Emissions Proposal Mowed Over

By Cindy Skrzycki
Tuesday, May 1, 2007

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.

There was further delay in 2005, when Congress ordered a study to determine whether catalytic converters were a fire hazard. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was asked to weigh in.

California got federal approval of its rule in 2006, and a study was completed on possible fire hazards created by the new technology. The EPA issued a 280-page proposal last month that would cover about 10 million pieces of engine-powered lawn and garden equipment sold annually as well as recreational watercraft.

Under the proposal, emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide for lawnmowers, leaf blowers, chain saws and weed whackers would be cut by 35 percent, costing industry from $9.5 million in 2008 to $620 million in 2037, according to the agency. Public health benefits by 2030 would be $3.4 billion because of a reduction in premature deaths, hospitalizations and lost work days.

The agency is taking comments on the proposal until Aug. 3; it plans a final rule in 2008.

"Everyone wins with a federal rule," said William M. Guerry Jr., counsel to the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, a trade group representing engine and equipment manufacturers. Guerry said manufacturers would be able to comply with the rule because they have enough lead time to make products that don't pose fire risks.

Margo T. Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, says the proposal would be as tough as the California rule. Oge said several engine manufacturers told the agency in 2005 that they could safely meet the California rule, signaling there was industry support beyond Briggs & Stratton for a federal rule.

State regulators complained that compliance dates, set for 2011 and 2012, are too long. States and environmental groups consider it a loss of states' rights that they will be prevented from following California's lead in regulating small engines.

"We lost our opportunity to opt into California now or in the future," said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents air pollution-control agencies in 53 states and territories. "If EPA decides not to change the rules for 20 years, that's it, we're stuck."

Savage said Briggs & Stratton is resolved to accept the outcome because it doesn't want California having the authority to regulate small engines. "We studied the issue long and hard and ultimately concluded we could continue to fight or say, 'Let's see if we can't get some time here,' " he said.

Bond is satisfied, too.

"Contrary to California's ready-fire-aim approach in this area, EPA's deliberate and thoughtful process has considered safety concerns . . . and technology-feasibility concerns raised by parts manufacturers," Bond said. He said because the agency and California moderated their positions, engine production will continue in Missouri.

That will be at only one plant, however.

Despite the company's success in the regulatory arena, it recently announced the closure of one engine factory, in Rolla, eliminating 500 jobs.

Savage said the company had "duplicate capacity" since it built a facility in China.

Cindy Skrzycki is a regulatory columnist for Bloomberg News. She can be reached atcskrzycki@bloomberg.net.