Since 1990, the formerly unregulated hand-held power equipment industry has had to adjust itself to meet the public and government demands to curtail emissions.
Nearly overnight, in a business sense, millions of dollars were spent by manufacturers to create completely new research and development facilities for the testing and building of equipment to comply with regulations created by the federal government and the state of California.
By 1995, after months of negotiations with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, the industry got what it felt were reasonable standards with EPA’s Phase 1 rules and CARB’s Tier I standards. Virtually identical, both required a 30 percent reduction in engine emissions and significant, but technologically feasible, adaptations for most small gas-powered engines.
Now, the industry has its sights set on nailing down the second level of emissions regulations with both CARB and EPA. Federal regulators have proven to be willing partners in the rule development process, but working with CARB officials has been significantly more challenging for hand-held power equipment manufacturers.
All this change in such a concentrated period of time has manufacturers experimenting with a wide range of adaptations of the two-cycle engine. And new engine designs are being developed that could revolutionize the hand-held equipment industry.
What these rules will ultimately do to change the hand-held power equipment of tomorrow is unknown, but it’s clear that major changes are coming. The result will be improved, cleaner engine technology, but will likely also be higher end-user cost.
NO CONTROL. Contractors concerned about the direction equipment is heading find themselves stuck between the forces negotiating the emissions rules. Bob Grover, vice president of landscape management for Northwest Landscape Industries, Tigard, Ore., said he hopes the industry and regulators can come to a mutually beneficial solution.
“Philosophically, I support the making of equipment that produces lower emissions,” he asserted, “but on the practical side, I need to have equipment that can do the job. My biggest fears are what regulations will do to the equipment and how much they are going to cost the company.”
THE SAME PAGE. Earlier this year, the industry signed statements of principle with EPA that will guide the development of rules for the second phase of federal regulations. While not legally binding agreements, Don Purcell, executive director of the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association, Bethesda, Md., is confident that the industry and EPA are on the same page.
In its initial proposals for Phase 2 emissions rules, EPA has proposed a 30 percent reduction in emissions over and above the 30 percent reduction from the first phase. Implementation of the second phase allows a three-year phase-in period from 2002 to 2005. Other requirements include a testing program to evaluate pollutant levels and compliance provisions to ensure engines meet standards for their entire usable life.
Finally, EPA will conduct a technology review to determine whether a third phase of emissions rules should be considered. This is scheduled for the year 2001.
All of these dates may appear far away, but the industry will require the time to recuperate the investments they made in research and development to meet the first level of emissions, while simultaneously investing in research for new technology.
WORTH THE HASSLE? California is only one state in the union, but it commands the manufacturers’ attention based simply on raw size. Of the more than 7.37 million hand-held units that were sold in 1996, approximately 8 percent to 10 percent was sold in California, generating sales of $350 to $400 million, according to Purcell.
“Some manufacturers may give up the California market because the costs to meet CARB may be so phenomenal,” admitted John Keeler, senior vice president, RedMax, Atlanta, Ga. Companies marginally in the two-cycle business, such as engine manufacturer Tecumseh, Tecumseh, Wis., already stopped selling small engines in the state before Tier I. Manufacturers more entrenched in the two-cycle market are circling the wagons and preparing to research new engine technologies and negotiate reasonable regulations with CARB.
The driving force behind the negotiations, PPEMA, along with other organizations, got the Tier I standards to closely resemble the Phase 1 regulations that EPA eventually settled on. The proposed Tier II rules released in May, however, go far beyond the requirements of EPA’s Phase 2.
CARB, in its initial draft of the rules, is asking manufacturers to reduce emissions by an additional 70 percent for model year 1999. Although some equipment now approaches this level, no fiscally feasible two-cycle technology can reach this lofty plateau.
Purcell and others in the industry have said that the Tier II rules, as proposed in May, will mean the elimination of gas-powered two-cycle engines in California.
“Based on the proposals they have set forth, we believe it is the intention of CARB to eliminate all two-cycle engine sales in California,” stated Purcell.
Most discouraging for PPEMA and its members was the amount of discussion and negotiation that took place prior to the release of the proposed rules in May.
“We met with the staff several times and shared a great deal of confidential information, but their new proposals did not reflect this,” said Kim Liechty, engineering manager with Poulan/Weed Eater.
“They’ve decided this is what they want to do,” Liechty continued. “They seem to have their own agenda set that they intend on enforcing, even if there is no good logic behind it.”
| ||||
Indeed, CARB is interested in pushing technology forward to meeting its emissions demands, according to CARB public affairs director Jerry Martin. “In the first tier of regulations, about 50 percent of the equipment already met the standards,” said Martin. “The second tier is much more stringent and will require that each manufacturer do something to meet the requirements.”
Martin said the CARB staff has seen enough potential engine technology al-ternatives that it believes Tier II as pro-posed is a good standard. Unfortunately for the makers of two-cycle gas-powered equipment, none of the alternatives Martin mentioned involve traditional two-cycle engines.
“There are ways to improve two-stroke engines, such as catalytic conversion and different fuels. However, two-stroke engines are not the only alternative,” said Martin. “There are four-stroke engines, battery power and natural propane. These alternatives may not apply in every case, but they have potential. To the staff, there are clearly viable alternatives.”
Recent developments have caught the eye of the CARB staff, which may embolden it to stick to its guns. Ryobi America, Easley, S.C., released a trimmer with a four-cycle engine to the consumer market a few years ago that meets Tier II standards. Ryobi, in conjunction with RedMax, will be releasing the engine to the professional market in a trimmer later this year.
American Honda, Duluth, Ga., applied its four-cycle expertise and created its “micro-four” engine to run on a professional trimmer. The unit’s weight, ability to operate when turned 360 degrees and rpm levels are comparable to two-cycle engines, yet the emissions are within Tier II standards, according to Scott Conner, senior manager of consumer products for Honda.
The four-stroke technology has its limitations, however. The engine cannot reach the rpm range necessary for high speed equipment such as chain saws and many blowers. It also brings a higher price tag - Honda’s trimmer will start at about $250. According to PPEMA, only about 3 percent to 4 percent of hand-held trimmers are priced greater than $200.
| ||||
For their part, manufacturers don’t deny that alternatives exist. But all agree that if creating engine technology that meets the standards at an acceptable price to end-users is the goal, then nothing is available now.
The standards are now being reviewed and are available for public comment until the CARB Tier II rules are published this fall. If PPEMA can’t get the standards to an acceptable level, then litigation is a real possibility, Purcell stressed.
The author is Managing Editor of Lawn & Landscape magazine.