Background
On March 14, 2022, Transport Canada launched an online consultation on small vessel noise emissions. This consultation gave the public the opportunity to offer feedback on options Transport Canada has developed to address the issue of noise from pleasure craft engines.
The options presented were:
- Option 1: Status Quo (in other words, maintain existing requirements in the Small Vessel Regulations for mufflers and noise emissions)
- Option 2: Improve the definition of “muffler” and modify/clarify requirements without adding performance standards
- Option 3: Create performance standards for vessel manufacturers
- Option 4: Create performance standards for vessels in the field
- Option 5: Create performance standards for manufacturers and vessel operators to follow (combining options 3 and 4)
The consultation ended on May 13, 2022, after receiving over 2,300 comments. Below is a summary of the feedback received on each option, as well as a summary of other options proposed by the public.
What we heard
Forum topic #1 – What do you think about not making any changes, and not further addressing small vessel engine noise emissions?
Most respondents strongly disagreed with the idea of not making any changes to the Small Vessel Regulations. These respondents noted that:
- the issue of noisy vessels is likely to worsen if no changes are made;
- action to address engine noise emissions is long overdue;
- changes should be made since the technology exists to produce quieter vessels;
- engine noise emissions disrupt other marine users, as well as property owners in the area, especially in mountainous regions; and
- engine noise emissions negatively impact the environment, especially fish and other wildlife subjected to underwater noise.
Many of these respondents felt that Transport Canada should introduce performance standards for manufacturers and operators and set clear decibel limits.
A small minority of respondents supported the idea of not making any changes to address engine noise emissions. These respondents noted that:
- engine noise emissions aren’t an issue and regulating them would be a poor use of taxpayer money;
- the focus should be on educating people on existing requirements instead of introducing new ones;
- pleasure craft engine noise emission levels are comparable to other common sounds (like stereos and motorbikes); and
- the issue should be dealt with at the community level.
Forum topic #2 – What do you think about updating and changing the Small Vessel Regulations’ definition of a “muffler”?
Feedback from respondents on the idea of updating the definition of “muffler” and clarifying existing regulatory requirements was mixed.
Of the feedback we received:
- some respondents were fully supportive of this option, noting it would be helpful in addressing the issue and could be used to further educate vessel owners;
- other respondents noted that the change in definition would be helpful, but further action would still be needed to address operators who intentionally make their pleasure craft noisier with aftermarket modifications (customizations made to a vessel by the operator after it has been purchased);
- some respondents felt that changing the definition wouldn’t solve the issue, and that the focus should be on setting clear and easily enforceable decibel limits; and
- some respondents noted that the only way to properly address the issue would be through performance standards for manufacturers and operators.
A few respondents noted that vessel engine emissions weren’t enough of an issue to require any regulatory changes.
Forum topic #3 – What do you think about introducing performance standards for manufacturers to follow? These standards would make sure new vessels are tested to confirm that they don’t exceed certain decibel limits.
Nearly half of the respondents to this option supported introducing performance standards for manufacturers to follow. Some of these respondents noted that:
- industry wouldn’t be overly burdened by new requirements;
- more enforcement would be needed to support new standards for manufacturers;
- performance standards for manufacturers shouldn’t impact the performance of the vessel; and
- existing vessels should be required to follow the new requirements.
Nearly half of the respondents to this option believed that this option didn’t do enough, noting that:
- measures should be taken to address vessels that are made noisier via aftermarket modifications; and
- performance standards should be introduced for both operators and manufacturers and should align with decibel limits in the United States and the European Union.
A minority of respondents were opposed to the option because they didn’t believe engine noise emissions were an issue.
Forum topic #4 - What do you think about introducing performance standards for vessel operators to follow? These standards would make sure vessels already in operation don’t exceed certain decibel limits.
Many of the respondents supported the idea of introducing performance standards for operators, noting that:
- it’s the operator’s responsibility to ensure their vessels don’t make excessive noise;
- many operators modify their vessels in a way that results in excessive engine noise emissions; and
- pleasure craft with poor muffling can be easily tested.
Most respondents to this option believed measures should be introduced for both manufacturers and operators, with some noting that:
- operators shouldn’t be solely responsible for engine noise emissions if they buy non-compliant vessels;
- it’s easier to educate vessel manufacturers on new requirements than to educate vessel operators;
- performance standards for manufacturers and operators would address new and existing vessels, as well as those that have been subject to aftermarket modifications;
- performance standards on manufacturers and operators are the only realistic way to address the engine noise emission issues; and
- performance standards for manufacturers and operators should align with decibel limits of the United States and the European Union.
A minority of respondents disagreed with the idea of introducing performance standards for operators, noting that:
- imposing requirements on operators would target too many older vessels;
- operators are overregulated and introducing new requirements would be a poor use of taxpayer money; and
- older and noisier vessels are naturally being phased out as they age.
Forum topic #5 - What do you think about introducing performance standards for manufacturers and vessel operators to follow? These standards would make sure vessels don’t exceed certain decibel limits.
The option to introduce performance standards for operators and manufacturers was the most popular among respondents. Support for this option was also shared by nearly 30 community and neighbourhood organizations. Most respondents to this option supported this approach, noting that:
- it’s the only option that can realistically address excessive engine noise emissions from both new and existing vessels;
- performance standards should be clear, easy to understand and have objective standards with decibel limits that are consistent with the United States and the European Union;
- compliance costs for manufacturers and importers would be low; and
- enforcement agencies need to have the necessary tools and resources to enforce the regulations.
A minority of respondents disagreed with the proposed option, with some noting that:
- a blanket approach to engine noise emissions doesn’t consider areas that require high-powered vessels;
- high-powered vessels are an important part of attracting tourism;
- enforcement agencies do not have the resources to enforce new regulatory requirements; and
- engine noise emissions aren’t an issue.
Forum topic #6 - Are there any other steps you think should be taken to address vessel engine noise emissions?
In addition to comments on the proposed options, respondents suggested other measures that could help address engine noise emissions, like:
- creating incentives for manufacturers and operators to comply with decibel limits (like reduced insurance costs);
- setting restrictions for recreational boaters (like speed, vessel/engine size on certain lakes, hours of operation);
- restricting exhaust bypass systems;
- setting decibel limits that are proportionate to how far the vessel is from shore;
- prohibiting marinas from servicing vessels with illegal modifications;
- educating the public on decibel limits and the negative impacts of engine noise emissions;
- requiring personal watercraft to use mufflers with catalytic converters and to be exhausted underwater;
- limiting the manufacturing of recreational vessels to electric-only;
- increasing public awareness of decibel limits through signage; and
- creating a tip-line for vessels creating noise disruptions.
In this section of the consultation, some respondents also raised concerns with the environmental impacts of engine noise emissions. These respondents noted that noise, especially underwater, has a negative impact on marine animals and fish, and regulations should consider studies on the effect of noise on marine species. These respondents also reiterated the impact noise pollution has on property owners in nearby communities and noted that noise restrictions would help solve this issue.
Some respondents also noted that the focus should be placed on other more pressing matters that negatively impact the environment, such as shoreline erosion created by vessel wake.
Feedback on enforcement
Across the questions asked, we often heard from respondents about enforcing current regulations and any potential new regulations/requirements. Many respondents noted that lack of enforcement and education on the existing regulations is a large contributor to existing engine noise emission issues.
These respondents noted that properly enforcing the regulations would be key to supporting any existing and new requirements related to noise enforcement, including ensuring enforcement agencies had the proper tools and equipment to effectively enforce the regulations.