Emissions Proposal Mowed Over

It's the classic scent and scene of summer: a freshly mowed, neatly trimmed lawn.

Lawn lovers may not realize, however, that push-power mowers spew as much pollution in an hour as 11 cars can, and riding mowers emit as much as 34 cars. On top of that, Americans are using power lawn and garden equipment about 3 billion hours a year to get that clipped look.

Though outdoor-equipment makers have been subject to regulation and have reduced emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency and California wanted more stringent rules for the $8 billion industry. This meant that to achieve further reductions in pollutants, engine makers would probably have to use catalytic converters to clean up exhaust.

The effort, which promised substantial progress in cutting smog, was mowed down by Briggs & Stratton, a major small-engine manufacturer in Wauwatosa, Wis., and its congressional patron, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). Once the company and Congress got involved, the regulatory path took more twists and turns than a riding mower on a steep embankment.

As battles over rules go, this one had an unusually high level of congressional meddling and corporate resolve, said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a nonprofit group based in Washington.

The quarrel over the next stage of regulation began in 2003, when it looked as if California would take the lead.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, California has authority to set its own air-pollution rules as long as federal regulators approve. That's because the state had its own emissions law in effect before the federal law was passed in 1970. Other states then could opt in to the California standards, which looked as if they might be more stringent than the federal plan.

Federal regulators met fierce opposition from Briggs & Stratton, the world's largest producer of lawnmower engines, and Bond of Missouri, where the company has two plants.

Briggs & Stratton said if California and other states required catalytic converters, the company would have to do a major retooling, likely leading to the loss of jobs and the building of cheaper plants offshore.

Thomas R. Savage, senior vice president of administration for Briggs & Stratton, said the company hired a Washington lobbyist and turned to Bond after it failed to get much sympathy from California regulators.

"We were having a hard time getting anyone in California to listen," said Savage. The company preferred to have the EPA regulate the engines, which would eliminate having to report to two regulatory "masters."

In 2003 and 2005, Bond, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, got legislation passed that allowed California to implement its own rule -- but preempted other states from following its lead. At the same time, the EPA was required to issue a rule covering engines with less than 50 horsepower.