http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2001-11-27-nceditf.htm
11/26/2001 - Updated 11:57 PM ET New emissions rules offer drivers bigger headaches Starting next year, drivers of relatively new cars could see those little "check engine" lights illuminating the dashboard turn into an expensive nightmare, thanks to a new system of emissions-control mandates the Environmental Protection Agency is set to unleash on the country. Come January, smog-choked states have to start using those cars' "on-board diagnostic" (OBD) systems in their emissions-testing programs. In theory, the idea is reasonable. These complex computer programs, mandated by government on every car built since 1996, monitor a car's emissions-control systems. If any piece of it is out of whack, the light turns on, and presumably, the car is polluting more than it should. Under ideal circumstances, testers would just need to look for that light to pass or fail a car, making those annoying emissions tests somewhat less punishing. At least, that's the promise from the EPA. In the real world, however, this high-tech system is likely to mean more hassles, more costs and little if any real gain in reduced air pollution over the existing system. Independent researchers already are finding troubling flaws with the devices that the EPA has yet to address fully, even as it pushes states to get the system up and running by January. First, cars can fail for reasons completely unrelated to what is coming out of the tailpipe. Among them: the "check engine" bulb is burned out; the sensors (not the emissions-control equipment itself) are damaged. Several studies have found that when imposed on car owners, these tests will likely fail many cars that are, in fact, clean, forcing owners into repair shops for needless fixes. AAA Missouri found that 16% of 1996 model cars and nearly 23% of 1997 cars failed the on-board test, and it concluded that the new system was "ripe for consumer rip-offs." That might be acceptable if this new testing regime actually helped clean up the air. But that, too, is a dubious proposition. Cars built after 1996 are extremely clean and tend to stay that way for years. So there's not much to be gained by subjecting them to tests. Worse, the new system might not even do a good job of catching those new cars that are polluters. One EPA-sponsored test found that of 1,344 cars failing the traditional tailpipe-emissions test, just 173 showed up as failing in the on-board system. The National Research Council in July found that it could cut pollution less than the existing emissions-testing system. Little wonder, then, that the NRC urged delay of this new system until more research on its effectiveness could be done. If the program fails to live up to the EPA's billing, it won't be the first time. The agency made similar promises about previous advances in emissions testing. It said these programs would be more reliable and cut pollution by greater amounts - claims that outside studies failed to support. Drivers could be spared this entire hassle if the EPA would think more creatively about how to nab polluting cars. Technology is available today that can catch the relatively small portion of polluters on the road as they drive, sparing the rest of us the hassle and expense of driving cars to testing centers. But the EPA hasn't embraced it. Forcing everyone into testing centers to catch a small number of polluters doesn't make sense, no matter how high-tech the detection method. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95 Refill any ink cartridge for less! Includes black and color ink. http://us.click.yahoo.com/3FDzZA/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
