St

Throughout the history of our great nation, the government has had many roles, one of which being the role of a regulator. Many people either agree or disagree about how much power should be granted to the government, and that is what sometimes divides political parties. I belong to the group that believes the government has too much power in regulating our daily lives.

One of these things that the government regulates too much is the auto inspection program in Pennsylvania. The new emissions program in Pennsylvania began on October 1, 1997. The emissions test is required for around 3.4 million gas-powered cars made after 1975, as well as vans and light trucks that way under 9,000 pounds. This new test measures tailpipe emissions with the car at about fifteen miles per hour, which simulated an uphill climb by means of resistance on a treadmill device called a dynamometer.

There are some pieces of regulation that can be viewed as acceptable yet at the same time there are also many pieces of unnecessary regulation. This is apparently true with the state inspection program of Pennsylvania.

The most apparent unnecessary regulation on Pennsylvania state inspections is cost. First, the test equipment can cost the inspection center anywhere from thirty-five thousand to fifty thousand dollars. Also, if the car fails the emissions test, repair work must be done. A waiver is possible for one year if at least one hundred fifty dollars of work is spent on repairs that pertain to the emissions system. Sometimes, more money is

necessary due to the fact that the only way for the car to pass is to fix one particular problem and therefore it has to be fixed. The cost of repairs with the enhanced Inspection and Maintenance inspection could be up to four hundred fifty dollars.

Many people in the science community doubt that the emissions inspection reduces the amount of air pollution. Also, a test showed that as of 1992, most urban smog had been cleared up and that enhanced emission tests would not help reduce smog in the areas with smog levels above government regulation. Dr. Donald Stedman of the University of Denver said by showing facts that support the Inspection and Maintenance system does not reduce hydrocarbon emissions and very slightly reduces the emission of carbon monoxides. Pennsylvania requires that cars be tested every year, but most other states, like New Jersey, only require that cars be tested every other year.

Other unnecessary regulations are those imposed by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Amendments came because smog levels were taken in 1988, an extremely hot year. This data was slanted due to the fact that 1988 was a very hot year and heat causes more ozone, which in effect causes more smog. In Philadelphia that year, during July and August there were two occasions on which there were eighteen to twenty-two consecutive days where the temperature was above ninety degrees. This hot weather would have affected the amount of smog drastically. The severe regions in the Northeast require the stringent Inspection and Maintenance program that was proposed by the EPA. These regions should not have had to use these tests had they been classified on proper basis. Also, the EPA does not see decentralized tests, which Pennsylvania uses, to be as effective as centralized tests, so it makes the states that use private garages have more frequent emissions testing.

There are also many bugs in the enhanced emissions program. There are a number of problems with this new program. Twenty-eight percent of the cars that were tested passed a second time having failed the first time with little or no repairs.
There are many unnecessary regulations placed on the inspection program in Pennsylvania yet there are some valid regulations involved with it. The program in Pennsylvania is more convenient than it could have been had the EPA had its way. In Pennsylvania, the plus about the new system is that motorists do not have to go to centralized test sites.

In 1994, the Casey-Singel administration had a plan to open eighty-six centralized emissions centers but the public overwhelmingly rejected it. Many people rejected it because they did not want government run sites because they felt that it would eliminate the private service station from the inspection process.

Despite the fact that some in the scientific community doubt that the emission program helps fight air pollution, it could serve some environmental purpose. It has done a good job detecting nitrous oxides, which were a large part of the Philadelphia smog situation. Also, this program was tailor-made to deal with Pennsylvania’s smog problem. It is so often and so expensive because automobiles played a larger part in the smog problem in Philadelphia than cities like Houston, where smog was about the same.

While the inspection program in Pennsylvania is among the highest in the nation in cost, it is more convenient than in other states. Because Pennsylvania uses the

decentralized emissions tests, the “ping-pong” effect is eliminated. The “ping-pong” effect is where a motorist goes to the centralized test center, fails the test, and then has to go to a garage to have their car repaired. After they have had their car repaired, they must return to the test site for another test. Also, the decentralized system allows for shorter lines than the centralized system does.

There are also other solutions to find and detect emissions in cars besides the enhanced Inspection and Maintenance program. Dr. Stedman has developed a cheaper solution in roadside monitors, which detects the cars that are letting off pollutants, and whether or not a certain region needs reduction.

There are some legitimate reasons to have a state inspection program, yet in my opinion those are overshadowed by the unnecessary reasons. But some semblance of regulation is needed in this area. If there were no state inspections than our society would not know what cars were emitting harmful gases as well as whether or not cars are safe to drive. The government should not emphasize too much of its own power on citizens though. The citizens as well as the state inspectors of the area should be able to tell the state government when enough is enough.

Works Cited

Jones, K.H.. “Are Auto Emissions Really Necessary?” Consumers Research Magazine

Nussbaum, Paul. “In PA., Drivers Pay a Price to Cut Pollution\Philadelphia-Area Drivers

Ordine, Bill. “Officials: Don’t Fear new Test\It’s More Sensitive to Emissions, but It’s not

Pennsylvania. Drive Clean PA. “A Brief History of the Decentralized Enhanced Vehicle

Questions based on Required Reading

Q1: What is the only way to prevent hijackers from gaining control of an airplane according to the unknown author?

A: The only way to prevent hijackers from gaining control of an airplane is to harden the cockpit.

Q2: What are the arguments given by lobbyists for the Bells in favor of HR 1542 (Tauzin-Dingell Bill) and arguments given by their opponents against his legislation?

A: The lobbyists for the Bells argue that its members need regulatory relief to complete with cable television companies and other high-speed Internet providers. The opponents contend that the Tauzin-Dingell bill would give the Bells a stranglehold on high-speed Internet service and delay the development of next-generation Web technology.

Q3: Why do small-business groups like HR 1831? From the small amount of information presented in your required reading, do you think the legislation is a good idea? Why?

A: Supporters of HR 1831 say the measure is aimed at protecting businesses that have not significantly harmed the environment from being sued by large polluters that want to recover some of their government-mandated cleanup costs. I do not feel this is a good idea because it gives some companies the permission to pollute.

Q4: Give an argument in favor of government regulating activities such as rollerblading and bungee jumping.

A: An argument in favor of the government regulating rollerblading and bungee-jumping is that the government is just doing its job, protecting people from public nuisances and unscrupulous thrill-providers who don’t take proper safety precautions.

A: A burden hour is supposed to measure the time it takes to collect data and fill out federal forms, surveys and reports.

Q6: Why was Connecticut Senator, Joseph Lieberman, concerned enough to vote against the nomination of Professor John Graham as administrator of the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the current Bush administration?

A: Lieberman cited Graham’s past criticisms of clean-air and clean-water statutes and questioned whether he would weaken federal health, environmental and safety standards.

Q6a: Graham is a proponent of “risk analysis.” How is risk analysis defined on page 992 of the May 5, 2001 issue of Congressional Quarterly Weekly?

A: Risk Analysis calculates the likelihood of a hazard against the costs and benefits of preventing it.

Q6b: Who was the first president to order federal agencies to weigh potential costs and benefits when writing a rule?

A: Ronald Reagan was the first president to order federal agencies to weigh potential costs and benefits when writing a rule.

Q6: How much would compliance with OSHA’s regulations to limit injuries or disabilities from performing repetitive tasks cost according to an estimate by business groups as reported in the 2000 CQ Almanac? What was the response of OHSA and Labor Department officials?

A: Their estimates range from $14 billion to $80 billion a year. OSHA and Labor Department officials, meanwhile, say the rule is intended to be flexible and would not

Q7: What was the makeup of the “iron triangle” during the Reagan years and what do environmentalists and consumer activists foresee as its composition in the current Bush administration?

A: The “iron triangle” was an unbreakable alliance among Democratic committee chairmen, agency officials, and interest groups that worked in concert to achieve common goals, whether it was funding for special projects or protecting specific constituencies. Now, it appears, the old triangle has been turned on its head. Environmentalists and consumer activists say they fear the formation of a new triad, composed of industry officials, the White House and GOP committee chairmen that leaves them out of the equation.

Q8: Name 5 actions of the Bush administration that have drawn criticism from Environmentalists.

A: 5 actions of the Bush administration that have drawn criticism from Environmentalists are: He has signed legislation to kill a Clinton ergonomics rule opposed by many major business groups, he has signaled his intention to reverse or revise Clinton regulations, including one to toughen cleanup standards for hardrock mining operations, he has reneged on a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, he has rejected the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and he has reversed a Clinton rule to reduce the levels of arsenic in drinking water.

Q9: What did the executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1981 and still in effect today, require agencies to prove before new regulations were enacted? How did the

A: Reagan beefed up the agency’s oversight power by issuing an executive order in 1981 that required agencies to prove that a regulation’s benefits would outweigh its costs. Later, Reagan banned agencies from issuing any regulatory policies that were not approved by OMB at the start of each year. In 1986, the Democratic-controlled House forced a showdown by deleting funds for OMB’s regulatory division from the fiscal 1987 budget.

A: The average time to build a highway is 12 years and the average time to build an airport is 15 years.

A: The pros of licensing requirements are that it protects the rights of those licensed yet the cons are in discriminates against those who do not have a license and need to make a living much like Monique Landers.

A: The pros are that planning commissions and master plans look ahead and prevent damage. The cons are that they give too much power to planning departments and other representative groups in communities.