4 	$6 	$2 	$4 	$6 	$2
$4 	$6

Labor overhead @ 40%	$1 	$2 	$2 	$1 	$2 	$3 	$1 	$2 	$3 	$1 	$2 	$3 	$1
$2 	$3

Markup @ 29%	$13 	$64 	$85 	$40 	$71 	$102 	$47 	$77 	$111 	$58 	$94
$130 	$80 	$108 	$157

Warranty Markup @ 5% 	 	$9 	$12 	 	$5 	$11 	 	$5 	$11 	 	$6 	$12
$5 	$13

Total Component Costs	$58 	$292 	$390 	$176 	$321 	$466 	$211 	$345
$503 	$257 	$424 	$590 	$356 	$487 	$712

Fixed Cost to Manufacturer

R&D Costs	$0 	$679,956 	$679,956 	$0 	$692,712 	$692,712 	$0 	$704,832
$704,832 	$0 	$718,440 	$718,440 	$0 	$738,482 	$738,482

Tooling Costs	$0 	$100,000 	$125,000 	$0 	$100,000 	$125,000 	$0
$100,000 	$125,000 	$0 	$100,000 	$125,000 	$0 	$100,000 	$125,000

Units/yr.	5,000	5,000	5,000	5,600	5,600	5,600	6,400	6,400	6,400	5,900
5,900	5,900	4,700	4,700	4,700

Years to recover	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5

Fixed cost/unit	$0 	$43 	$45 	$0 	$39 	$40 	$0 	$35 	$36 	$0 	$38 	$40
$0 	$49 	$51

Total Costs ($)	$58 	$335 	$435 	$176 	$360 	$506 	$211 	$380 	$539
$257 	$462 	$629 	$356 	$537 	$763

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$277 	$377 	 	$185 	$330 	 	$169 	$328
 	$206 	$373 	 	$181 	$407

	R&D Costs	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI
PFI

R&D Costs	$0 	$474,611 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611
$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$474,611

Durability Testing 	$0 	$205,346 	$205,346 	$0 	$218,101 	$218,101 	$0
$230,221 	$230,221 	$0 	$243,829 	$243,829 	$0 	$263,871 	$263,871

Total R&D per Engine Line	$0 	$679,956 	$679,956 	$0 	$692,712 	$692,712
	$0 	$704,832 	$704,832 	$0 	$718,440 	$718,440 	$0 	$738,482 	$738,482

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  4  Migration
Costs from 2-stroke to 4-stroke Outboard Marine Engines

Conversion to 4 Stroke Costs	9.9 hp Carb->Carb	40 hp Carb->Carb	75 hp
Carb->Carb	125 hp Carb->EFI	225 hp DFI->EFI

	2 stroke	4 stroke	2 stroke	4 stroke	2 stroke	4 stroke	2 stroke	4 stroke
2 stroke	4 stroke

Engine	$900 	$1,124 	$2,101 	$2,633 	$3,076 	$3,861 	$4,195 	$5,504
$6,339 	$7,761

Markup @ 29%	$261 	$326 	$609 	$764 	$892 	$1,120 	$1,217 	$1,596
$1,838 	$2,251

Total Costs ($)	$1,161 	$1,450 	$2,710 	$3,397 	$3,968 	$4,981 	$5,412
$7,100 	$8,177 	$10,012

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$289 	 	$686 	 	$1,013 	 	$1,689
$1,834

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  5  Three-way
Catalyst costs for 4-stroke MPI Outboard Marine Engines

4 stroke MPI  Catalysts	9.9 hp	40 hp	75 hp	125 hp	225 hp

	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat

Catalyst	 	$33 	 	$45 	 	$62 	 	$67 	 	$92

Manifold Modifications	 	$15 	 	$17 	 	$20 	 	$25 	 	$30

Oxygen Sensor	 	$25 	 	$25 	 	$25 	 	$25 	 	$25

Labor @ $28 per hour	 	$1 	 	$1 	 	$1 	 	$1 	 	$1

Labor overhead @ 40%	 	$1 	 	$1 	 	$1 	 	$1 	 	$1

OEM markup @ 29%	 	$22 	 	$26 	 	$32 	 	$34 	 	$43

Warranty Markup @ 5%	 	$2	 	$2	 	$3	 	$3	 	$5

Total Component Costs	$0 	$99 	$0 	$116 	$0 	$144 	$0 	$156 	$0 	$197

Fixed Cost to Manufacturer

R&D Costs	$0 	$342,788 	$0 	$352,938 	$0 	$362,068 	$0 	$372,980 	$0
$388,643

Tooling Costs	$0 	$75,000 	$0 	$75,000 	$0 	$75,000 	$0 	$75,000 	$0
$75,000

Units/yr.	5,000	5,000 	5,600	5,600 	6,400	6,400 	5,900	5,900 	4,700
4,700

Years to recover	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5

Fixed cost/unit	$0 	$23 	$0 	$21 	$0 	$19 	$0 	$21 	$0 	$27

Total Costs ($)	$0 	$122 	$0 	$137 	$0 	$163 	$0 	$177 	$0 	$224

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$122 	 	$137 	 	$163 	 	$177 	 	$224

R&D Costs	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat

R&D Costs 	$0 	$237,305 	$0 	$237,305 	$0 	$237,305 	$0 	$237,305 	$0
$237,305

Durability Testing 	$0 	$105,483 	$0 	$115,633 	$0 	$124,763 	$0
$135,675 	$0 	$151,338

Total R&D per Engine Line	$0 	$342,788 	$0 	$352,938 	$0 	$362,068 	$0
$372,980 	$0 	$388,643

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  6  2-Stroke
Direct Fuel Injected Personal Watercraft Marine Gasoline Engines

Carb - > DFI Costs	85 hp, 2 cyl	130 hp, 3 cyl	175 hp, 4 cyl

	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI

Carburetor	$38 	N/A	$55 	N/A	$80 	N/A

     Number Required	3

3

3

Nozzle/Accumulator (each)	 	$22 	 	$24 	 	$26

     Number Required

2

3

4

Air Compressor	 	$120 	 	$140 	 	$165

Air Regulator

$17 	 	$20 	 	$22

Throttle Body/Position Sensor

$35 	 	$40 	 	$50

Intake Manifold	$11 	$20 	$15 	$25 	$15 	$30

Fuel Transfer Pump	$15 	$10 	$16 	$10 	$18 	$10

ECM	 	$95 	 	$100 	 	$105

Air Intake Temperature Sensor	 	$5 	 	$5 	 	$5

Manifold Air Pressure Sensor	 	$11 	 	$11 	 	$11

Injection Timing Sensor/Timing Wheel	 	$9 	 	$10 	 	$10

Wiring/Related Hardware	 	$20 	 	$30	 	$40

Hardware Cost to Manufacturer	$140 	$386 	$196 	$453 	$273 	$552

Labor @ $28 per hour	$2 	$21 	$2 	$24 	$2 	$24

Labor overhead @ 40%	$1 	$8 	$1 	$10 	$1 	$10

OEM markup @ 29%	$41 	$120 	$58 	$144 	$80 	$170

Warranty Markup @ 5% 	 	$12 	 	$13 	 	$14

Total Component Costs	$184 	$548 	$257 	$654 	$356 	$769

Fixed Cost to Manufacturer

R&D Costs	$0 	$705,255 	$0 	$714,728 	$0 	$725,996

Tooling Costs	$0 	$150,000 	$0 	$150,000 	$0 	$150,000

Units/yr.	1,700	1,700	5,300	5,300	1,000	1,000

Years to recover	5	5 	5	5 	5	5

Fixed cost/unit	$0 	$139 	$0 	$45 	$0 	$242

Total Costs ($)	$184 	$687 	$257 	$699 	$356 	$1,011

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$503 	 	$442 	 	$655

R&D Costs	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI	Carb	DFI

R&D Costs	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611

Durability Testing	$0 	$230,644 	$0 	$240,118 	$0 	$251,386

Total R&D per Engine Line	$0 	$705,255 	$0 	$714,728 	$0 	$725,996

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  7  2-Stroke
Indirect Fuel Injected Personal Watercraft Marine Gasoline Engines

Carb - > IDI Costs	85 hp, 2 cyl	130 hp, 3 cyl	175 hp, 4 cyl

	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI

  Carburetor	$38 	N/A	$55 	N/A	$80 	N/A

       Number Required	 3 	 	3 	 	 3

  Injectors (each)	 	$17 	 	$17 	 	$17

       Number Required	 	2	 	3	 	4

  Fuel Distributor	 	$15 	 	$20 	 	$25

  Pressure Regulator	 	$20 	 	$30 	 	$35

  Intake Manifold	$11 	$17 	$15 	$35 	$15 	$35

  Throttle Body/Position Sensor	 	$35 	 	$40 	 	$50

  Fuel Pump	$15 	$30 	$16 	$40 	$18 	$45

  ECM	 	$95 	 	$100 	 	$105

  Air Intake Temperature Sensor	 	$5 	 	$5 	 	$5

  Manifold Air Pressure Sensor	 	$11 	 	$11 	 	$11

  Injection Timing Sensor	 	$9 	 	$10 	 	$10

  Wiring/Related Hardware	 	$20 	 	$30 	 	$40

Hardware Cost to Manufacturer	$140 	$291 	$196 	$372 	$273 	$429

Labor @ $28 per hour	$2 	$11 	$2 	$12 	$2 	$12

Labor overhead @ 40%	$1 	$4 	$1 	$5 	$1 	$5

OEM markup @ 29%	$41 	$89 	$58 	$113 	$80 	$129

Warranty Markup @ 5%	 	$8 	 	$9 	 	$8

Total Component Costs	$184 	$402 	$257 	$510 	$356 	$583

Fixed Cost to Manufacturer

R&D Costs	$0 	$705,255 	$0 	$714,728 	$0 	$725,996

Tooling Costs	$0 	$100,000 	$0 	$100,000 	$0 	$100,000

Units/yr.	1,700	1,700	5,300	5,300	1,000	1,000

Years to recover	5	5 	5	5 	5	5

Fixed cost/unit	$0 	$131 	$0 	$43 	$0 	$229

Total Costs ($)	$184 	$533 	$257 	$553 	$356 	$812

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$349 	 	$296 	 	$455

R&D Costs	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI	Carb	IDI

R&D Costs	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611

Durability Testing	$0 	$230,644 	$0 	$240,118 	$0 	$251,386

Total R&D per Engine Line	$0 	$705,255 	$0 	$714,728 	$0 	$725,996

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  8  4-Stroke
Electronic Fuel Injected Personal Watercraft Marine Gasoline Engines

Carb -> EFI Costs	85 hp, 2 cyl	130 hp, 3 cyl	175 hp, 3 cyl

	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI

 Carburetor	$45 	N/A	N/A	$55 	N/A	N/A	$80 	N/A	N/A

      Number Required	3 	 	 	3 	 	 	 3

 Injectors (each)	 	$21 	$17 	 	$21 	$17 	 	$21 	$17

      Number Required	 	1	2

2	3

2	4

 Fuel Rail	 	 	$65 	 	 	$70 	 	 	$80

 Pressure Regulator	 	$15 	$20 	 	$20 	$30 	 	$25 	$35

 Intake Manifold	$11 	$17 	$17 	$15 	$25 	$25 	$15 	$30 	$30

 Throttle Body/Position Sensor	 	$35 	$35 	 	$40 	$40 	 	$50 	$50

 Fuel Pump	$15 	$20 	$25 	$16 	$25 	$30 	$18 	$30 	$35

 ECM	 	$95 	$105 	 	$100 	$110 	 	$105 	$115

 Air Intake Temperature Sensor	 	$5 	$5 	 	$5 	$5 	 	$5 	$5

 Manifold Air Pressure Sensor	 	$11 	$11 	 	$11 	$11 	 	$11 	$11

 Injection Timing Sensor	 	$9 	$9 	 	$10 	$10 	 	$10 	$10

 Wiring/Related Hardware	 	$20 	$20 	 	$30 	$30 	 	$40 	$40

Hardware Cost to Manufacturer	$161 	$248 	$346 	$196 	$308 	$412 	$273
$348 	$479

Labor @ $28 per hour	$2 	$4 	$6 	$2 	$4 	$6 	$2 	$4 	$6

Labor overhead @ 40%	$1 	$2 	$3 	$1 	$2 	$3 	$1 	$2 	$3

Markup @ 29%	$47 	$74 	$103 	$58 	$91 	$122 	$80 	$103 	$141

Warranty Markup @ 5%	 	$4 	$9 	 	$6 	$11 	 	$4 	$10

Total Component Costs	$211 	$332 	$467 	$257 	$411 	$554 	$356 	$460
$640

Fixed Cost to Manufacturer

R&D Costs	$0 	$705,255 	$705,255 	$0 	$714,728 	$714,728 	$0 	$725,996
$725,996

Tooling Costs	$0 	$100,000 	$125,000 	$0 	$100,000 	$125,000 	$0
$100,000 	$125,000

Units/yr.	1,700	1,700	1,700	5,300	5,300	5,300	1,000	1,000	1,000

Years to recover	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5

Fixed cost/unit	$0 	$131 	$135 	$0 	$43 	$44 	$0 	$229 	$236

Total Costs ($)	$211 	$463 	$602 	$257 	$453 	$598 	$356 	$689 	$875

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$252 	$391 	 	$197 	$341 	 	$333 	$519

	R&D Costs	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI	Carb	TBI	PFI

R&D Costs	$0 	$474,611 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611 	$474,611 	$0 	$474,611
$474,611

Durability Testing	$0 	$230,644 	$230,644 	$0 	$240,118 	$240,118 	$0
$251,386 	$251,386

Total R&D per Engine Line	$0 	$705,255 	$705,255 	$0 	$714,728 	$714,728
	$0 	$725,996 	$725,996

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  9  Migration
Costs from 2-stroke to 4-stroke Personal Watercraft Marine Engines

Conversion to 4 Stroke Costs	85 hp Carb->EFI	130 hp, DFI->EFI	175 hp,
DFI->EFI

	2 stroke	4 stroke	2 stroke	4 stroke	2 stroke	4 stroke

Engine	$3,319 	$4,350 	$4,578 	$5,587 	$5,862 	$7,207

Markup @ 29%	$963 	$1,262 	$1,328 	$1,620 	$1,700 	$2,090

Total Costs ($)	$4,282 	$5,612 	$5,906 	$7,207 	$7,562 	$9,297

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$1,330 	 	$1,302 	 	$1,735

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  10  Three-way
Catalyst costs for 4-stroke MPI Personal Watercraft Marine Engines

4 stroke MPI  Catalysts	85 hp	130 hp	175 hp

	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat

Catalyst	 	$64 	 	$68 	 	$82

Manifold Modifications	 	$35 	 	$40 	 	$45

Oxygen Sensor	 	$25 	 	$25 	 	$25

Labor @ $28 per hour	 	$1 	 	$1 	 	$1

Labor overhead @ 40%	 	$1 	 	$1 	 	$1

OEM markup @ 29%	 	$36 	 	$39 	 	$45

Warranty Markup @ 5%	 	$3	 	$3	 	$4

Total Component Costs	$0 	$165 	$0 	$177 	$0 	$202

Fixed Cost to Manufacturer

R&D Costs	$0 	$363,502 	$0 	$371,332 	$0 	$381,016

Tooling Costs	$0 	$75,000 	$0 	$75,000 	$0 	$75,000

Units/yr.	1,700	1,700	5,300	5,300	1,000	1,000

Years to recover	5 	5 	5 	5 	5 	5

Fixed cost/unit	$0 	$71 	$0 	$23 	$0 	$126

Total Costs ($)	$0 	$236 	$0 	$200 	$0 	$328

Incremental Total Cost ($)	 	$236 	 	$200 	 	$328

R&D Costs	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat	No Cat	Cat

R&D Costs	$0 	$237,305 	$0 	$237,305 	$0 	$237,305

Durability Testing	$0 	$126,197 	$0 	$134,026 	$0 	$143,710

Total R&D per Engine Line	$0 	$363,502 	$0 	$371,332 	$0 	$381,016

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  11  Three-way
Marine Catalysts Cost Estimates

Table 5-11a Catalyst Parameters

Washcoat Loading	g/L	160

% ceria	by wt.	75

% alumina	by wt.	25

Precious Metal Loading	g/L	1.0

% Platinum	by wt.	80.0

% Palladium	by wt.	0.0

% Rhodium	by wt.	20.0

Labor Cost 	$/hr	$28.00

Table 5-11b Material Costs

Material	$/troy oz	$/lb	$/g	Density (g/cc)

Alumina	 	$64.00 	$0.141 	3.9

Ceria	 	$22.00 	$0.049 	7.132

Platinum	$811 	 	$26.08

Palladium	$210 	 	$6.76

Rhodium	$1,121 	 	$36.04

Stainless Steel	 	$0.85 	$0.003 	7.817

Table 5-11c Catalyst Unit Price

Engine Type	Outboards	PWC

Engine Power	9.9 hp	40 hp	75 hp	125 hp	225 hp	85 hp	130 hp	175 hp

Engine Displacement (L)	0.25	0.76	1.60	1.80	3.00	1.65	1.85	2.50

Catalyst Volume (L)	0.09	0.27	0.56	0.63	1.05	0.38	0.43	0.58

Substrate Diameter(cm)	4.50	6.00	8.50	9.00	11.00	9.00	9.00	10.00

Substrate	$2.48 	$3.56 	$5.35 	$5.77 	$8.32 	$5.45 	$5.88 	$7.26

Ceria/Alumina	$1.00 	$3.05 	$6.42 	$7.23 	$12.04 	$6.62 	$7.43 	$10.03.

Pt/Pd/Rd	$2.46 	$7.47 	$15.72 	$17.69 	$29.48 	$16.21 	$18.18 	$24.57

Can (18 gauge 304 SS)	$0.39 	$0.82 	$1.31 	$1.42 	$1.98 	$1.34 	$1.44
$1.76

  Substrate Diameter (cm)	4.50	6.00	8.50	9.00	11.00	9.00	9.00	10.00

  Substrate Length (cm)	5.5	9.4	9.9	9.9	11.0	9.1	10.2	11.1

  Working Length (cm)	8.3	12.2	12.7	12.7	13.8	11.9	13.0	13.9

  Thick. of Steel (cm)	0.121	0.121	0.121	0.121	0.121	0.121	0.121	0.121

  Shell Volume (cm3)	10	22	32	34	47	31	35	43

  Steel End Cap Volume (cm3)	4	8	15	17	25	17	17	21

  Vol. of Steel (cm^3) w/ 20% scrap	17	35	57	61	86	58	63	76

  Wt. of Steel (g)	132	277	445	481	673	454	489	597

TOTAL MAT. COST	$6.33 	$14.90 	$28.80 	$32.10 	$51.82 	$29.63 	$32.92
$43.62

LABOR	$14.00 	$14.00 	$14.00 	$14.00 	$14.00 	$14.00 	$14.00 	$14.00

Labor Overhead @ 40%	$5.60 	$5.60 	$5.60 	$5.60 	$5.60 	$5.60 	$5.60
$5.60

Supplier Markup @ 29%	$7.52 	$10.00 	$14.04 	$14.99 	$20.71 	$14.28
$15.23 	$18.33

Manufacturer Price	$33.45 	$44.50 	$62.44 	$66.69 	$92.13 	$63.50
$67.76 	$81.55

and operator salaries are taken as $42,900 per year plus 45 percent
fringe and 40 percent overhead mark-up. Prototype testing costs shown in
the table consist of performing stationary tests as well as tests in
water.  These are estimated at $1,250 per day for test time plus $500
per day for test engine costs for 20 days per month.  Durability testing
labor costs per month are shown in Table 5-13, with 3 and 6 month
durability testing costs shown in Table 5-14 for outboards and Table
5-15 for personal watercraft.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  12  Research,
Development and Prototype Testing Costs per Month

Cost Item

No	Cost per

Month

Amount

Engineers	2	$5,500	$11,000

Techs/Operators	3	$3,575	$10,725

Total Salaries

 	$21,725

Fringe	45%	$9,776

Overhead

40%	$12,601

Prototype Testing	 	 	$35,000

Total Cost per Month	$79,102

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  13  Durability
Testing Labor Costs per Month

Cost Item

No	Cost per

Month

Amount

Engineers	0.75	$5,500	$4,125

Techs/Operators	2	$3,575	$7,150

Total Salaries

 	$11,275

Fringe	45%	$5,074

Overhead	40%	$6,540

Testing Costs

$10,000

Total Cost per Month	$32,888

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  14  Outboard
Durability Testing Costs

	3 Months Testing	6 Months Testing

Engine	Labor	Engine	Fuel	Total	Labor	Engine	Fuel	Total

9.9 hp, 2 cyl	$98,665	$5,620	$1,198	$105,483	$197,330	$5,620	$2,396
$205,346

40 hp, 3 cyl	$98,665	$13,165	$3,803	$115,633	$197,330	$13,165	$7,607
$218,101

75 hp, 3 cyl	$98,665	$19,305	$6,793	$124,763	$197,330	$19,305	$13,587
$230,221

125 hp, 4 cyl	$98,665	$27,520	$9,490	$135,675	$197,330	$27,520	$18,980
$243,829

225 hp, 6 cyl	$98,665	$38,805	$13,868	$151,338	$197,330	$38,805	$27,737
$263,871

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  15  Personal
Watercraft Durability Testing Costs

	3 Months Testing	6 Months Testing

Engine	Labor	Engine	Fuel	Total	Labor	Engine	Fuel	Total

85 hp, 2 cyl	$98,665	$21,750	$5,782	$126,197	$197,330	$21,750	$11,565
$230,644

130 hp, 3 cyl	$98,665	$27,935	$7,427	$134,026	$197,330	$27,935	$14,853
$240,118

175 hp, 4 cyl	$98,665	$36,035	$9,011	$143,710	$197,330	$36,035	$18,021
$251,386

	Operating cost savings for conversion from 2-stroke to 4-stroke for all
outboard and PWC sizes considered are given in Tables 5-16 and 5-17,
respectively.

	The costs presented in Table 5-18 are the incremental costs of all the
possible combinations of baseline and advanced technology scenarios for
outboard engines.  Table 5-19 lists incremental costs for personal
watercraft.  The results show that the most costly change in technology
is upgrading the same size engine from carbureted 2-stroke to 4-stroke,
particularly in the case where the 4-stroke engine is EFI.  Without
redesigning the entire engine, direct fuel injection is the most
expensive upgrade for 2-stroke engines, with costs as high as about $500
for the 225 hp engine.  For 4-stroke engines, the most expensive upgrade
is migration to multipoint injection with an three-way catalyst, which
has a price of about 98% that of the DFI 2-stroke upgrade.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  16  Annual Cost
Savings by Converting from 2-Stroke to 4-Stroke for Marine Outboard
Gasoline Engines

Engine Size	9.9 hp	40 hp	75 hp	125 hp	225 hp

Stroke	2	4	2	4	2	4	2	4	2	4

Horsepower	9.9	9.9	40	40	75	75	125	125	225	225

BSFC (gal/hp-hr)	0.24	0.15	0.19	0.14	0.18	0.13	0.15	0.11	0.12	0.10

Load Factor	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21

Hours/year	34.8	34.8	34.8	34.8	34.8	34.8	34.8	34.8	34.8	34.8

Gallons per year	17.4	10.6	55.2	41.4	98.5	74.0	137.6	103.5	201.1	168.0

Gasoline cost/yr	$33.36 	$20.41 	$105.89 	$79.52 	$189.13 	$142.04
$264.20 	$198.80 	$368.10 	$322.53

2-st Oil Consump qts/yr	1.39	 	4.41	 	7.88	 	11.01	 	16.09

2-st Oil Cost/yr	$4.11 	 	$13.06 	 	$23.33 	 	$32.58 	 	$47.62

4-st Oil Sump, qt	 	1.1	 	2.1	 	4.5	 	4.5	 	6.1

4-st Oil change Freq, yr	 	1.0	 	1.0	 	1.0	 	1.0	 	1.0

Oil Cost per year	 	$2.54 	 	$4.85 	 	$10.40 	 	$10.40 	 	$14.09

4-st Filter Change Freq, yr	 	2.0	 	2.0	 	2.0	 	2.0	 	2.0

Filter Cost	 	$8.8 	 	$8.8 	 	$8.8 	 	$8.8 	 	$8.8

Filter Cost per year	 	$4.40 	 	$4.40 	 	$4.40 	 	$4.40 	 	$4.40

Total Costs per year	$37.47 	$27.35 	$118.95 	$88.77 	$212.45 	$156.84
$296.78 	$213.60 	$433.72 	$341.02

Life, yrs X load factor	5.49	5.49	4.25	4.25	3.62	3.62	3.10	3.10	2.79
2.79

Life, yrs	26.1	26.1	20.2	20.2	17.2	17.2	14.8	14.8	13.3	13.3

Total Cost discounted 7%	$444 	$324 	$1,267 	$946 	$2,090 	$1,543
$2,678 	$1,927 	$3,674 	$2,889

Cost Savings	 	$120 	 	$321 	 	$547 	 	$751 	 	$785

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  17  Annual Cost
Savings by Converting from 2-Stroke to 4-Stroke for Personal Watercraft
Gasoline Engines

Engine Size	85 hp	130 hp	175 hp

Stroke	2	4	2	4	2	4

Horsepower	85	85	130	130	175	175

BSFC (gal/hp-hr)	0.18	0.13	0.15	0.11	0.12	0.10

Load Factor	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21	0.21

Hours/year	77.3	77.3	77.3	77.3	77.3	77.3

Gallons per year	248.0	186.2	317.9	239.2	347.4	290.2

Gasoline cost/yr	$476.11 	$357.58 	$610.33 	$459.26 	$667.04 	$557.22

2-st Oil Consump qts/yr	19.84	 	25.43	 	27.79

2-st Oil Cost/yr	$58.72 	 	$75.27 	 	$82.27

4-st Oil Sump, qt	 	4.5	 	4.5	 	4.5

4-st Oil change Freq, yr	 	1.0	 	1.0	 	1.0

Oil Cost per year	 	$10.40 	 	$10.40 	 	$10.40

4-st Filter Change Freq, yr	 	2.0	 	2.0	 	2.0

Filter Cost	 	$8.8 	 	$8.8 	 	$8.8

Filter Cost per year	 	$4.40 	 	$4.40 	 	$4.40

Total Costs per year	$534.83 	$372.37 	$685.61 	$474.05 	$749.31
$572.02

Life, yrs X load factor	2.07	2.07	2.07	2.07	2.07	2.07

Life, yrs	9.9	9.9	9.9	9.9	9.9	9.9

Total Cost discounted 7%	$3,719 	$2,589 	$4,767 	$3,296 	$5,210 	$3,977

Cost Savings	 	$1,130 	 	$1,471 	 	$1,233

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  18  Summary of
Incremental Outboard Technology Costs

Engine Type	Engine	Fuel

System	Incremental

Cost	Change

from

Baseline

2-stroke OB	9.9 hp	Carb	$58

	DFI	$483 	$425

IDI	$387 	$329

4stk Carb

$289

	40 hp	Carb	$176

	DFI	$572 	$396

IDI	$438 	$262

4stk Carb

$686

	75 hp	Carb	$211

	DFI	$627 	$415

IDI	$472 	$260

4stk Carb

$1,013

	125 hp	Carb	$257

	DFI	$753 	$496

IDI	$585 	$328

4stk Carb

$1,689

	225 hp	Carb	$357

	DFI	$925 	$568

IDI	$708 	$351

4stk Carb

$1,834

4-stroke OB	9.9 hp	Carb	$58

	TBI	$335 	$277

PFI	$435 	$377

PFI + Cat	$557 	$499

	40 hp	Carb	$176

	TBI	$360 	$185

PFI	$506 	$330

PFI + Cat	$644 	$468

	75 hp	Carb	$211

	TBI	$380 	$169

PFI	$539 	$328

PFI + Cat	$702 	$491

	125 hp	Carb	$257

	TBI	$462 	$206

PFI	$629 	$373

PFI + Cat	$807 	$550

	225 hp	Carb	$356

	TBI	$537 	$181

PFI	$763 	$407

PFI + Cat	$987 	$631

			Carb = carbureted; DFI = direct fuel injected; IDI = indirect fuel
injection

			TBI = throttle-body fuel injection, PFI = multi-point fuel injection;
Cat = three-way catalyst

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  5 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  19  Summary of
Incremental Personal Watercraft Technology Costs

Engine Type	Engine	Fuel

System	Incremental

Cost	Change

from

Baseline

2-stroke PWC	85 hp	Carb	$184

	DFI	$687 	$503

IDI	$533 	$349

4stk Carb

$1,330

	130 hp	Carb	$257

	DFI	$699 	$442

IDI	$553 	$296

4stk Carb

$1,302

	210 hp	Carb	$356

	DFI	$1,011 	$655

IDI	$812 	$455

4stk Carb

$1,735

4-stroke PWC	85 hp	Carb	$211

	TBI	$463 	$252

PFI	$602 	$391

PFI + Cat	$839 	$628

	130 hp	Carb	$257

	TBI	$453 	$197

PFI	$598 	$341

PFI + Cat	$798 	$541

	210 hp	Carb	$356

	TBI	$689 	$333

PFI	$875 	$519

PFI + Cat	$1,203 	$848

Carb = carbureted; DFI = direct fuel injected; IDI = indirect fuel
injection

	TBI = throttle-body fuel injection, PFI = multi-point fuel injection;
Cat = three-way catalyst

 	“Update of EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Control Equipment Retail
Price Equivalent (RPE) Calculation Formula,” Jack Faucett Associates,
Report No. JACKFAU-85-322-3, September 1985.

 National average retail gasoline prices for 2005 without taxes from the
Energy Information Administration.

 Load factor, activity and lifetime values are consistent with values
used in EPA’s NONROAD model.

 Midwest engineer and technician salaries for 2005 from www.salary.com.

021348

Table of Contents

ICF International	  PAGE  ii 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  i 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

Introduction

ICF International	  PAGE  4-2 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  4-1 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

Background

Technology Description

Cost Methodology

Results

ICF International	  PAGE  5-5 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164 / WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

Results

ICF International	  PAGE  5-2 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-7 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164 / WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-6 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-8 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

Results

ICF International	  PAGE  5-12 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164 / WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-9 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-11 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164/WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-8 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164 / WA 2-1

021348		October 2004

Results

ICF International	  PAGE  5-13 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164 / WA 4-7

021348		 July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-14 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164 / WA 4-7

021348		 July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-16 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164 / WA 4-7

021348		July 2006

ICF International	  PAGE  5-15 	EPA Contract No.  68-C-01-164 / WA 4-7

021348		 July 2006.


[Federal Register: November 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 66879-66881]
[DOCID:fr03no05-94]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52688; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto To
Amend Rule 460 (Specialists Participating in Contests)

October 27, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 29, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the NYSE. On October
25, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made clarifying changes to
the text of the proposed rule change and non-substantive changes to
the purpose section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change is an amendment to NYSE Rule 460
(Specialists Participating in Contests). The text of the proposed rule
change is set forth below. Additions are in italics.
* * * * *
Rule 460. Specialists Participating in Contests
    (a) No member or his member organization or any other member,
allied member, or approved person or officer or employee of the member
organization shall participate in a proxy contest or a company if such
member specializes in the stock of that company.
Specialists as Directors
    (b) No member or his member organization or any other member,
allied member, or approved person in such member organization or
officer or employee of the member organization shall be a director of a
company if such member specializes in the stock of that company.
* * * Supplementary Material: * *
    .10 Control relationships--Business transactions--Finder's Fees--No
specialist or his member organization or any other member, allied
member or approved person in such member organization or officer or
employee thereof, individually or in the aggregate shall acquire
directly or indirectly the beneficial ownership of more than 10% of the
outstanding shares of any equity security in which the specialist is
registered, unless such security is (i) a convertible or derivative
security, American Depositary Receipt, Global Depositary Receipt, or
similar instrument, the conversion of which into common stock of the
issuer would not result in a position in the common stock exceeding the
10% threshold; (ii) an investment company unit or Trust Issued Receipt,
the redemption of which would not result in a position, directly or
indirectly, in any equity security in which the specialist is
registered exceeding the 10% threshold; or (iii) a security such as a
currency warrant which trades in relationship to the value of that
underlying currency or a security such as an index warrant which trades
in relationship to the value of that underlying index. With respect to
the securities specified in (iii), the specialist must obtain the
permission of the Exchange to exceed the 10% threshold, and in no event
may the specialist acquire directly or indirectly the beneficial
ownership of more than 25% of the issue. This provision applies
regardless of whether the beneficial ownership is acquired for
investment, trading, or any other purpose. If the beneficial ownership
of any or all of such persons reaches or exceeds 5% of the outstanding
shares of any such security, the specialist or his organization shall
promptly report this fact to the Market Surveillance Division. Any such
person shall, at the request of the Market Surveillance Division,
promptly take appropriate action either to dispose of such beneficial
ownership or reduce or eliminate his interest in the specialist
organization, as may be acceptable to the Exchange. No specialist or
his member organization or any other member, allied member or approved
person in such member organization or officer or employee thereof shall
engage in any business transaction (including loans, etc.) with any
company in whose stock the specialist is registered, or accept a
finder's fee from such company; provided, however, that a specialist
registered in a security issued by an investment company may purchase
and redeem the listed security, or securities

that can be subdivided or converted into the listed security, from the
issuer as appropriate to facilitate the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market in the subject security. This prohibition on business
transactions shall not apply, however, to the receipt of routine
business services, goods, materials, or insurance, on terms that would
be generally available.
    .11 Definition of an Investment Company Unit--The term ``Investment
Company Unit'' in paragraph .10 above shall be the same as that in
Section 703.16 of the Listed Company Manual.
    .12 Definition of a Trust Issued Receipt--The term ``Trust Issued
Receipt'' in paragraph .10 above shall be the same as that in Rule
1200.
    .20 The restrictions in paragraphs (a) and .10 above shall not
apply, except as provided herein, to an approved person entitled to an
exemption from this Rule pursuant to Rule 98. The restriction on
acquisition of 10% or more of the outstanding shares of any equity
security in which an associated specialist is registered, as provided
in Rule 460.10, shall apply to such approved person separate and
distinct from the restriction as applied to any or all other persons
specified in Rule 460.10, and positions of the approved person shall
not be aggregated with the positions of any one or more other persons
specified in Rule 460.10. The same principle applies with respect to
the reporting of positions specified in Rule 460.10. An approved person
entitled to an exemption from this Rule may engage in business
transactions with a company in whose stock an associated specialist is
registered, may accept a finder's fee from such company, and may act as
an underwriter in any capacity for a distribution of securities issued
by such company.
    .25 The restrictions in paragraph .10 above relating to business
transactions between a specialist or his member organization or any
other member, allied member or approved person in such member
organization or officer or employee thereof shall not apply to
Investment Company Units (as defined in paragraph 703.16 of the
Exchange's Listed Company Manual), Trust Issued Receipts (defined in
NYSE Rule 1200), and derivative instruments based on one or more
securities, currencies or commodities (collectively referred to as
Exchange-Traded Funds or ``ETFs''), if the following conditions are
met:
    (i) The specialist or his member organization or any other member,
allied member or approved person in such member organization or officer
or employee thereof only enters into the business transaction with the
sponsor of the ETF and the sponsor is not involved in the day-to-day
administration of the ETF; and
    (ii) Any fee or other compensation in connection with the business
transaction paid to the specialist or his member organization or any
other member, allied member or approved person in such member
organization or officer or employee thereof must not be dependent on
the trading price or daily trading volume of the ETF; and
    (iii) The specialist or his member organization or any other
member, allied member or approved person in such member organization or
officer or employee thereof must notify and provide a full description
to the Exchange of any business transaction or relationship, except
those of a routine and generally available nature as described in
paragraph .10 above, it may have with any sponsor of an ETF that he or
it is registered as specialist in.
    (Remainder of rule unchanged.)
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NYSE Rule 460.10, in part, restricts a specialist or his member
organization or any other member, allied member or approved person in
such member organization or officer or employee thereof, not entitled
to a NYSE Rule 98 exemption, from engaging in:

    ``Any business transaction (including loans, etc.) with any
company in whose stock the specialist is registered * * * This
prohibition on business transactions shall not apply, however, to
the receipt of routine business services, goods, materials, or
insurance, on terms that would be generally available.''

    The rule is intended to ensure that specialists and their
affiliates do not enter into a material business relationship with an
issuer in whose security the specialist is registered, such that the
specialist's or affiliate's status may create conflicts of interest
with respect to the specialist's affirmative and negative obligations
to maintain a fair and orderly market in the security.
    Currently, NYSE Rule 460.20 provides exemptions from NYSE Rule
460(a) and .10 to an approved person entitled to a NYSE Rule 98
exemption with respect to business transactions with issuers. This is
because the functional separation required by NYSE Rule 98 eliminates
the conflict of interest concern. The Exchange proposes to add an
exemption, in a new section, .25, from the restriction on business
transactions between a specialist or his member organization or any
other member, allied member or approved person in such member
organization or officer or employee thereof and the sponsor of any
Exchange Traded Funds (``ETFs'') in which the specialist is registered.
    For purposes of the proposed rule, ETFs are Investment Company
Units (defined in paragraph 703.16 of the Exchange's Listed Company
Manual), Trust Issued Receipts, such as HOLDRs (defined in NYSE Rule
1200), and derivative instruments based on one or more securities,
currencies or commodities. Since ETFs are based on derivatives or
indices representing multiple securities, or a single commodity or
currency, and the specialist registered to that ETF is not a market
maker in any of the underlying component securities, commodities or
currencies,\4\ the Exchange believes that any potential for conflicts
which might have an undue influence or impact on the ETF trading price
is removed. The ETF trading price is generally only a reflection of the
price changes of the different base vehicle or vehicles trading
elsewhere and perhaps trading on a different exchange or market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange member organizations registered as specialists in
ETFs are separate member organizations from those registered as
specialists in underlying equities. (NYSE Rule 103B.VIII). The word
``underlying'' and the rule citation appearing in the preceding
sentence were added by telephone conference between David Matta,
Principal Rule Counsel, N, and David L. Orlic, Attorney, Division of
Market Regulation, Commission, on October 27, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would allow business transactions between a
specialist or his member organization or any other member, allied
member or approved person in such member organization or officer or
employee thereof and the sponsor of the ETF. Generally, the sponsor of
an ETF is responsible for establishing the trust that issues the ETF
shares, the registration of the ETF shares with the

Commission, and the filing of required periodic reports. The trustee is
responsible for the day-to-day administration of the trust, including
keeping the trust's operational records. While the sponsor generally
oversees the performance of the trustee and the trust's principal
service providers, it does not exercise day-to-day oversight over the
trustee or such service providers.
    The amended rule will provide that any fee or other compensation
paid in connection with the business transaction to a specialist or his
member organization or any other member, allied member or approved
person in such member organization or officer or employee thereof not
have any relationship to the trading price or daily trading volume of
the ETF. This will further diminish any potential ability for a
specialist or his member organization or any other member, allied
member or approved person in such member organization or officer or
employee thereof to unduly influence trading for its own benefit, and
further diminish any incentive for any such person to compromise its
specialist obligations in maintaining fair and orderly markets. It is
also designed to prevent the ETF sponsor from unduly influencing its
specialist or his member organization or any other member, allied
member or approved person in such member organization or officer or
employee thereof.
    Finally, a specialist or his member organization or any other
member, allied member or approved person in such member organization or
officer or employee thereof must notify and provide a full description
to the Exchange of any business transaction or relationship, except
those of a routine and generally available nature as described in NYSE
Rule 460.10, it may have with any sponsor of an ETF in which it is
registered as a specialist.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) \5\ of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(5) \6\ of the Act, in
particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange did not solicit or receive any written comments with
respect to the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. by order approve the proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2005-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-66. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2005-66 and should be submitted on or before
November 25, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6091 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3239-3240]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01095]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82524; File Nos. SR-BatsBZX-2017-37; SR-BatsEDGX-2017-
23; SR-BOX-2017-17; SR-C2-2017-018; SR-CBOE-2017-041; SR-FINRA-2017-
013; SR-ISE-2017-46; SR-IEX-2017-18; SR-MIAX-2017-20; SR-PEARL-2017-23;
SR-NASDAQ-2017-055; SR-BX-2017-027; SR-Phlx-2017-43; SR-NYSE-2017-23;
SR-NYSEArca-2017-57; SR-NYSEArca-2017-59; SR-NYSEMKT-2017-29; SR-
NYSEMKT-2017-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGX
Exchange, Inc.; BOX Options Exchange LLC; C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Investors Exchange LLC; Miami International Securities Exchange
LLC; MIAX PEARL, LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; NASDAQ BX, Inc.;
NASDAQ PHLX LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT
LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by
Amendments Thereto, To Eliminate Requirements That Will Be Duplicative
of CAT

January 17, 2018.
    On May 15, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Bats BZX'') (n/k/a Cboe
BZX Exchange, Inc.); \1\ Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Bats EDGX'') (n/k/
a Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.); \2\ BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX''); C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'') (n/k/a Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.);
\3\ Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') (n/k/a Cboe
Exchange, Inc.); \4\ Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''); International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'');
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''); Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX''); MIAX PEARL, LLC (``PEARL''); NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''); and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') (n/k/a NYSE American
LLC) \5\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \6\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\7\
proposed rule changes to eliminate or modify certain rules that require
the collection or reporting of information that is duplicative of the
information that will be collected by the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``CAT'') established pursuant to the National Market System Plan
contemplated by Rule 613 of Regulation NMS.\8\ On May 22, 2017, the New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') filed with the Commission a proposed
rule change for the same purpose, and each of NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT
filed an additional proposed rule change for the same purpose. On May
26, 2017, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') and NASDAQ PHLX LLC
(``Phlx'') filed with the Commission proposed rule changes for the same
purpose.\9\ On May 30, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'') filed with the
Commission a proposed rule change for the same purpose.\10\ In this
notice, all of these proposed rule changes are referred to collectively
as the ``Systems Retirement Proposals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81962 (October 26,
2017), 82 FR 50711 (November 1, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-70). The name
change was not yet effective when Bats BZX filed SR-BatsBZX-2017-37.
    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81963 (October 26,
2017), 82 FR 50697 (November 1, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-41). The
name change was not yet effective when Bats EDGX filed SR-BatsEDGX-
2017-23.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81979 (October 30,
2017), 82 FR 51317 (November 3, 2017) (SR-C2-2017-028). The name
change was not yet effective when C2 filed SR-C2-2017-018.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81981 (October 30,
2017), 82 FR 51309 (November 3, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-066). The name
change was not yet effective when CBOE filed SR-CBOE-2017-041.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80283 (March 21,
2017), 82 FR 15244 (March 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-14). The name
change was not yet effective when NYSE MKT filed SR-NYSEMKT-2017-29
and SR-NYSEMKT-2017-30.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.613.
    \9\ NASDAQ and Phlx initially filed proposed rule changes on May
15, 2017 (SR-NASDAQ-2017-050 and SR-PHLX-2017-38). On May 26, 2017,
NASDAQ and Phlx withdrew these filings and submitted new proposed
rule changes (SR-NASDAQ-2017-055 and SR-PHLX-2017-43).
    \10\ BX initially filed a proposed rule change on May 15, 2017
(SR-BX-2017-025). On May 30, 2017, BX withdrew that initial filing
and submitted a new proposed rule change (SR-BX-2017-027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 2017, the proposed rule changes submitted by Bats BZX,
Bats EDGX, BOX, C2, CBOE, FINRA, IEX, ISE, MIAX, and PEARL; both
proposed rule changes submitted by NYSE MKT; and one of the proposed
rule changes submitted by NYSE Arca were published for comment in the
Federal Register.\11\ On June 2, 2017, the proposed rule change
submitted by NYSE and the other proposed rule change submitted by NYSE
Arca were published for comment in the Federal Register.\12\ On June 5,
2017, the proposed rule changes submitted by NASDAQ, BX, and Phlx were
published for comment in the Federal Register.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80796 (May 26,
2017), 82 FR 25374 (SR-BatsBZX-2017-37); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80795 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25358 (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-23);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80789 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR
25492 (SR-BOX-2017-17); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80798
(May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25385 (SR-C2-2017-018); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 80797 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25429 (SR-CBOE-2017-
041); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80783 (May 26, 2017), 82
FR 25423 (SR-FINRA-2017-013); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
80788 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25400 (SR-IEX-2017-18); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 80787 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25469 (SR-ISE-
2017-46); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80790 (May 26, 2017),
82 FR 25366 (SR-MIAX-2017-20); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
80792 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25436 (SR-PEARL-2017-23); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 80791 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25362 (SR-
NYSEArca-2017-59); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80793 (May
26, 2017), 82 FR 25443 (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-29); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80794 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25439 (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-30).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80799 (May 26,
2017), 82 FR 25635 (SR-NYSE-2017-23); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80800 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25639 (SR-NYSEArca-2017-57).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80813 (May 30,
2017), 82 FR 25820 (SR-NASDAQ-2017-055); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80814 (May 30, 2017), 82 FR 25872 (SR-BX-2017-027);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80811 (May 30, 2017), 82 FR
25863 (SR-Phlx-2017-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four comments were submitted to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-013.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See letters from William H. Herbert, Managing Director,
Financial Information Forum (``FIF''), dated June 22, 2017; Manisha
Kimmel, Chief Regulatory Officer, Wealth Management, Thomson
Reuters, dated June 22, 2017; Marc R. Bryant, Senior Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel, Fidelity Investments, dated June 22, 2017;
and Ellen Greene, Managing Director and Theodore R. Lazo, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated June 23, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, 2017, each of NASDAQ, BX, ISE, and Phlx filed an
amendment to its proposed rule change. On July 14,

2017, the Commission extended the time period for Commission action on
all of the Systems Retirement Proposals to August 30, 2017.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81145, 82 FR 33533
(July 20, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 24, 2017, BOX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed
rule change, IEX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change,
PEARL submitted Amendment No. 2 to its proposed rule change,\16\ and
MIAX submitted Amendment No. 3 to its proposed rule change.\17\ On
August 25, 2017, Bats BZX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed
rule change, Bats EDGX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule
change, BX submitted Amendment No. 2 to its proposed rule change, C2
submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change, CBOE submitted
Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change, FINRA submitted Amendment
No. 1 to its proposed rule change, ISE submitted Amendment No. 2 to its
proposed rule change, NASDAQ submitted Amendment No. 2 to its proposed
rule change, NYSE submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule
change, NYSE Arca submitted Amendment No. 1 to each of its proposed
rule changes, NYSE MKT submitted Amendment No. 1 to each of its
proposed rule changes, and Phlx submitted Amendment No. 2 to its
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ PEARL filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change on
August 22, 2017. On August 24, 2017, PEARL withdrew Amendment No. 1
and replaced it with Amendment No. 2.
    \17\ MIAX filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change on
August 22, 2017 and withdrew and replaced it with Amendment No. 2 on
the same day. On August 24, 2017, MIAX withdrew Amendment No. 2 and
replaced it with Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 30, 2017, the Commission instituted proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \18\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule changes, as modified by the respective
amendments thereto.\19\ Since then, the Commission has received nine
additional comment letters on the proposed rule changes, including a
response from FINRA and a response from the CAT NMS Plan Operating
Committee Chair on behalf of Bats BZX, Bats EDGX, BOX, C2, CBOE, IEX,
ISE, MIAX, NASDAQ, BX, Phlx, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE MKT, and PEARL.\20\
On November 21, 2017, the Commission extended the time period for
approving or disapproving the proposed rule changes, as modified by the
respective amendments thereto, for an additional 60 days until January
27, 2018.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81499, 82 FR 42168
(September 6, 2017) (``OIP'').
    \20\ Seven substantive comment letters were submitted in
response to the OIP. See letters from Manisha Kimmel, Chief
Regulatory Officer, Wealth Management, Thomson Reuters, dated
September 27, 2017; William H. Herbert, Managing Director, FIF,
dated September 29, 2017; Ellen Greene, Managing Director and
Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
SIFMA, dated September 29, 2017; Brant K. Brown, Associate General
Counsel, FINRA, dated October 11, 2017; William H. Herbert, Managing
Director, FIF, dated November 2, 2017; Michael Simon, CAT NMS Plan
Operating Committee Chair, dated November 2, 2017; and Manisha
Kimmel, Chief Regulatory Officer, Wealth Management, Thomson
Reuters, dated December 18, 2017. An eighth letter in response to
the OIP requested additional time to submit comments on the proposed
rule changes. See letter from William H. Herbert, Managing Director,
FIF, dated September 27, 2017. The ninth comment letter was
submitted solely to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-43. See letter from
Michael Kitlas, dated November 14, 2017.
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82135, 82 FR 56287
(November 28, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 9, 2018, MIAX and PEAL withdrew their proposed rule
changes (File Numbers SR-MIAX-2017-20; SR-PEARL-2017-23). On January
10, 2018, Bats BZX, Bats EDGX, C2, CBOE, and IEX withdrew their
proposed rule changes (File Numbers SR-BatsBZX-2017-37; SR-BatsEDGX-
2017-23; SR-C2-2017-018; SR-CBOE-2017-041; SR-IEX-2017-18). On January
11, 2018, BOX withdrew its proposed rule change (File Number SR-BOX-
2017-17). On January 12, 2018, FINRA, ISE, NASDAQ, BX, and Phlx
withdrew their proposed rule changes (File Numbers SR-FINRA-2017-013;
SR-ISE-2017-46; SR-NASDAQ-2017-055; SR-BX-2017-027; SR-PHLX-2017-43).
On January 16, 2018, NYSE withdrew its proposed rule change (File
Number SR-NYSE-2017-23), and NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT each withdrew both
of their proposed rule changes (File Numbers SR-NYSEArca-017-57; SR-
NYSEArca-2017-59; SR-NYSEMKT-2017-29; SR-NYSEMKT-2017-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01095 Filed 1-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P