Senator Feinstein Urges Senator Bond to Drop Language on Small Engines from
VA/HUD Appropriations Bill
October 1, 2003

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has urged Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) to remove language inserted into the VA/HUD spending bill that would prohibit California and other states from limiting pollution from all off-road engines less than 175 horsepower.

This language was inserted at the request of Briggs and Stratton, a small-engine company with operations in the Midwest. However, Senator Bond indicated in a letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that he would consider dropping the language "if a comprehensive agreement with the entire small-engine industry" is reached. Last week, CARB adopted standards to reduce emissions from engines less than 25 horsepower, addressing the concerns of members of the small engine industry, including Briggs and Stratton and Honda. According to CARB, the standards will not require engine redesign and prevent the possible loss of jobs at small-engine plants.

In a letter to Senator Bond, Senator Feinstein wrote: "I am writing regarding an issue of great personal importance to me and the state of California. In a September 24, 2003 letter, you asked the California Air Resources Board to revise its proposed small engine emission regulation to meet the needs of small engine manufacturers. Although my staff has forwarded the Air Resources Board's response to your office, I also wanted to send a personal note informing you that the State has adopted a revised regulation that addresses the concerns discussed in your letter. I hope that we can now resolve the issue by removing the preemption language from the VA/HUD bill.

In response to industry requests, the Air Resources Board modified the original staff proposal to reduce costs to manufacturers and address safety concerns. The Board adopted the revised regulation at a Board meeting last Thursday. At last Thursday's meeting, Honda (the other major manufacturer of building equipment in the United States) testified that the company supports the revised proposal. Likewise, state and local fire officials testified that the new proposal addresses their safety concerns. Unfortunately, Briggs and Stratton chose not to attend last Thursday's meeting, but the adopted proposal does address the company's concerns.

In your letter to the Air Resources Board, you implied that you might be willing to withdraw your preemption provision from the VA/HUD bill if the state revised its regulation. I believe that the state's revised regulation addresses your concerns. I would prefer to avoid a contentious fight on the floor, and I want to ask you personally to remove the preemption provision from the bill and preserve the states' abilities to protect public health."

###