-------
technique, which produces  slightly higher program efficiencies than the
STRR  =  1.0 technique, can result  in a greater  number of vehicles  being
failed  than  should be failed,  based upon  FTP standards.   This  is  shown
by the graphical  correlation of the techniques in Section 1.2.2, where
STRR  can be greater  than  1.0  for STE  = 0.8.
              A comparison of the effectiveness of  207(b)  and  I/M
program  approaches is shown in Table 1-11.   The  program efficiencies
of both approaches are nearly  the  same  for  both STs,  indicating that
basing pass-fail ST  cut-points  on  engine  displacement  (the 207(b)  approach)
does not significantly affect  overall fleet average  emission reductions.
However, the approach is  still meritorious for its objective of preventing
excessive errors  of commission for the small  CID vehicles as compared
with large CID vehicles.
              Table 1-12  summarizes the 207(b)  program efficiencies of the
300-car and  117-car test fleets with the STRR  =1.0 cut-point selection
technique.  There are only slight differences in 50,000-mile  program
efficiencies (for both STs) between the low and high altitude (Denver) test
fleets, despite the fact that there are significant differences in the average
FTP emissions  between Denver  and the other three cities.
              In all  cases described above, for a fixed maintenance
effectiveness period  and a fixed maintenance version,  the efficiency of the
program increases as the  duration of the program increases.  Hence,  the
earlier the program  can be instituted,  the  greater the resulting benefit to
air quality and the higher will be the program efficiency at 50, 000 miles.
              It is emphasized that the program effectiveness values shown
in Tables 1-8 through 1-12 are the  result of the specific assumptions made,
and are highly dependent upon the duration of the maintenance effectiveness
period as well as  the estimated effectiveness of the maintenance performed
at the time of inspection.  One limitation inherent in the three maintenance
versions examined herein  is that an E  vehicle is  always either an FF or E
                                     c               '                   o
vehicle the following year.   This results because  of the deterministic
approach  employed; this limitation can perhaps be eliminated in future
analyses through the use of stochastic maintenance models.

                                    1-33

-------
   Table  1-11.  Comparison of Effectiveness of 207(b) and I/M Program Approaches;
                 Maintenance Version 3;  12-Month Maintenance Period Effectiveness;
                 300 Car Fleet; STRR =1.0 Cut-Point Selection Technique
Program
Type
207(b) Program (b)


I/M Program*c)

Number of
Years
Since the
First Inspection
1
2
3(d)
1
2
3(d)
Estimated Program Efficiency
in Percent (Cumulative)
Federal Short Cycle
HC
28.37
38.22
41. 11
28.64
38.63
41.48
CO
35.06
42.08
45.10
35.24
42.38
45.38
NO
X
1. 11
0.80
1.00
0.97
0.67
0.86
Federal Three Mode
HC
27.30
37.08
40.00
27.06
36.99
39.92
CO
33.95
40.91
43.95
33.53
40.74
43.79
NO
0.89
0. 67
0.86
0.47
0.25
0.45
(a)


(b)


(c)


(d)
Percent efficiency is the percent reduction in fleet emissions from that value which would
have occurred without the 207(b) program, over the time period shown.

Pass-fail ST levels  set for STRR =1.0 rate for each pollutant for each of three engine CID
groups (150 CID and less, 151 to 259 CID, 260 CID and greater).

A single pass-fail level based on STRR =1.0  for each pollutant for all cars in fleet,
regardless of engine CID.

Not a full year.  Program ended at 50, 000 miles.

-------
                   Table  1-12.  Comparison of Effectiveness of 207(b) Program on 300-Car and
                                 117-Car Fleets; Maintenance Version 3;  12-Month Maintenance
                                 Period Effectiveness; STRR =1.0 Cut-Point Selection Technique
                                                                                        (b)
co
Fleet
300-Car (Cities of
Chicago, Houston,
and Phoenix)
117-Car
(City of Denver)
Number of
Years
Since the
First Inspection
1
2
3(c)
1
2
3(c)
Estimated Program Efficiency in Percent (Cumulative)
Federal Short Cycle
HC
28.37
38.22
41. 11
34.05
42.02
44. 74
CO
35.06
42.08
45.10
35.37
40.50
43.23
NO
X
1. 11
0.80
1.00
1. 11
1.10
1.20
Federal Three Mode
HC
27.30
37.08
40.00
31.68
39.83
42.49
CO
33.95
40.91
43.95
32.56
37.83
40.44
NO
X
0.89
0.67
0.86
0.86
0.84
0.91
             (a)
             (b)
Percent efficiency is the percent reduction in fleet emissions from that value which would
have occurred without the 207(b) program, over the time period shown.

Pass-fail ST levels set for STRR =1.0 rate for each pollutant for each of three engine CID
groups (150 CID and less, 151 to 259 CID,  260 CID and greater).
             (c)
               Not a full year.  Program ended at 50, 000 miles.

-------
1.3            EXTENDED ANALYSES OF 1974 MODEL YEAR AND
               1975 PROTOTYPE VEHICLES
               Extended contingency table analyses -were performed using
data collected on 147  1974-model-year vehicles and 26 catalyst-equipped
1975-prototype experimental vehicles.  These data were originally reported
in EPA-460/3-76-011,  "Federal Test Procedure and Short Test Correlation
Analyses." The present volume's analyses •were performed to assess the
sensitivity of ST/FTP correlations  to FTP measurement variability and to
assess the variability of the FTP.
1.3.1          FTP Replications on Catalyst-equipped  1975 Prototype
               Experimental Vehicles (CEV)
               Using FTP replicate data from 26 cars  of the CEV fleet,  a
contingency table analysis was performed in •which the first value of the FTP
replicate measurement pair for a given vehicle •was assigned as the FTP
measurement and the second value •was  taken as the corresponding ST
measurement.   Cut-points for HC,  CO, and NO were selected for the "ST
                                              2C
measurements" using the STRR =1.0 technique. As discussed further in
Section 3. 1. 1,  this technique is equivalent to adjusting the ST number of
failures  to equal the number of FTP failures.  Since the "ST" and the FTP
under analysis here are replicate measurements from the 1975 FTP, the
results of applying this technique may be used to estimate the repeatability
of the 1975 FTP measurements.
               The  other  relevant information produced by these analyses is
the relative uncertainty in the FTP  standards produced by the data.  Although
the FTP standards  are fixed values in each analysis, the number of vehicles
passing and failing the FTP varies from data set to data set and can be
quantified in terms of FTP standard uncertainty •which is produced by the
measurement process.
              The  results of the analysis  are summarized in Table 1-13.
Since the HC and CO standards which the CEV fleet was designed to meet were
unknown, four  sets of FTP standards were used in the  analysis, as shown in
                                    1-36

-------
                     Table 1-13.
Comparison of Cut-Point Variability with Assumed FTP
Standards for 26-Vehicle 1975-Prototype  Catalyst-Equipped
Fleet; STRR =1.0 Cut-Point Selection Technique Using
Replicate FTP Tests
i
to
Assumed
FTP Standard
(gr/mi)
HC
0.41
0.60
0. 75
0.90
CO
3.4
5.0
7.0
9.0
NO
3. 1
Multiple Constituent
0.41, 3.4, 3. 1
0.60, 5.0, 3. 1
0.75, 7.0, 3. 1
0.90, 9.0, 3.1
Cut -point of
Second FTP Test
(gr/mi)
0.42
0.59
0. 72
0. 85

3.35
4.81
6.59
8.34

2.99
as noted above for
individual
pollutants

%FF
64.46
39.52
26. 14
17.26

18.37
4.61
0.90
0.20

11.37
61.54
30. 77
30. 77
19.23
%E%
5.74
6.59
5.93
4.91

5.39
2.28
0.66
0. 19

8.37
15.3JL.
	 -T85
-fy?69
-%Q-fr
7:69
STE
0.92
0.86
0.82
0. 78

0.77
0.67
0.58
0.51

0.58
0.94
0.80
1.00
0.71
                     (1)
                       EC =  EQ at STRR
      =  1.0 for single constituents.

-------
the table.  The differences between the FTP standards at all levels and the
cut-points corresponding to this set of standards are negligible for all
three pollutants.  At the lowest level  of FTP standards,  the estimated total
error  rates (E  + E  ) are 11.4% HC,  10.8% CO, 16.8% NO  , and  19.2%
              O    C                                     .X
on the multiple-constituent test basis.
              In the case of CO,  the  ability of the  cut-point of the second test
to track the standard deteriorated as  the standard increased.  The decreasing
total error rate, coupled with the extreme decrease in correctly failed (FF)
rate (18% at 3.4 grams/mile to 0.2%  at 9.0 grams/mile) shown  in Table 1-13,
indicates that the analysis at the higher values of the CO standard is being
performed on a "tail" of the distribution; i.e., when the probability of
vehicles having high emission values  is extremely  low.   Thus, the
parameters shown at the  lower values of the CO  standard will be more
representative of the character of the FTP measurement process.
              In the case of NO , however,  even though the cut-point closely
approximates the NO  standard, there is a relatively high total error rate
(16. 8%) in proportion to the vehicles  correctly failed (11.37%),  as •well as
sensitivity of  parameters to shifts in  the cut-point.  For example, a 0. 15
gram/mile difference (5%)  about the standard level of 3.1 grams/mile will
cause a 30% change in STRR and a 17% change  in STE.
1.3.2         Analysis of In-use 1974 Model Year Vehicles by
              Inertia Weight Class
              The 144-car fleet of 1974 model year vehicles consisted of
three inertia weight classes as follows.
              a)    2501 to 3500 Ib:  46 Ford Pintos at 2750 Ib and 140 CID
              b)    3501 to 4500 Ib:  49 Dodge/Plymouths at 4000 Ib
              and 318 CID
              c)    4501 and above:  49 Chevrolets at  5500 Ib and 400 CID
              Table  1-14 presents the STE variations as a function of inertia
weight class for short-test cut-point  selection techniques of STRR = 1.0 and
                                   1-38

-------
Table 1-14.  Variation of STE with Inertia Weight Class; 1974 Model Year Fleet; Short Test
             Cut-Point Selection Techniques of STRR =1.0 and E  = 5 Percent
Cut-point
Technique




o
n
A
H
w










in
n
o
W



Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle


Federal
Three-mode






Federal
Short Cycle


Federal
Three -mode





Inertia Weight
All
2501 to 3500 Ib
3501 to 4500 Ib
4501 and above
All

2501 to 3500 Ib

3501 to 4500 Ib

4501 and above

All
2501 to 3500 Ib
3501 to 4500 Ib
4501 and above
All

2501 to 3500 Ib
3501 to 4500 Ib

4501 and above

Test Mode




idle in drive
high speed
idle in drive
high speed
idle in drive
high speed
idle in drive
high speed




idle in drive
high speed
idle in drive
high speed
idle in drive
high speed
idle in drive
high speed
Short Test Effectiveness (STE)
HC
0.79
0.68
0.93
0.18
0.57
-
0.44
-
0.86
-
0.01
-
0.75
0.74
0.92
0.46
0.32
-
0.37
0.62
-
0.02
-
CO
0.90
0.92
0.98
0.71
0.86
-
0.84
-
0.95
-
0.65
-
0.84
0.90
1.00
0.42
0.69
-
0.56
0.95
-
0.27
-
NOX
0.50
0. 19
0.68
0.55
_
0.44
-
0.27
-
0.51
-
0.48
0.38
0.35
0.55
0.41
.
0.30
-
0.50
0.27
-
0.31
Multiple
Constituents
0.86
0.89
0.96
0.68
0.82
-
0.86 .
-
0.96
-
0.74
-
0.77
0.86
0.96
0.45
0.70
-
0.46
0.94
-
0.52
-

-------
E  = 5%.  With either technique,  the considerable variation of STE for each
pollutant with inertia weight is evident, with both short tests less effective
in correctly tracking the FTP failures in the larger vehicles.  However, these
results can also  be interpreted as manufacturer-peculiar,  in that each inertia
weight class •was built by a different manufacturer.
               Table 1-15 compares the  EC = 5% data of Table 1-14 for the
Federal Three-mode with similar data from the  300-car pooled fleet reported
in Volume I.  The 300-car fleet shows the  same  general trends as the
144-car fleet;  i.e.,  higher STE  values for the  smaller vehicles than for  the
large vehicles for HC,  CO, and  NO  ,  but •with  less marked changes between
                                  2£
groups.  The various inertia  weight groups of the 300-car fleet were made up
of vehicles from  several different manufacturers in each inertia weight group.
Therefore,  the 144-car fleet  results, with a single manufacturer in each group,
confound the technological and •weight effects.
               On an overall fleet basis,  both fleets had very similar STE
values for each pollutant and  nearly identical values for the multiple-
constituent test.  The persistence of the  idle mode as an effective ST on  HC
and CO, and of the high-speed mode for  NO  discrimination in both fleets,  is
an important finding which reflects a basic invariant in the Federal Three-mode.
1.4            SHORT TEST VARIABILITY
               Tables 1-16 and 1-17 contain the ST cut-points and standard
errors at each cut-point for the Federal  Short  Cycle and Federal Three-mode,
respectively,  for the 300-car fleet (refer to Section 5 for computational
details).  Results are included for each individual pollutant and for each
cut-point  selection technique  defined in Section 1. 2. 1.  By referring to
Figures 1-3 through 1-5 for the Federal  Three-mode,  it can be seen that
the rank ordering of cut-points by numerical value  in Table 1-17 for each
pollutant conforms to the rank ordering of STE values  in the figures; i.e.,
the lowest cut-point conforms to the highest STE, etc.
                                    1-40

-------
Table 1-15.  Comparison of STE Values with Inertia Weight Variation for
             1974 and 1975 Model Year Fleets; Federal Three-Mode ST;
             "Cut-Point Technique E  =5 Percent
Pollutant
Hydrocarbon




Carbon Monoxide




Oxides of Nitrogen




Multiple Constituents




Inertia Weight
All
0 to 2500 Ib
2501 to 3500 Ib
3501 to 4500 Ib
4501 and above
All
0 to 2500 Ib
2501 to 3500 Ib
3501 to 4500 Ib
4501 and above
All
0 to 2500 Ib
2501 to 3500 Ib
3501 to 4500 Ib
4501 and above
All
0 to 2500 Ib
2501 to 3500 Ib
3501 to 4500 Ib
4501 and above
Test Mode
idle in drive




idle in drive




high speed




idle in drive




STE
147-Car
1974 Model
Year Fleet
0.32
-
0.37
0.62
0.02
0.69
-
0.56
0.95
0.27
0.30
-
0.50
0.27
0.31
0.70
-
0.46
0.94
0.52
300-Car
1975 Model
Year Fleet
0.375
0.293
0.439
0.340
0.385
0.562
0.583
0.617
0.533
0.509
0.310
0.552
0.315
0.214
0.114
0.704
0.696
0.771
0.637
0.693

-------
                                   Table  1-16.  ST Cut-points and Their Standard Errors for the

                                                Federal Short Cycle; 300 Cars
ST
Cut-point
Technique
STRR =1.0
E = 0. 1
c
E + FF - ,
c =0.2
E = 5 %
c
STE = 0.6
0.7
0.8
Cut -points and Standard Errors in gr/rni
HC
CP(1>
1.09
2.06
1.37
1.32
1.29
1.07
0.86
SB*2*
0.077
0. 190
0. 108
0. 121
0. 117
0.099
0.085
CO
CP
5. 17
9.91
4.51
8.40
11.25
8. 12
5.60
SE
0. 618
1.201
0. 542
1.312
1.367
1.001
0. 728
NO
X
CP
2.45
3.69
3.00
2.62
2.63
2.38
2. 12
SE
0. 112
0.235
0. 157
0. 134
0. 157
0. 144
0. 137
I
^
ISJ
                        = Cut-point


                  * 'SE = Standard Error

-------
                          Table 1-17.  ST Cut-points and Their Standard Errors for the

                                      Federal Three-mode;*  '  300 Cars
ST
Cut-point
Technique
STRR = 1.0
E
c - o i
E + FF "-1
= 0.2
E = 5 %
c
STE = 0.6
= 0. 7
= 0.8
Cut -points and Standard Errors in ppm
HC
CP^
112
573
298
184
112
89
68
SE<2>
8.7
99. 1
32.6
21. 1
12.6
10.3
8.5
CO
CP
2198
12945
2956
7081
5867
3475
1898
SE
384
2409
515
1857
1157
703
412
NO
X
CP
1803
4379
2265
1558
1362
1164
SE
85
t
552
149
123
112
103
*•
oo
                   ^  'CP = Cut-point



                   *  'SE = Standard Error



                   *  'HC and CO idle in drive; NO  at the high speed

-------
              With regard to the effects of vehicle size,  as reflected by engine
displacement, Tables 1-18 and 1-19 show the cut-point and standard error
values for the three CID groups examined in  the 300-car fleet for the cut-point
selection technique of STRR -  1.0.  The variation between the fleet average
and the individual groups is particularly marked for CO,  and illustrates why
small cars (CID = 150 and less) would have an excessive failure  rate if the
short-test cut-point were based on the overall fleet cut-points,  and why the
large cars (CID = 260 and greater) would have a low failure rate.
              The dispersion  of the ST cut-points is summarized in
Table 1-20 for the  300-car and 117-car fleets at the STRR - 1.0, cut-point
selection technique, where

                    ^.      .     Standard error at cut-point
                    Dispersion = 	-pr-r	—	,   r	
                                       Cut-point value

For the 300-car fleet, the dispersion values  of the Federal Short Cycle and
the Federal Three-mode are comparable.  In the case of  the 117-car fleet,
more variation is shown for the Federal Three-mode, particularly for CO.
The effect of the  smaller sample size is primarily  responsible for the
increased dispersion of the 117-car fleet cut-points  as  compared •with the
300-car fleet.
                                   1-44

-------
                           Table 1-18.  Comparison of Standard Errors for Federal
                                        Short Cycle; 300 Cars;  STRR =  1.0
CID
Group
All
< 150 CID
151 - 259 CID
> 260 CID
Numbe r
of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
Cut -points and Standard Errors in gr/mi
HC
cp'1'
1.09
1.03
0.96
1.07
SE<2>
0.077
0. 125
0. 168
0. 118
CO
CP
5. 17
8.90
4.47
3.75
SE
0.618
1. 163
1.067
0. 772
NO
X
CP
2.45
2.33
2.50
2.49
SE
0. 112
0.224
0.246
0. 137
Ul
(1)
(2)
                   CP = Cut-point

                   Standard Error

-------
           Table  1-19-  Comparison of Standard Errors for
                        Federal Three-Mode(3); 300 Cars; STRR =1.0


CID
Group
All
< 150 CID
151 - 259 CID
> 260 CID

Number
of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
Cut-points and Standard Errors in ppm
HC
cp'1'
112
124
138
97
SE<2>
8.7
16.8
21.7
10.9
CO
CP
2198 •
5907
2446
1121
SE
384
1464
915
315
NO
X
CP
1803
2475
1572
1589
SE
85
259
154
93
(1)
(2)
(3)
CP - Cut-point
SE = Standard Error
HC and CO idle in drive; NO  at the high speed

-------
               Table 1-20.  Comparison of ST Dispersion for STRR  =  1.0
                            by Fleet and ST
Vehicle
Fleet
300 Cars
(Low Altitude)


117 Cars
(High Altitude)

ST
Federal Short Cycle

(2\
Federal Three -modev '
Federal Short Cycle

Federal Three -mode ' '
ST Cut -Point Dispersion^1)
HC
0.071


0.078
0.093

0. 127
CO
0. 120


0. 175
0. 183

0.326
NO
X
0.046


0 . 047
0. 110

0. 132
  'Dispersion =  (Standard Error of the cut-point) •» (cut-point)
(2)
  HC, CO idle in drive, NO  at high speed

-------
             2.  SHORT TEST CORRELATION ANALYSES ON
                          DENVER VEHICLES

               Conventional correlation analyses and contingency table
analyses were conducted for the 117-vehicle 1975 model year Denver fleet.
This section describes the composition of the Denver test fleet and presents
the results of the short test (ST) analyses.
2. 1            DENVER FLEET COMPOSITION
               Two short tests (STs) and the 1975 Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) were performed by EPA on the 117-vehicle test fleet during the
FY 74 Emission  Factor  Program. The STs (the Federal Short Cycle and
the Federal Three-Mode)  are described in Section 3. 1 of Volume 1.
2.1.1          Test Fleet  Composition
               All 117 vehicles  were 1975 model year vehicles representing
a typical cross-section of that model year with regard to manufacturer
(domestic and foreign),  vehicle size (weight), engine size (displacement and
number of cylinders), fuel system type, transmission type, and'emission
control system type.   Tables 1  through 10 in the Appendix list cross-
tabulations of specific features  of the  vehicle fleet in the following context.
                                                              Table
     Cross-Tabulation Feature                                Number*
No. of cylinders vs engine displacement                        1
Inertia test weight vs engine displacement                       2
Emission control system vs engine displacement                3
Inertia test weight vs emission control system                  4
Fuel system vs emission control system                        5
Fuel system vs inertia test weight                              6
Fuel system vs engine displacement                             7
Transmission vs engine displacement                           8
Transmission vs inertia test weight                             9
Manufacturer vs engine displacement                          10
*Table numbers refer to tables contained in the Appendix
                                    2-1

-------
Engine displacement was subdivided into three sizes:
               a.  150 cubic inches displacement (CID) or less
               b.  151 to 259 CID
               c.  260 or more CID
Inertia test weight breakdown was limited to four categories:
               a.  2500 Ib or less
               b.  2501 Ib to 3500 Ib
               c.  3501 to 4500 Ib
               d.  4501 Ib or greater
               Emission  control system description was limited to the use
or non-use  of oxidation catalysts and/or secondary air injection.
               Fuel  system type description refers to the use of either
carburetion or fuel injection.
               Transmission type refers to use of manual versus automatic
transmissions.
2. 1. 2          Prior Use
               At the time of receipt of these vehicles by the testing
laboratory (Automotive Testing Laboratories,  Inc. ), the  odometer readings
ranged from about 1000 to 40000 miles, with an average of 13315 miles.
Specific vehicle use patterns, in terms of city  driving vs highway driving,
were not quantified.  The type and extent of vehicle  and emission system
maintenance were similarly undefined.  It was assumed that the use and
state-of-maintenance characteristics of this test sample would be adequately
representative of the 1975 model year vehicle population from high  altitude
cities.
2. 2            STATISTICAL SCREENING AND CORRELATION
              ANALYSES
              In studying the degree of correlation that exists between a
particular short test (ST) and the Federal Test Procedure (FTP), a major
concern is the dependency of correlation on vehicle population characteristics.
This is,  it is  important to know which  classes of vehicles,  if any,  show poor
ST/FTP correlations.  Thus, correlations on characteristic specific
                                    2-2

-------
groupings of the data were assessed.  In addition to assessing differences
in correlation, differences in group FTP means  and FTP standard
deviation were also reviewed.   For a discussion of the methods  employed,
the reader is referred to Section 4. 1 of Volume I.
2.2.1
Results for the Denver Fleet
               Table 11  shows the FTP means and standard deviations
for each pollutant in the four cities Chicago, Houston, Phoenix and Denver.
That the Denver means are substantially different from those of the other
three cities is expected  (Reference 1) and fundamentally constitutes the
reasoning for separate analysis of vehicle  emissions data collected in
Denver or other high altitude cities.  The ST/FTP correlation  coefficients
for the Denver fleet are shown in Table 12.
               An analysis to determine the effects of engine displacement,
inertia test  weight,  emission control system, manufacturer,  transmission
type,  and fuel system was performed on the pooled Denver fleet of 117
vehicles. The effect of  vehicle mileage was also investigated.   The vehicles
were  grouped into those with 4000 miles or less  and those with more  than
4000 miles.  The table numbers for both STs  correspond to the following
statistics spectrum.
For the Effects of
Engine Displacement
Inertia Test Weight
Emission Control System
M anuf a ctur e r
Transmission Type
Fuel System
Mileage
Table Number
FTP Mean and
Standard Deviations
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
ST/FTP
Correlation
Coefficients
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
              The comparable tables for the three cities results are
25 - 75 in Volume I.
                                    2-3

-------
2.2.2         Discussion of Results
2.2.2.1       Short Test Comparison
              Comparing the Denver results, Table 12, to the three cities
results,  Tables 21 -  24 of Volume I,  reinforces the general ST properties
previously documented in Volume I.   The Federal Short Cycle shows high
correlation with the FTP on all three pollutants.   The idle modes, parti-
cularly idle in drive, of the Federal Three-Mode are the superior modes
for HC and CO correlation while the high and low speed modes show
higher NOX correlation  than do the idle modes.
2.2.2.2        Effect of Engine Displacement
               In the case of the Federal Short Cycle (see Table 14),
correlations were largely unaffected by engine cubic inch displacement
(CID) class and were similar to the total fleet values.   The CO correlation
of the 151-259 CID group was significantly lower than the fleet average (and
largest engine size group).  The CO correlation of the  150 CID or less
group was slightly lower than the fleet average.  In terms of HC discrimina-
tion, the 260  CID or more group had a slightly higher correlation coefficient
than the fleet average,  the 150  CID or less group was slightly less than the
fleet average,  and the 151 to 259 CID group was significantly lower (0.40)
than the fleet average (0. 81).  As this effect was also noted in the 300  car
fleet, a possible explanation for the poorer HC and CO  correlation values
for the small CID groups is that these groups  represented several techno-
logies for HC and CO control (e. g. , with and without catalysts, both
carburetion and fuel injection, with and without air injection),  whereas
the large  displacement vehicles were principally equipped with carburetors
and oxidation catalysts.
               For the Federal Three-Mode ST, similar trends are observed
for NOX in the high-speed mode and the low-speed mode, and for CO in the
idle in drive and neutral modes.  HC correlation coefficients in the idle in
drive mode for the two smaller CID groups are lower than the 260  CID and
above group,  and also lower than the fleet  average.  Again, the better  test
                                    2-4

-------
modes of the Federal Three-Mode (for a given pollutant) tend to show the
same types of trends with engine displacement as the Federal Short Cycle.
2.2.2.3        Effects of Inertia Test Weight Group
               The Federal Short Cycle results indicate that NOx correlations
decrease with increasing inertia test weight (see Table  16).  However,  due
to the small sample sizes on some of the groups,  the differences are statis-
tical in origin.  The  HC and CO correlation coefficients are lowest for the
2501-3500  Ib group while the 0-2500 Ib or less group shows higher than
fleet average correlation.
               For the Federal Three-Mode, the NOX correlation coefficients
are lowest for  the 2500 Ib or less inertia weight group.  The HC idle in
drive mode correlation coefficients increase with increasing inertia weight
while CO idle in drive correlation appears to be insensitive to inertia weight.
2.2.2.4        Effect of Emission Control System Type
               The correlation coefficients of the Denver vehicle fleet were
determined as  a function of the usage or non-usage of oxidation catalysts
and/or secondary air injection for control  of HC and CO.  In the case of the
Federal  Short Cycle  results (Table  18), the data indicates generally higher
HC and CO correlations with the use of a catalyst (with  or without secondary
air).  NOX correlations  are  relatively unaffected by the  use or non-use  of
catalysts and/or secondary air injection.
               The Federal Three-Mode results are less clear.  CO correla-
tion appears generally higher on the vehicles having catalysts. HC correla-
tion is also judged to be higher on catalyst equipped vehicles  since the
correlation coefficients  for these groups are statistically significant at the
95% cofidence level.   The NOx high and low-speed correlation coefficients
are slightly higher for vehicles having secondary air injection than for
vehicles not equipped with air injection.
2.2.2.5        Effect of Manufacturer
               On the Federal Short  Cycle  (see Table 20), the domestic
vehicles have correlation coefficients of 0.70 or higher  on all three pollutants.
                                    2-5

-------
Ford had the highest HC and CO coefficients (0. 99 and 0. 97,  respectively)
but the lowest NO  coefficient  (0.73).      Chrysler had the lowest HC
coefficient (0. 76) of the domestics while General Motors had the lowest CO
coefficient (0. 78) of the domestics.  The "others"  category (primarily small
imported vehicles) had the lowest HC (0.63) and CO (0.48) correlations, with
a NO value (0. 91) higher than Ford and Chrysler  values.  Again, the multi-
     .X
plicity of technologies used for HC and  CO control in the small import class
could be responsible for the observed lower correlations when grouped into
the single category.
               On the Federal Three-Mode  ST,  the high speed test mode
resulted in generally similar NOX correlation coefficient levels (0. 63 to 0. 75)
for all manufacturers except Chrysler, which had  a value of 0. 35.  General
Motors,  Chrysler and "others" vehicles had slightly higher NOx coefficients
in the low speed mode than in  the high speed mode. In the case of CO in the
idle in drive test mode, Ford  ranked lowest (0. 49) of all the manufacturers
but only  slightly lower  than the "others" category (0. 53).  The HC coefficient
in the idle in drive mode shows trends similar to that in the Federal  Short Cycle
with values  ranging from 0. 53 to 0. 84.
2.2.2.6        Effect of Transmission Type
               Eighty-seven of the 117-vehicle test fleet were equipped with
automatic transmissions; the remainder were equipped with manual trans-
missions.  With the Federal Short Cycle ST (Table 22), the NOX correlation
coefficient was insensitive to transmission type, whereas both HC and CO
correlation coefficients were significantly reduced for manual transmission
vehicles.
               In the case of the Federal Three-Mode ST, the situation is
similar for NOX«  For  HC and CO,  the  only comparative basis is the  idle in
neutral test mode,  since the manual transmission prevents the idle in drive
test mode.  Here the CO correlation coefficients are similar for  both trans-
missions (0. 72 and 0. 60), and the HC coefficient for the manual transmission
(0. 01) is considerably lower than the automatic transmission value (0. 75).
                                    2-6

-------
2.2.2.7        Effect of Carburetion vs Fuel Injection
               Ten vehicles of the 117-vehicle test fleet were equipped
with fuel injection.  The fuel injected vehicles had significantly poorer
Federal Short Cycle correlation coefficients for HC than the carbureted
vehicles (Table 24).  With the Federal Three-Mode ST, this was reversed
for NOX; in the high speed test mode the fuel injected NOX coefficient (0. 80)
was higher than the carbureted value (0.64).  The HC and CO correlation
coefficients on the idle modes are not statistically different from zero (the
absence of correlation).   This is most likely due to the small samples
involved.
2.2.2.8        Effect of Accumulated Mileage
               Seven  of the 117 vehicles had accumulated 4000 miles or
less prior to being tested (Table 26).  The only noticeable effect for the
Federal Short Cycle is that these 7 vehicles had a lower  CO correlation than
the 110 vehicles with greater than 4000 mileage accumulation.  In the case
of the Federal  Three-Mode, the results for the greater than 4000 mileage
group were generally  similar to those for the total 117-vehicle fleet.   Those
vehicles in the 4000 mile or less group would also have to be judged as
similar to the total 117-vehicle fleet  since seven constitutes a small, highly
variable sample.
2. 3            CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSES
               The contingency table  analysis technique was used to establish
the ST pass-fail levels for  each pollutant.   For a discussion of the relevant
methodology, the  reader is referred to Section 5. 1  of Volume I.
2. 3. 1          Analyses and Results of the Denver Vehicles
               Using  the entire 117 car data set,  ST cut-points for HC, CO,
and NOX were determined for a 5% error of commission rate.  Additionally,
group-specific ST  cut-points for each pollutant were determined for each CID
class at the 5% E   rate.  The results are discussed below first by individual
pollutant, followed by the results of the multiple  constituent tests.  However,
the results for both ST are given in Tables 27 through  34 as follows:
                                    2-7

-------
Short Test
Federal Short Cycle
Federal Three-Mode
Constituent Table Number
HC
27
28
CO
29
30
NOX
31
32
Three
Constituents
33
34
2.3.2
2.3.2. 1
Discussion of Results
Hydrocarbon Emission
              In the case of the Federal Three-Mode ST, the STE and STRR
values varied slightly  (0.45 to 0. 55 and 0. 55 to 0. 63 respectively) from mode
to mode when the pooled fleet of 117 vehicles was analyzed (Table 28).  The
single best mode was the low-speed mode (STE=0. 55, STRR=0. 63) with the
idle-in-neutral mode a close second (STE=0. 54, STRR=0. 61).  The STE and
STRR varied considerably between CID groups.  The maximum (within CID)
STE was lowest (0.47) for the  150 CID and less group in low speed and highest
(0. 74) for the 260 CID and greater  group in neutral with corresponding STRR
values of 0. 54 and 0. 81,  respectively.
              In comparison,  the STE value for the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 27) ranges from 0. 50 to 0. 84 for the  CID groups and is 0. 78 for the
pooled 117-vehicle fleet.  The STRR value ranges from 0. 60 to 0. 91 for the
CID  groups  and is 0. 85 for the pooled fleet.
2. 3.2.2
Carbon Monoxide Emission
              The STE value for the Federal Three-Mode ST shows little
difference (0. 89 to 0. 91) between modes for the pooled 117-vehicle fleet
(Table 30).  Similarly, the STRR value ranges from (0.95 to 0.97).  The
STE value is uniformly the highest for the idle-in-neutral mode when
examining the individual CID groups (values range from 0. 87 to 0. 99).  The
corresponding STRR value ranges from 0. 93 to 1. 04.
              In the case  of the Federal  Short Cycle (Table 29), there is
similarly little difference  in STE and STRR values between the CID groups.
                                   2-8

-------
2.3.2.3       Oxides of Nitrogen Emission
              The high-speed mode of the Federal Three-Mode ST
uniformly had the highest STE values,  0. 41 for the pooled fleet and 0. 39
to 0. 62 for the CID groups (Table 32).  The low-speed mode had the highest
STRR values, 1. 30 for the pooled fleet and 1. 09 to 2. 28 for the CID groups.
NOX discrimination was best for the 150  CID and less group and declined with
increasing CID.
              The Federal Short Cycle ST had STE values  ranging from 0. 69
to 0. 82 for the CID groups with STRR ranging from 1. 62 to  1. 93 (Table 31).
The pooled fleet had a STE of 0. 74 and a STRR of 1. 62.
2.3.2.4       Multiple-Constituent Tests
              In addition to  analyzing each pollutant individually,  an analysis
was made for three-constituent tests.  In a three-constituent test,  a car fails
the ST if any of  its HC, CO,  or NOX measurements exceed  the previously
determined cut-points for each pollutant.
              In the  case of the Federal Short Cycle  ST (Table 33), STE
values over 0. 9 were achieved on all CID groups and  the pooled fleet.  The
STRR value ranged from 0. 9 to 1. 07 for the CID  groups and was 1. 04 for the
pooled fleet.
              The "best" mode category shown for the Federal Three-Mode
ST  (Table 34) refers to the combination of the best individual test modes:
the low-speed mode for HC,  CO,  and NOX discrimination, as determined by
the correlation coefficients of the pooled fleet.  Although  this "best" mode
shows  relatively high STE on all three CID groups (0. 71 to  0. 84),  the idle-in-
neutral mode is slightly superior:  0. 84 on the 150 CID and  less, 0. 73 on the
151-259 CID,  and 1. 00 on the 260 CID and greater. For the pooled fleet the
STE value ranged from 0.81 (neutral) to  0.93  (low-speed).  The corresponding
STRR values ranged from 0. 71  (150  CID  and less) to 1. 08 (260 CID and greater)
on the  CID groups and 0. 83 to 0. 94  on the pooled fleet.
                                   2-9

-------
2.4            DISCUSSION AMD CONCLUSIONS
2. 4. 1          Conventional Correlation Analyses
               The Federal Short Cycle/FTP  correlation does not appear to
be altitude dependent based upon a comparison of the correlation coefficients
for HC, CO, and NOX calculated for Denver vs the other three cities:
(0.81, 0.88, 0. 82 vs 0. 78, 0.89, 0.81).  Thus even though there are signi-
ficant differences between the average FTP emission in high and low altitude
locales, the Federal Short Cycle retains the ability to track FTP measurements.
               In comparing the Federal Three-Mode correlation coefficients,
the Denver high and low speed mode NOX  correlation (0. 64 and 0. 70) show an
improvement over the corresponding three cities correlation coefficients
(0. 52 and 0. 48).   The Denver  CO correlation  (0. 65 idle-neutral  and 0. 62 idle-
in-drive) although  slightly less, is  comparable to the three cities  results (0. 69
and 0. 67 respectively).  Denver HC correlation (0. 31) is lower than the three
cities result (0.45) for the idle-in-neutral mode  but higher (0. 74 compared to
0. 58) for the idle-in-drive mode.
               Federal Three-Mode CO correlation shows some degree of
altitude invariance.  The difference in'NOx  correlation may be more attributable
to the variable humidity while testing in the three cities.  For example, the high
and low-speed  NOX correlation coefficients  in Phoenix,  with its  less variable
humidity,  were computed to be 0.73 and 0.66 respectively.  These values
compare more closely with Denver than do the pooled three cities results.
The trend for HC correlation is similar in Denver;  higher correlation on the
idle-in-drive mode than on the idle-in-neutral mode.  However, the values
of the correlation coefficients are  more variable.  These results do hint at
altitude invariance but also suggest a higher degree of variability  in the
Federal Three-Mode correlation coefficients  than in the  Federal Short Cycle
correlation coefficients.
               The HC and CO correlations  in Denver for the high and  low
speed mode are substantially higher than  the  corresponding correlations in
the three cities.   Thus, an altitude dependency at least on HC and CO  at the
high and low speed modes  is suggested.
                                    2-10

-------
2.4.2          Contingency Table Analyses
               In the case of the Federal Short Cycle ST, the STE values
for HC,  CO, NOX,  and the multiple-constituent test are approximately
50%,  50%, 23%, and 18% higher,  respectively, in Denver than in the other
three cities.  For the Federal Three-Mode ST the STE values are approxi-
mately 40%, 60%, 32% and 36% higher in Denver  than in the other three
cities for HC,  CO, NOX and the multiple constituent tests.  This is a direct
result of positive ST/FTP correlation and the FTP standards (1. 5 gm/mi HC,
15. 0 gm/mi CO, and 3. 1 gm/mi NOX) being substantially lower  than the
average vehicle's emissions, i.e., approximately 91% of the Denver vehicles'
emissions exceed at least one of the FTP standards (primarily HC and CO)
as compared to about 65% for the three  cities fleet.
               The STRR values show a similar trend to the STE values
when Denver results and three  cities results are compared.
               The increased short test effectiveness is due primarily to
large differences in FTP standard and the average vehicle's emission for
HC and CO.  The increased NOX STE may be  attributable to small variations
in relative humidity.
                                    2-11

-------
           3.   EXTENDED ANALYSES OF FOUR CITIES DATA

               This section contains the  results of extended analyses using
the three cities data from Volume I phis the Denver data described in
Section 2 of this volume.  These analyses were performed to determine the
sensitivity of  correlations and emission  reductions resulting from various
short test cut-point selection methods.
3.1            DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
               As noted in Volume I,  the ST cut-points selected for the pooled
300-car fleet  on the basis of a given E  rate resulted in varying E  rates for
                                     c                          c
characteristic specific groups of vehicles.  For example, vehicle groups
determined by vehicle size (CID) and manufacturer showed •wide variations
in E , STE, and STRR from the overall  fleet values.  Therefore, it may  be
    C
desirable to select ST cut-points on the basis of vehicle size, manufacturer,
and technology in order to minimize the  variation in E ,  STE,  and STRR
between vehicle classifications.
               By selecting group-specific cut-points  based on a given E
rate,  the variation of E  between groups is minimized.  When a fixed level
of E  is used  to determine the cut-point, the resulting values of STE and
STRR may still vary from group to group,  since the cut-point cannot be
established on the basis of more than one parameter.  Clearly, if it is
desired that all the vehicle cut-point classifications have STE = 0.7,
cut-point selection should be  based upon STE at the fixed value of 0. 7;
likewise if STRR = 1.0 is desired.
               In order to assess the  properties of alternative cut-point
selection techniques, three new selection techniques  were introduced:
fixed  short test rejection ratio, fixed short test effectiveness,  and fixed
ratio  of E to  (E  + FF).  Contingency table analyses  were performed
          C      C
selecting ST cut-points using these techniques  as well as fixed E  rate  (as
determined in Volume I) for the purpose of comparative analysis.  Computer
simulations of a 207(b) program implemented using the cut-points as
determined by the various techniques were conducted for the purpose of
                                    3-1

-------
comparing the impact of the cut-point selection technique upon program
efficiency.
               With regard to the contingency table technique,' deviation
from the basic procedures described in Section 5. 1  of Volume I was
minimal; however, each cut-point selection technique is described below in
detail.  The  simulation technique remained the same as described in
Section 6 of Volume I.
3.1.1         Fixed Short Test Rejection Ratio
               The technique STRR = 1.0 is equivalent to selecting the ST
cut-point such that the ST failure rate equals the FTP failure rate:
                    E + FF = FF + E
                      c              o
                    (ST failures)  = (FTP failures)                      (3-1)
               For a fixed FTP standard and pollutant, the number of FTP
failures is estimated by the number of vehicles exceeding the standard.
The ST cut-point is that value of the ST •which  results in the same number of
failures.  That is,  the number of ST failures equals the number of FTP
failures.  The cut-points were determined for  each pollutant individually.
               Both parametric and non-parametric methods were employed
for comparison.  In the parametric method, a  statistical distribution model
(Reference Section 5. 1 of Volume I) is fitted to the ST/FTP data and then the
pertinent probability equations are  solved, as  illustrated in Figure 3-1.
For the non-parametric method, the ST measurements are  ranked in
ascending order.  Thus,  the number of vehicles having ST readings which
are less than the reading of rank K is K-l.  The ST cut-point is estimated
by the value  of the ST measurement of rank K* where K* - 1 + (the number
of vehicles passing the FTP).  Notice that the  number of vehicles equal to
or exceeding this cut-point is  N-K*-1 which equals N- (the number of FTP
                                   3-2

-------
Short Test Rejection Ratio Equals 1.0:  Solve for C_
                 00  OO
                I jD(X1>X2)dX1dX2
            y =

                J-c^


where

      C2  = ST Cut-Point

      y   - Estimated probability of failing the FTP

  D(.,.)  = Bivariate normal (or log-normal)  density function
            as determined by the ST and FTP  data
          Figure 3-1.  Equation for ST Cut-Point
                       Determination; STRR = 1.0
                            3-3

-------
passes) or the number of FTP failures,N being the total number of
vehicles in the sample.  Hence, ST failures equal FTP failures, and
STRR is 1.0.
3.1.2         Fixed E  / (E  + FF)
               	c -i— c	
               The technique E  /(E  + FF) = a is  equivalent to
                              C f  C
               E  - a (E  + FF)=0,«>0                              (3-2)
Since both E  and E  + FF (the number of ST failures) are monotonically
decreasing functions of the ST cut-point, the function E   - Ot (E  + FF) is
                                                      t*       C
not necessarily monotonic.  This, then, admits the possibility of multiple
solutions to Equation (3-2). In a situation where several solutions are
found, the solution having the  smallest value was taken,  as this would have
the minimum associated errors of omission.
               A more serious difficulty is that Equation  (3-2) may not
possess  any meaningful solutions.  In the case  -where the ST/FTP data
follow a  bivariate normal or log-normal distribution, the conditions  for the
existence of a solution have been determined:

               for a positive correlation coefficient, the FTP pass
               rate must be greater than Ot ; for a negative  correlation
               coefficient,  the FTP pass rate must be less than a ;
               and for a zero  correlation coefficient,  the FTP pass
               rate must equal Ot .

This is illustrated in Figure 3-2 for positive and negative correlations.
Intuitively,  for p > 0,  if the largest E  (FTP passes) allowable is too small,
then as the ST cut-point is increased from  - oo  (normalized units,  zero in
units of gm/mi or ppm),  E  will not overcome  a (E  + FF), in which case
E  /(E + FF) will always  be less than at.  This becomes obvious as the FTP
pass rate goes to  zero, which is a situation that can be expected to occur,  as
the Denver analysis will demonstrate.
                                    3-4

-------
        - a(E  + FF):/»0
                                    P = FTP PASS RATE
                                    P= CORRELATION
                                       COEFFICIENT
0
     P -a< 0
       t
            E  - a (E  +'FF):/><0
  -I	1	1	1	1	-I	1	1	1	I—
   -5-4-3-2-101234

                 ST CUT-POINTS
                 (NORMALIZED UNITS)*

     * IN UNITS OF THE ST STANDARD DEVIATION AFTER
      ADJUSTING FOR THE ST MEAN VALUE,  I.E., AN ST
      CUT-POINT OF 1 WOULD BE EQUAL TO THE ST MEAN
      PLUS ONE STANDARD DEVIATION

          Figure 3-2. Ec-a(Ec + FF) as a Function
                    of ST Cut-Point
                         3-5

-------
               Even though a solution to Equation (3-2) is found, it may not
be of practical importance.  Many cases -were enc6untered in -which,
although a solution existed and was found,  the ST failure rate was extremely
small, less than 1% of total,  for example.  Thus,  a threshold was
established for each pollutant on the ST failure rate.  If the solution
yielded a failure rate  less than the threshold, the  solution was categorized
as having no practical importance.   The threshold values are shown in the
following table.
                  Pollutant
  Threshold for
 ST Failure  Rate
(Percent of Total)
                    HC
                    CO
                    NO
                       x
        1
        2
       0.5
               Both parametric and non-parametric methods were employed.
For the parametric solution, the equations shown in Figure  3-3 were solved.
In the non-parametric approach,  the cut-point is taken as the first measure-
ment,  rank ordered, for which

                          E  - [d(E  +FF)] = 0                       (3-3)
                            t*        {*
where [ n ] denotes the largest integer less than or equal to  n.
3.1.3          Bounded Errors  of Commission
               The techniques used for estimating cut-points based upon a
given E  rate are described in Section 5. 1 of Volume I.
       c
               Both parametric and non-parametric methods were employed.
The parametric solution  is found by solving the probability equations shown
in Figure 3-4.  For the non-parametric solution,  the ST cut-point is
                                   3-6

-------
EC - oe(EC+FF) = 0: Solve for C_
                                L*
 Cl
     °°                         oo oo
  /  /  D(Xr X2) dX1dX2  - a I  I  D(Xr X2) dX1dX2  =  0
.GO  f~*.                        	  J*
•where
      Cj  =  FTP Standard
      C2  =  ST Cut-Point
      Of   =  Policy Parameter
  D(., .)  = Bivariate normal (or logi-.normal) density function
            as determined by the ST and FTP data
          Figure 3-3.   Equation for ST Cut-Point
                        Determination; Ec/(Ec + FF)  =  d
                             3-7

-------
Bounded Errors of Commission:  Solve for C
                cl
                  1 oo

            y =  I I   D(Xr X2)

              -co C2



where

      Cj  = FTP Standard

      C2  = ST  Cut-Point

      y   = Maximum Allowable Probability of an Error
            of Commission

  D(., .)  = Bivariate normal (or log-normal) density function
            as determined by the ST and FTP data
          Figure 3-4.  Equation for ST Cut-Point
                       Determination:  EC  = y
                            3-8

-------
estimated by the ST measurement value having the  smallest rank while not
allowing the errors  of commission to exceed the specified bound.
3.1.4         Fixed Short Test Effectiveness
              The technique STE = Ot is equivalent to selecting the ST
cut-point such that the percentage of FF vehicles equals Ct times the FTP
failure rate:
                    FF = 0(EQ+ FF);  0
-------
 Fixed Short Test Effectiveness: Solve for C_
-j-oo  +co
Cl
 /   / D(Xr  X2) dX1dX2  = a  I   I  D(Xr
                 dXldX2
,—  /—
Cl C2
where
      C,  =  FTP Standard

      C_  =  ST Cut-Point

      Ct   =  Desired Level for STE

   D(. , .)  =  Bivariate normal (or log-normal)  density function
             as determined by the ST and FTP
          Figure 3-5.  Equation for ST Cut-Point
                       Determination; STE = a
                            3-10
-------
              Methods were established to calculate the standard errors
associated with the ST cut-point,  E ,  E  , FF,  and PP for each pollutant.
The procedures employed make use of the methodology established in
Section 5.2. 1 of Volume I.  A  complete discussion is,  however,  deferred to
Section 5 on short test variability where other elements of error assess-
ment are also discussed.
              Standard error  estimates for the contingency table per-
centages in a multiple-constituent test are discussed in Section 5.2.2 of
Volume I.  Table 104 of Volume I lists the standard errors as a function
of sample size and the table percentages.
              It is also important to know the relationships between sample
size,  estimation procedure, and the resulting standard errors so as to
properly design experimental programs which will yield estimates with a
desired precision and confidence.  This is also discussed in Section  5 of
this report.
3.3           CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSES AND RESULTS
                                                             v
              Analyses of the four cities data were conducted on two
separate vehicle fleets:  Chicago, Houston,  and Phoenix vehicles comprised
the 300-car fleet,  while Denver vehicles made  up the 117-car fleet.  Within
each fleet the vehicles were stratified into three engine classes:  CID 150
and less,  CID 151 through 259, and CID 260 or greater. For each fleet,
contingency table analyses were performed on each engine displacement
group as well as the fleet as a whole.   ST cut-points were  calculated for
each engine displacement class and for the pooled fleet,  using the following
cut-point selection techniques.
a)

b)

c)
E = 5%
c
STRR = 1.
E
c
E + FF
c


0

=
                              = 10% and 20%
                                   3-11
-------
               d)    STE = 60%, 70%, and 80%
               For each analysis,  the folio-wing statistics were reported
and presented in the Appendix in tabular form.
               a)    Short test cut-point
               b)    E  ,  E ,  and FF in percentages of total vehicles
                      c   o
               c)    Short test effectiveness,  FF/(E   + FF)
               d)    Short Test Rejection Ratio,  (E  + FF)/(E  + FF)
               e)    Ec/(Ec + FF)
               f)    Table correlation index
               g)    Mean FTP values of ST passing vehicles
               h)    Mean FTP values of ST failing vehicles
               i)    FTP values which correspond to the ST cut-points
               Federal Short  Cycle and Federal Three-mode short tests
data were analyzed.
               Shown in Figure 3-6 is a sample report of a contingency
table analysis for CO.  The ST,  vehicle fleet, ST cut-point technique, and
the value of the parameter for which the  analysis was  performed are
designated in the table  heading.  The first three columns of the table
indicate the CID group  analyzed, number of vehicles in each group, and
the ST mode.   The "CUT-POINTS" column gives the value of the ST cut-
point (units of ppm for  the Federal Three-mode and units of grams/mile
for the Federal Short Cycle) and the equivalent FTP value in grams/mile.
(The equivalent FTP value was determined as the expected FTP value
given the ST cut-point value;  i.e., the conditional expectation was used  as
the regression function.) For example,  the 151 to 259 CID group has a
CO cut-point of 10476 ppm in  the idle-in-drive mode, which corresponds
to 18.4 grams/mile on the 75 FTP scale.  Columns 6  through  11 give the
predicted values for FF,  E ,  E  ,  STE, STRR, and E  /(E  + FF).
                          C    (J                    C*   C
Columns 12 and 13, the "FTP AVG" columns, give the mean FTP values
                                   3-12
-------
OJ
I

ST AND FLEET

CUT-POINT TECHNIQUE
AND PARAMETER VALUE"
NO. M
OF 0

\
\
\ SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY
^^V^.^FEOERAL S-MCDE 	 3oo c-
^^EC/(EC+FF) * 10% AND 2
CUT POINTS CORRECT



TABLE ANALYSIS — CO
R FLEET
0%;. EC/(EC + rF)= 10%
% % FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
S tt 60 STt STRR EC/IEC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION

ALL 300 H
300 L
300 D 12945.39

i i \
***** HKALlIt'AL SOLUTION DUES NOT EXIST *****. V x /
.**** PRACTICAL SOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST »•**« ^~^
22.45 24.59 2.73 31.24 0.44 0.49 0.10 12.66 44.93 0.4219
JUU N 15bl.b.3U 25.M3 20. au ^.31 Jb.14 O.J7 0.41 0.10 14.26 52.46 0.3761
CID <= 150 95 H »*•»» PRACTICAL SOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST «.*««
bt> L
95 D 79635.50
95 N 132754.13
33.33 6.11 0.68 38.69
60.99 2.93 0.33 41.87
0.14 0.15 0.10 16.54 24.49 0.2453
0.07 0.07 0.10 16.79 0.00 0.1667
151 TO 259 54 H «***• PARAMETRIC SOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST tn*t(j\
54 L •*••* PRACTICAL SOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST »,*««V^y
b4 u 1 U4 /b . 20
54 N 26790.04
£1U >= ^bO 1 bl H
151 L 12984.52
151 D 2936.66
1 bl N ^^ 29 f9.8B
ST CUT-POINT IN PPM
UNITS FOR FEDERALS-MODE,
GM/MI FOR FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
rr\i 1 1 \ l A I PMT rTD"\/AI \\C
EQUIVALtNl rlr VALUt
IN GRAMS/MILE


(T) SOLUTI ON FOUND WAS OF NO F
IMPORTANCE (ST FAILURE RAT
1% FOR HC, 2% FOR CO, AND 0.
(T) SOLUTI ON DOES NOT EX 1ST
28.32 15.26 1.70 44.19
50.90 4.71 0.52 54.12
15.23 41.01 4.56 18.90
lb.43 J9.9U 4.43 20.24
1

/
/ "
FA

'RACTICAL
LLb:) THAN
5% FOR NOV)
X
0.26 0.29 0.10 14.70 43.87 0.2812
0.08 0.09 0.10 25.34 82.22 0.1488
0.68 0.76 0.10 11.58 48.62 0.5617
0.66 0.74 0.10 ^^11.67 48.02 0.5443
^ i A
FTP MEAN OF VEHICLES
PASS ING THE ST

P MEAN OF THE VEHICLES
I LING THE ST

CONTINGENCY TABIE
CORRELATION INDEX
/ /
//
1 /
/
1



                              Figure 3-6.  Sample of Contingency Table Results
-------
for the vehicles which pass and fail the short test.  Thus,  for the 151 to
259 CID group,  the CO idle-in-drive test will fail vehicles with an average
FTP level of 37.21 grams/mile.  The last column contains the  contingency
table  correlation index as defined in Table 1-2  of Volume I.   For the cases
where practical solutions are not found,  appropriate messages  have been
printed.   The meaning of the messages is footnoted.
              The results are presented for each fleet first by pollutant
and then by the multiple-constituent test results.  The effects of engine
displacement and cut-point selection technique which are-described for each
pollutant are summarized in separate  sections.  Finally, a comparison of
the two fleets is made.
3.3. 1
3.3. 1. 1

as follows.
Analyses and Results for the 300-Car Fleet
Hydrocarbon Emission
The  results for both ST are given in Tables 35 through 48
ST Cut -point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
E /(E + FF) = 10%
c c
20%
Ec = 5%
STE = 0.60
0.70
0.80
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
Federal
Three-mode
36
38
40
42 •
44
46
48
                                   3-14
-------
              a)    STRR = 1.0: In the case of the Federal Short Cycle
(Table 35), the STE value ranges from 0.64 to 0.74 for the  CID groups and
is 0. 72 for the pooled fleet.  The cut-points vary slightly between CID groups
•with all the FTP equivalent cut-points below the FTP standard of 1. 5
grams/mile.  The difference between FTP means and ST passing and failing
vehicles ranges from 0.8 to 1.6 grams/mile for the  CID groups and is  1.3
grams/mile for the pooled fleet.
                    For the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 36), the
idle-in-drive mode uniformly has the highest STE value which ranges from
0. 53 to 0. 65 for the CID groups and is  0. 60 for the pooled fleet.  The
idle-in-drive ST cut-point varies from 97 to 138 ppm for  the CID groups
and is 112 ppm for the pooled fleet.  The equivalent FTP  value of the ST
cut-point is consistently below 1.5 grams/mile.  Similar trends are
present in the FTP means for ST passing and failing vehicles  as described
for the Federal Short Cycle.
                    The errors of commission are typically 9% for the
Federal Short Cycle and 13% for the Federal Three-mode.  The ratio
E /(E  + FF) was about 0. 3 for the Federal Short Cycle and about 0. 5
for the Federal Three-mode.
              b)    E  /(E  + FF) = 0. 1 and 0. 2:  The STE  and STRR value
was generally higher at the parametric value 0. 2 than at 0.  1 (Tables 37 to 40).
                    For the Federal Short Cycle, STE ranged from 0. 16 to
0.40 at 0.10  and 0.35 to 0.63 at 0.20.  Similar behavior is  observed in the
STRR value;  i. e., 0. 18 to 0. 45 at  0. 1 and 0. 44 to 0. 78 at 0. 2.  Errors of
commission were  typically in the neighborhood of 1% at 0. 1 and 4% at 0. 2
for the Federal Short Cycle.
                    In the case of the Federal Three-mode, the parameter
value of 0. 1 •was too low to yield cut-points  of practical importance.  The
parameter value of 0. 2 yielded ST cut-points for the  idle-in-drive mode
with typical STE and STRR of 0. 2 and 0. 2, respectively.  The E  rate was
approximately 1 to 2 percent.
                                   3-15
-------
              c)    E  = 5%:  The STE value for the Federal Short Cycle
                     c                                             '
ranges from 0. 49 to 0. 62 on the CID groups,  with 0. 67 to 0. 77 the corres-
ponding STRR range.  EC/(EC + FF) was  generally about 0.2 (Table 41).
                    For the Federal Three-mode, the idle-in-drive mode
was uniformly superior on the  basis of STE which ranged from 0.31  to 0.44.
The associated STRR varied from 0.47 to 0.60,  and E /(E  + FF) was
generally about  0.3 (Table 42).
              d)    STE = 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8: As the STE parameter value
       es, the ST cut-point decreases, which increases E ,  STRR,  and
       + FF).
                    For the Federal Short Cycle, the fleet STRR value
ranges from 0.77 to 1.20 as STE is varied from 0.6 to 0.8.  The corres-
ponding ranges of E  and E /(E  + FF) are 5. 3%  to 13. 2% and 0. 22 to 0. 34,
                   C      C   C
respectively. The 151 to 259 CID group had higher E ,  STRR, and
                                                   C
E  /(E + FF) than the other  two groups and the fleet average (Tables 43,
 C.   C
45, and 47).
                    The Federal Three-mode ST results  show the idle-in-drive
mode to be superior than other modes in the following respect:  for each
value of STE, E  and E  /(E  + FF) were simultaneously the lowest among
modes while maintaining relatively high STRR values.  The fleet value for
STRR ranges from 1.0 to 1.60,  from 12.7% to 25. 3% for E , from 0.40 to
0.  50 for Ec/(Ec + FF) as STE is varied from 0. 60 to 0. 80.  The trends
among CID groups are similar to those indicated  for the Federal Short Cycle
(Tables 44,  46,  and 48).
3.3.1.2       Carbon Monoxide Emission
              The results for both ST are  given in  Tables 49 through 62
as follows.
                                   3-16
-------
ST Cut-point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
E /(E + FF)= 10%
c c
20%
Ec = 5%
STE = 0.60
0.70
0. 80
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
49
51
53
55
57
59
61
Federal
Three-mode
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
              a)    STRR = 1.0: In the case of the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 49), the STE values  range from 0.75 to 0.85 for the  CID groups and
the value is 0. 82 for the pooled fleet. The ST cut-point for the  150 CID and
less group is twice as large as  the cut-point for the other groups, thus
producing relatively high values of E  (11.2%) and E  /(E  + FF) (0.25) for
                                    C              C   C
the 150 CID and less group.  This group had the lowest value of STE (0.75).
                    The Federal Three-mode ST results  (Table 50) show
the idle-in-drive mode to be uniformly the best in terms,  maximizing STE
while minimizing E and E  /(E  + FF).  Idle-in-drive STE  values ranged
                   G      C   C
from 0.68 to 0.83, while the pooled fleet value was 0.78.   Typical E  and
                                                                  G
E  /(E  + FF) were 12% and  0.22, respectively.  The ST cut-points for the
 C   C
idle-in-drive mode decrease, 5900 ppm to 1100 ppm, with .increasing  engine
displacement group.  Hence, the trends noted in the Federal Short Cycle
results are present in the Federal Three-mode  results.
              b)    E  /(E   -1- FF) =  0. 1 and 0. 2: The STE  and STRR  values
                      C   C
were generally higher at the parameter  value 0. 2 than at the value 0. 1
(Tables 51 to 54).
                                   3-17
-------
                    For the Federal Short Cycle ST, STE ranged from
0. 39 to 0. 77 at 0. 10 and 0. 65 to 0. 92 at 0. 20.  The corresponding STRR
values varied from 0. 44 to 0. 85 at 0. 1 and 0. 81 to 1. 15 at 0. 2.  The
150 CID and less group had the  lowest values of STE and STRR at each
parameter setting.  The E  rate was lowest for the 150 CID and less group,
with 2% at 0. 1 and 7% at 0. 2. The E  fleet average was  3. 8% at 0. 1 and
11.4% at  0. 2.
                    In  the case of the Federal  Three-mode ST,  the idle-
in-drive mode had the highest values of STE and STRR at each parameter
setting.  The  pooled fleet values of STE and STRR were respectively 0.44
and 0. 49 at 0. 1 and respectively 0. 73 and 0. 91  at 0. 2.  The 150 CID and
less group had the lowest STE and STRR  value  among the CID groups.
              c)    E  = 5%: The STE value for the Federal Short Cycle
                     c
ranges from 0. 57 to 0.  77 on the CID groups with 0. 68 to 0. 86 the
associated STRR range. E /(E  + FF) was typically about 0.1 (Table 55).
                          C    C
                    The Federal  Three-mode ST (Table 56) results show
the idle-in-drive to be uniformly superior on the basis of STE and STRR
which range from 0.41  to 0.70 and 0.52 to 0.79, respectively.
E  /(E  + FF) was generally about 0. 14.
                    For both ST,  the 150 CID and less group showed the
lowest STE and STRR values.
              d)    STE = 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8:  For the Federal Short Cycle
(Tables 57, 59,  and 61), the fleet  STRR value ranges from 0.66 to 0.96 as
STE is varied from 0. 6 to  0.8.  The corresponding ranges of E  and
E  /(E  +FF) are 3% to  11% and  0.09 to 0. 17, respectively.
                    The Federal Three-mode ST results (Tables 58,  60,
and 62)  show the  idle-in-drive mode to be superior to the other modes in
that for each value of STE, E  and E /(E  + FF) were  simultaneously the
lowest among modes while maintaining relatively high STRR values.  The
fleet value for STRR  ranged from  0.71  to 1.04,  from 5.9% to 13.4% for E  ,
and from 0.15 to 0. 23 for E  /(E  + FF) as STE was varied from 0. 60 to 0. 80.
                                   3-18
-------
                    For both ST,  the  150 CID and less group showed a lower
level of STRR and higher  levels of E  and E /(E  + FF) than the other CID
                                   t»      c   c
groups.
3.3.1.3       Oxides of Nitrogen  Emission
              The results for both ST are shown in Tables 63 through 76
as follows.
ST Cut-point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
E /(E + FF) = 10%
c c
20%
Ec = 5%
STE = 0.60
0.70
0.80
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
63
65
67
69
71
73
75
Federal
Three-mode
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
              a)    STRR =1.0:  In the case of the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 63),  the pooled fleet STE value is 0.67, with a corresponding EC of
6. 9% and E /(E  +FF)of0.33.
                    For the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 64),  the high
speed was  superior for the  CID groups except for the 151 to 259 CID group,
for which the low-speed mode was favorable.  Superiority was measured
on the basis of high STE,. low E , and low E  /(E  + FF).  The average STE
                              C           C   C
is about 0. 54, -with a corresponding E  rate of about 9%.
                    In general, only slight variations between CID groups
were observed for both ST.
                                   3-19
-------
              b)    E  /(E  + FF) = 0. 1 and 0. 2: The Federal Short Cycle
ST results (Tables 65 and 67) show the STE-and STRR fleet values to be
respectively 0. 27 and 0. 30 at 0. 1 and respectively 0. 46 and 0. 58 at 0. 2.
The corresponding E  rates are 0. 6% at 0. 1 and 2. 5% at 0. 2.  Only slight
variation in the STE and STRR values for the CID groups were observed.
                    Practical solutions  for the Federal Three-mode ST
were generally not found (Tables 66 and 68).  The maximum STE was 0. 19
and maximum STRR was 0. 23.
              c)    EC = 5%:  The STE value for the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 69)  ranges from 0. 54 to 0. 63 for  theCID groups with 0. 74 to 0. 95 the
corresponding STRR  range.  E  /(E   + FF) was generally about 0.3.
                              C    C
                    In the case of the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 70),
the high-speed mode -was superior,  on the basis  of STE  and STRR, for the
150 CID  and less group and the 260 CID and greater group.  The low-speed
mode -was best for the 151 to 259 CID  group.  The STE value ranges from
0. 34 to 0. 44 on the CID groups and is 0. 31 for the pooled fleet.  STRR
ranged from 0. 54 to 0. 74 on CID groups, with 0. 55  as the fleet value.
                    Generally, STRR and STE decreased with increasing
engine displacement in both of the ST  results.
              d)    STE = 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8: For  the Federal Short Cycle
(Tables 71, 73,  and 75), the fleet STRR  value ranges from 0.83 to 1.38 as
STE varies from 0.6 to 0.8.  The corresponding ranges of E  and
E  /(E + FF) are 4. 9% to 12. 3% and 0. 28  to 0. 42,  respectively.
  C   C
                    The Federal  Three-mode ST results (Tables 72,  74,
and 76) show the  low-speed mode to be superior  on the 151  to 259 CID group
and the high-speed mode to be superior on the remaining CID groups.  The
fleet values of STRR, E  , and E /(E  +  FF) range from 1.  38 to 2.29,  16.5%
                       C       C   C
to 31.4%, and 0.57 to 0.65, respectively.
                    Slight variation between CID group  values of STRR,  E ,
and E  /(E  + FF) are judged to be statistically non-significant.
                                   3-20
-------
3.3.1.4
as follows.
Multiple Constituent Tests
The results for both ST are given in Tables 77 through 90
ST Cut- point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
E /(E + FF) = 10%
c c
20%
Ec = 5%
STE = 0.60
0.70
0.80
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
Federal
Three-mode
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
              In the case of the Federal Three-mode, the "best" mode
combination used was HC and CO at idle-in-drive, and NOX at high speed,
which -was  selected on the basis  of the pooled fleet correlation coefficients.
              a)    STRR =1.0: In the  case of the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 77), the STE values ranged from 0. 82 to 0. 95 for the CID groups.
The associated STRR values ranged from 1.00  to 1.14.  E  and
E  /(E   + FF) were typically 12% and 0. 18.
  C   C
                    For the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 78),  the "best"
mode produced the lowest level of E   (7% to 13% on the CID gVoups), while
                                   G
maintaining relatively high STE  (0. 78 to  0. 83) and STRR (0.93 to 1. 02).
The idle-in-drive mode  generally had a slightly higher value of STE
(0. 78 to 0.86) and STRR (1. 03 to 1.05) at the expense of increased E
(13.3% to 15.8%).
                                   3-21
-------
              b)    E /(E  + FF) = 0.1 and 0.2: Practical ST cut-points
were  produced only for the case of Federal Short Cycle ST.  The pooled
fleet values of E ,  STE, STRR, and E  /(E + FF) were 2. 3%, 0.69,  0.72,
and 0. 05 at 0. 1  and 10. 7%,  0. 90,  1. 06,  and 0. 15 at 0. 2 (Tables 79 to 82).
              c)    E  = 5%:  The STE value for the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 83)  ranges from 0.76 to 0.90 on the CID groups with 0.78 to 1.02 the
corresponding STRR range.  The pooled fleet E  was 7%.
                    For the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 84), the "best"
mode was preferable with regard to lowest E   at the expense of  slightly
decreased  STE and STRR value from the maximum level -which was attained
on the idle-in-drive mode.  STE varied from  0.51 to 0.71 for  the CID groups
for the best mode,  while STRR values ranged from 0. 60 to 0.77. E  was
generally about  4%  on the "best" mode.
            .  d.)    STE = 0. 6, 0.7, and 0.8: For  the Federal  Short Cycle
ST (Tables 85,  87,  and 89), the fleet STE  value  ranged from 0.76 to 0.92
as the STE  parameter was varied from 0.6 to 0.8.   The corresponding
range for STRR  was 0.82 to 1. 14, for E  was .4% to 14%, and was 0.07 to
0. 19 for E  /(E  + FF).
          C   C
                    In the case of the Federal Three-mode ST (Tables 86,
88, and 90), STE values ranged from 0.77 to  0.92 on the "best" mode for
the pooled  fleet  as the STE parameter was varied from 0.6 to 0.8.
The corresponding  STRR and E  ranges were 0.94 to 1. 22  and 11% to 20%,
                              C
respectively.  On the idle modes, STE was 0.83 to 0.96, STRR  was 0.94
to 1.45,  and E   was 19% to 32%. E /(E  + FF)  ranged from 0. 18 to 0.34
on the pooled fleet.
3.3.1.5       Discussion of 300-Car Fleet Results
              In general,  decreasing the value of the ST cut-point for a
particular  pollutant will  increase the levels of E , FF, and E  + FF (the
                                               C            C
ST failure  rate). Notice that once the vehicle group is determined,
E + FF (FTP failure rate) is determined, since the FTP standards are
                                  3-22
-------
fixed at 1.5 grams/mile HC,  15.0 grams/mile CO, and 3.1 grams/mile NO  .
                                                                         .X
Alternatively, as any one of EC, FF, E + FF increases, so will the others.
Thus,  low values of the ST cut-point will produce high values for E  ,  STE,
and STRR, whereas high values of the ST  cut-point will produce low levels of
E  ,  STE, and STRR.  These facts and relationships are fundamental in
understanding and comparing the ST cut-point selection techniques.
              As an example, application of the technique STRR =1.0 for
a given pollutant results in the maximum level of EC and of STE allowable
under the constraint that the ST failure rate does not exceed the FTP
failure rate.  In the case  of the Federal Short Cycle ST, these maxima
were 9. 8% E  and 0. 82 STE for CO on the pooled fleet.  For the Federal
Three-mode ST,  the corresponding maxima were 12.4% E  and 0.78 STE
for CO idle-in-drive on the pooled fleet.   Hence,  if STRR is constrained
to a maximum of 1.0,  the  Federal Three-mode ST will not allow the CO
idle-in-drive STE value to be greater than 0.78.  Further, any ST cut-
point selected to  yield STE larger than 0. 78 will result in STRR being
larger than 1.0 and E   larger than 12.4%.
              The ST cut-points are summarized in Tables 91 and 92 for
the pooled 300-car fleet for the Federal Short Cycle ST and the Federal
Three-mode ST.   These tables  allow the techniques to be compared for
each pollutant by ranking the ST cut-point values  in descending order.
Hence,  for the Federal Short Cycle, the smallest CO cut-point of 4.51
grams/mile will have  rank 7, whereas the largest CO cut-point of 11.25
grams/mile will have  rank 1.  The higher the rank the  higher the E ,
STE, and STRR. .For the  previous illustration, E  , STE and STRR were
11.4%,  0.85, and 1.06,  respectively for the  rank 7 cut-point,  and were
3.1%,  0.60,  and 0.66,  respectively, for the  rank 1 cut-point.  Tables 93
and  94 show  the technique  ranks for each pollutant of the pooled fleet.  The
rank patterns are similar  for both ST, -which demonstrates a degree of
invariance with respect to the measuring methods.
                                   3-23
-------
              Theoretically, as the ST cut-point is decreased, the FTP
average emission for both the ST passing and failing vehicles will decrease
(providing the ST/FTP correlation is positive).  As cut-point values tend
to zero, the mean of the ST passing  vehicles tends to zero, and the mean of
the ST failing vehicles tends to  the population mean.  As the cut-point
values tend to infinity,  the mean of the ST passing vehicles tends to the
population mean, and the mean  of the ST failing vehicles theoretically
tends to infinity.  The minimum difference between the means of the ST
failing vehicles  and ST passing  vehicles is non-negative and is less than or
equal to the population mean.  The maximum difference is theoretically
unbounded.
              For the 300-car  fleet, these differences averaged about 1.25
grams/mile HC, 28.0 grams/mile CO,  and 1.37 grams/mile NOX in  the
case of the Federal Short Cycle, and about 1.05 grams/mile HC,  14.0
grams/mile CO, and 0.73 gram/mile NO  in the case of the Federal
Three-mode.  Although this difference between the means of the ST
passing and failing vehicles gives an indication of the expected reduction in
emissions, it does not account for the differing number of vehicles in the
passing and failing categories,  nor does it account for  credits due to
corrective maintenance, each of which may substantially alter the eventual
air quality benefits of a 207(b) program.
3.3.1.6       Parametric Variations
              Figures  3-7 through 3-9  illustrate respectively the  variation
of the cut-point  parameters for HC,  CO,  and NO , using the better modes
                                               .X
of the Federal Three-mode ST for the 300-car pooled fleet.  The results
for the Federal  Short Cycle are shown in  Figures  341 through 3-13.
              Each figure relates the variation of STRR, STE, E  , and
E  /(E +  FF) to cut-point value.  The specific cut-point techniques noted
  c.   c
above (STRR = 1. 0, E  = 5%, E  /(E   +  FF) = 0. 1 and 0. 2, and STE = 0. 6,
                     C         C    C.
0.7, and 0. 8) are delineated by black circles on the figures.  As can  be
seen, for each pollutant test, there is no  consistent variation of the results
                                   3-24
-------
    45 i-
    40
    35
    30
    25
o
o:
uu  nn
Q_  20


 O
    15
     10
     0
               \
\
              \
                                               -i 1.8
                                                  1.6
                                                  1.4
1.2
                                                  i.o  jj

                                                      ~~o
                                                      LU



                                                  0.8  2
                                                  0.6
                                                  0.4
                                                                  0.2
                                                                      OH

                                                                      \—
                                                                      CO
                100       200       300       400

                            CUT-POINT IN PPM
                                                  0
                                      500       600
        Figure 3-7.  Variation of Selected Parameters With HC

                     Cut-Point; 300 Car Fleet; Federal Three-

                     Mode ST; Idle in Drive Mode
                                 3-25
-------
    35,-
    30
    25
    20
o
C£
UJ
Q_


 O
    15
    10
\
                                                   STRR
             »

           EC+FF
                        1
I	I
                                            I
                                                       1.2
                                                       1.0
                                                       0.8
                                                            o
                                                           LU
                                                           a

                                                       0.6  <
                                                                    OH
                             0.4
                                                                0.2
              4000      6000      8000      10,000

                          CUT-POINT IN PPM
                                          12,000
        Figure 3-8.  Variation of Selected Parameters With CO

                     Cut-Point; 300 Car Fleet; Federal Three-
                     Mode ST; Idle in Drive Mode
                                  3-26
-------
     40 r-
    35
    30
    25
 STE
o
C£
LJJ
Q_
20
    15
    10
          STRR
                                                  1.6
1.4
                                                  1.2
                                                  1.0
                                                       0.8
                                                  0.6
                                                  0.4
                                                      0.2
                                                       LU

                                                       O
    l/D

    of
              2000      3000      4000

                      CUT-POINT IN PPM
                                       5000
   Figure 3-9.  Variation of Selected Parameters With NOX

                Cut-Point; 300 Car Fleet; Federal Three-

                Mode ST; High-Speed Mode
                            3-27
-------
3U



25


20
i—
UJ
0
Qi
£ 15
o
LU

10


5


o

CUT- POINT
SELECTION
TECHNIQUES*



—

—



—
STE = 0.8^^""
'"IT n 7
bit - u. /
crop = i n

err - n f\
bit - u. o
E = 5%
lc

STRR^




/
7
/I
/
/

E

t

1 f
\]

/. —

r
/
f



—
^
^
* BASED ON INDIVIDUAL CUT-POINTS /
FOR HC, CO, AND NOx FOR EACH /
TECHNIQUE /
s



\
0 0.2

EC/(EC + FF) /
s
1 1 1
0.4 0.6 0.8
w
f
—


1.4


1.2


1.0-
1 1
u_
LU
0.8 ~c
LU
O
^
C£
0.6 n


0.4

0.2

n
1.0
              STE
Figure 3-10.
Variation of Selected Parameters With STE on
Multiple Constituents Test; 300 Car Fleet;
Federal Three-Mode ST; Idle in Drive  Mode
              3-28
-------
o
o:
     35
     30
     25
     20
      15
      10
                          -11.4
                             1.2
                        \
                 I
I	I
                             1.0   g
                                                              o
                0.5       1.0       1.5      2.0
                    CUT-POINT IN GRAMS/MILE
                             0.8
                             0.6
                             0.4
                                                        0.2
                                                        0
                                                             UJ
                                                             oo
    Figure 3-11.  Variation of Selected Parameters With HC
                  Cut-Point; 300 Car Fleet; Federal Short
                  Cycle ST
                              3-29
-------
o
ce
UJ
Q_
 O
    35 i-
    30
    25
    20
    15
    10
     0
STE
             \
.    E
         EC+FF
                I          I         I   	I
                                      1.4
                                     1.2
                                      1.0 _
                                                             o
                                      0.8
                                      0.6
                                      0.4
                                                        0.2
                                            CO


                                            or"
                                            O£

                                            en
                5         7         9        11


                       CUT-POINT IN GRAMS/MILE
   Figure 3-12.  Variation of Selected Parameters  With CO

                 Cut-Point; 300 Car Fleet; Federal Short

                 Cycle ST
                             3-30
-------
LlJ
O
 o
      35
      30
      25
      20
      15
      10
\
                         STRR
1.4
                                     1.2
                                     1.0
                                     0.8
                                     0.6
                                     0.4
                                                        0.2
                                                             LU
                                                             CO
                2.0                3.0
                    CUT-POINT IN GRAMS/MILE
    Figure 3-13.  Variation of Selected Parameters With NOX
                  Cut-Point; 300 Car Fleet; Federal Short
                  Cycle ST
                              3-31
-------
30




25


20


i—
LU
O
°£ ir
£ 15
o
LU
10

5

0
PUT POIMT CTF -n n
— \j\j\ rUIIMI olt U. o
^FIFPTinM CTPP - 1 n
jCLtls 1 1 UIM o 1 KK 1. U
TFPHMiniiF^* '"rr n 7
ituniMivUto j 1 1 - U. / —
r rot
EC " 5%

bTE = 0. o
—
\
\ ' /
f / -
/STRR
i ' /
« BASED ON INDIVIDUAL CUT-POINTS /
FOR HC, CO, AND NOx FOR EACH / ~
~ TECHNIQUE / ,
t /_
c 7
/ -
/
/ f/ ~
C C ^.^^
1 1 1 1



1.4



1.2

1.0
LU
+
0
0.8 ^
o
Li_I
o .
0.6 |

0.4

0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
                           STE
Figure 3-14.  Variation of Selected Parameters  With STE on
              Multiple Constituents Test; 300 Car Fleet;
              Federal Short Cycle
                           3-32
-------
of the techniques STRR = 1.0,  E  = 5%, E  /(E + FF) =  0. 1 or 0.2,  and
                               C        C   C
STE = 0.6,  0.7,  or 0.8.  Of these techniques,  STRR =1.0 consistently
produces the highest STE values if the constraint is imposed that it
would be undesirable to fail more cars with the ST  than failed the FTP.
              It would thus appear desirable to use the STRR parameter
as the basis for selecting the ST cut-points for each pollutant.   The other
parameters are then uniquely determined for each vehicle test group and
pollutant.  The remaining policy decision would be  the value of STRR to use
in cut-point determination.   Although a value of 1.0 was used in the present
analysis,  values less than 1.0 could be used as well, depending upon the
needs of the inspection program to be implemented.
              The multiple-constituent test results are  shown in Figures
3-10 and 3-14 for  the Federal Three-mode idle-in-drive and the  Federal
Short Cycle, respectively.  Each of these figures relates the variation of
STRR, E  ,  and  E /(E  + FF) to STE.
     *   f> *       *-%**-•      *
3.3.2
3.3.2.1

as follows.
   c' '  c
Analyses and Results for the  117-Car Fleet
Hydrocarbon Emission
The  results for both ST are shown in Tables 95 through 108,
ST Cut-point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
EC/(EC + FF) = 10%
20%
Ec = 5%
STE = 0.60
0.70
0.80
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
95
97
99
101
103
105
107
Federal
Three -mode
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
                                   3-33
-------
              a)    STRR = 1.0: In the case of the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 95),  the STE value ranges from 0.75 to 0.90 for the  CID groups and
is 0. 87 for the pooled fleet.  E  and E /(E  + FF) were generally about
                              c*      c   c
9% and 0.13, respectively.
                    For  the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 96), the E ,
E  /(E  + FF),  and STE pooled fleet values varied only slightly between
modes, so that no mode could be singled out as giving the highest parameter
values.  For the CID groups on the basis of STE value,  the  low-speed mode
is best for the two  smaller engine groups, while the  idle-in-neutral appears
best for the 260 CID and greater group.  The other modes are, however,
quite similar in STE  value and the associated level of E  and E  /(E  + FF).
A  typical STE value is about 0. 8, 13% for E , and 0. 2 for E /(E  + FF).
                                          C               C    C
The  260 CID and greater  group had the largest STE value (0.86) with the 151
to 259 CID group having the smallest (0.78).
                    In  general,  the performance of both ST was weaker for
the 151 to 259 CID  group  than for the other groups.  However, this group
contains 18 vehicles, which subjects the group estimates to rather high
degrees of uncertainty; i.e., large standard error of the estimate.
              b)    E  /(E  + FF) =0.1 and 0. 2:  For the Federal Short
                     C   C
Cycle ST (Tables 97 and 99), the STE value  ranged from 0.33 to 0.89 at the
parameter setting 0. 1 and from 0. 63 to 0.99 at 0. 2.   Similarly, the STRR
values ranged from 0. 37  to  0.99 at 0. 1 and 0.79 to 1. 24 at 0. 2.   Errors of
commission were typically 6%  at 0. 1 and 16% at 0. 2.
                    In  the case of the Federal Three-mode (Tables 98 and
100), the parameter value of 0. 1 was too low to yield a practical ST for the
151 to 259  CID group.  For  the pooled fleet, however, the low-speed mode
was  slightly higher in both STE and  STRR values  (0.48 and 0.53,
respectively) than for the idle-in-neutral mode.   For the parameter value
0.2, these values nearly  doubled.  The trend in "best" mode for CID
groups is the same as above in paragraph 3.3.2. la.
                                   3-34
-------
              c)    E  = 5%: The STE value for the Federal Short Cycle
                     c
ranges (Table 101) from 0. 50 to 0. 84 on the CID groups with 0. 60 to 0. 91
the corresponding STRR range.  E  /(E  + FF) was generally about 0. 10.
The 151 to 259 CID group yielded the lowest combined STE and STRR
values,  0.50 and 0.60,  respectively.
                    For the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 102), the STE
value ranges from 0. 47 to 0. 74 on the best mode for each CID group.
Corresponding STRR values were 0. 54 to 0. 81.  "Best" mode and CID
group trends are the same as discussed  in 3.3.2. la.
              d)    STE = 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8:  The  pooled fleet STRR
values for the Federal Short Cycle ST (Tables 103,  105, and 107) ranged
from 0. 63 to 0. 88 as STE was varied from 0. 6 to 0. 8.  The corresponding
ranges of E  and E /(E  + FF) were 1.7% to 5. 7% and 0. 04 to 0. 09,
           C      C    C
respectively.  The  151  to 259 CID group had higher  E  , STRR,  and
                                                   C
E  /(E   +  FF) than did the other two CID groups.
                    In the case of the Federal Three-mode ST (Tables
104, 106, and 108),  mode superiority is not strongly indicated by the
results.  The STRR value typically was 0.7 to 1.00  as STE was varied
from 0.6  to 0.8. The 151 to 259 CID group generally displayed higher
levels of E  and E  /(E 4- FF) for a fixed value of STE.
          C      C  "  C
3.3.2.2      Carbon Monoxide Emission
              The  results for both ST are given in Tables 109 through 122
as follows.
                                  3-35
-------
ST Cut -point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
E /(E + FF) = 10%
20%
Ec = 5%
STE = 0.60
0.70
0.80
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
109
111
113
115
117
119
121
Federal
Three-mode
110
112
114
116
118
120
122
              a)    STRR =1.0: In the case of the Federal Short Cycle
ST (Table 109),  the STE values range from 0.92 to 0.97 for the CID groups
and is 0.96 for the pooled fleet.  The 260 CID and greater group showed
lower levels of E   (2.6%)and E /(E  + FF) (0.03) than the other engine
displacement groups.
                    For the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 110), the
idle modes have slightly higher STE values than the other modes. The
range of STE values by CID group is  0.91 to 0.96.  The E  and E /(E  +  FF)
                                                       c       c    c
values (4% and 0. 04,  respectively) for the 151 to 259 CID group were about
half those of the other CID groups.  The ST cut-points for the idle-in-drive
mode decreases from  1900 ppm to  300 ppm •with increasing engine
displacement group.
              b)    E  /(E  + FF)  = 0.1 and 0. 2:  No solutions exist for the
                      C   C*
parameter setting 0.2, since the predicted FTP pass .rate is less than 16% on
all groups.  Isolated solutions  existed for the parameter value of 0. 10,
however, no practical ST would result (see Tables 111 to 114).
              c)    EC = 5%:  The STE value (Table 115) for the Federal
Short Cycle ranges from 0.88 to 1.00 on the CID groups, with 0.94 to 1.05
the associated STRR range.  E  /(E  + FF) was typically about 0.06.
                              C    C
                                   3-36
-------
                    The Federal Three-mode ST idle modes (Table 116)
were slightly superior on the basis of STE and STRR which ranged from
0.87 to 0.99 and 0.93 to 1.04,  respectively.  E  /(E  + FF) was generally
                                             c   c
about 0.06.
                    For both ST,  the 151 to 259 CID and less group showed
the lowest STE and STRR values.
              d)    STE  = 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8:  For the Federal Short Cycle
ST  (Tables 117, 119, and 121), the fleet STRR value  ranges from 0.60 to
0.81 as STE is varied from 0.6 to 0.8.  The corresponding  ranges of E
and E  /(E + FF) are 0.2% to 0.9% and 0.0 to 0.01,  respectively.
                    The Federal Three-mode results (Tables 118,  120,
and 122) slightly favor the idle modes.  This is  based upon the relatively
small variation in STRR between modes and upon E  and E /(E + FF)
                                                 c       c   c
being the lowest among the idle modes.  The fleet value of STRR ranged
from about 0. 6 to about 0. 8,  from 1. 5% to 3% for E , and 0. 03 to 0. 04 for
Ec/(Ec+ FF).
3.3.2.3
as follows.
Oxides of Nitrogen Emission
The results for both ST are shown in Tables 123 through 136,
ST Cut-point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
EC/(EC + FF) = 10%
20%
Ec = 5%
STE = 0.60
0.70
0.80
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
123
125
127
129
131
133
135
Federal
Three-mode
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
                                   3-37
-------
              a)    STRR =1.0:  In the case of the Federal Short Cycle
ST (Table 123),  the STE value ranges from 0.49 to 0.83 in the CID groups
with the 260 CID and greater group having the lowest STE  value.  E  varied
from 1. 3% to 2% and E  /(E + FF) ranged from 0. 14 to 0. 51.
                    On the basis of STE value (Table 124), the high-speed
mode of the Federal Three-mode ST showed the highest level, 0. 29 to 0. 49
on the CID groups. The average E  and E  /(E  + FF) were about  2% and
0.65, respectively.  The 260 CID and greater group had the lowest value of
STE, 0.29 on the high-speed mode.
              b)    E  /(E  + FF)  = 0.1 and 0.2:  Practical solutions were
                     c    c
found for all displacement groups only in the case of the Federal Short
Cycle ST (Table 127) when the parameter was set at 0. 2.  For this case,
STE was 0. 28 on the pooled fleet and ranged from 0. 13 on the 260 CID and
greater group to 0.85 on the 151 through 259 CID group (see Tables 125 to 128).
              c)    E  = 5%:  The STE value for the Federal-Short Cycle ST
(Table 129) ranges from 0.69 to 0.97 on the CID groups,with  1.62 to 1.93 the
corresponding STRR range.  E /(E -t- FF) •was in the neighborhood of about 0. 50.
                    In the case of the Federal Three-mode ST  (Table 130),
the high-speed mode was superior  on the basis of STE value which ranged
from 0.39  on the 260 CID and greater groups to 0.62 on the 150 CID and less
group.  The STRR value ranges from 0.93 to  1.63 for the  high-speed mode.
              d)    STE =  0.6, 0.7,  and 0.8: For the Federal Short  Cycle
(Tables 131, 133,  and  135), the fleet STRR value ranges from 1.06 to 1.98 as
STE varies from 0.6 to 0. 8. The corresponding ranges of E   and E /(E  + FF)
                                                          C      C    C
are 2.6% to 6.7% and 0.43 to 0.60, respectively.
                    The Federal Three-mode ST results  (Tables 132,  134,
and 136) show the high-speed mode as superior in that the lowest level of E
was  obtained for a fixed STE setting.  The STRR values were all greater than
1.0 and generally  smallest  for  the  high-speed mode.
                                   3-38
-------
3.3.2.4
as follows.
Multiple Constituent Tests
The results for both ST are given in Tables 137 through 150,
ST Cut-point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
E /(E + FF) = 10%
20%
Ec = 5%
STE = 0.60
0.70
0.80
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
137
139
141
143
145
147
149
Federal
Three -mode
138
140
142
144
146
148
150
              In the case of the Federal Three-mode, the "best" mode
combination, which was selected on the basis of the correlation coefficient,
was the low-speed mode for all three pollutants.
              a)    STRR = 1.0: In the case of the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 137),  the  STE values ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 for the CID groups.
The collective STRR value ranges from 0.90 to 1.07 for the CID groups.
Typical E  and E /(E  + FF) values  were 4% and 0.03, respectively.
         c       c   c
                     For the Federal Three-mode ST (Table 138), the value
of STE routinely exceeded 0.90.  Typical range of the STRR value was 0.93
to 0. 97 on the pooled fleet.  The "best" mode achieved the  lowest amount of
E  and lowest level of E  /(E  + FF)  while maintaining a high STE (0. 87 to
  C                     C   C
0.98) and restricting STRR to below 1.0 (0.93 to 0.97).
                                   3-39
-------
              b)    E  /(E + FF) = 0.1 and 0.2: Practical multiple -
constituent tests were not identified for either ST (see Tables 139 to  142).
              c)    E  = 5%:  The STE value for the Federal Short Cycle ST
(Table 143)  ranges from 0.90 to 1.0 on the CID groups, with 0.90 to  1.07
the corresponding STRR range.  The pooled fleet E  was 6%, with
Ec/(Ec + FF) at 0.06.
                    For the Federal Three-mode ST (Table  144), the "best"
mode was preferable with regard to low E  and E /(E  + FF), where they
                                        C       C    C
ranged from 0% to  5.5% and 0.0 to 0.08,  respectively, while STE and STRR
both ranged from 0.71 to  0.84.   The idle modes showed superiority with
regard to higher STE and STRR, where they respectively varied from 0. 72
to 1. 00 and  0. 80 to 1. 04,  while E  varied from 3% to 7. 6%.
              d)    STE  = 0.6,  0.7, and 0.8:  For the Federal Short Cycle
ST (Tables 145, 147, and 149),  the fleet STE value  ranged from 0.77 to 0.90
as the STE parameter was varied from 0.6 to 0.8.   The corresponding
range for STRR was 0. 77 to 0. 92,  for E  was  0% to 1.7%,  and was 0. 0 to
0.02 for E /(E  + FF).
          C   C
                    In the case of the Federal Three-mode ST (Tables 146,
148, and 150), STE values ranged from 0.84 to 0.92 on the "best" mode for
the pooled fleet  as the STE parameter  was varied from 0.6 to 0.8.
The corresponding STRR  and E  ranges were 0. 87 to 0. 94  and 0% to  2. 5%.
On the idle modes,  STE was 0.83 to 0.95, STRR was 0.88  to 1.04, and E
was 4. 3%  to 7.7%.
3.3.2.5       Discussion  of 117-Car Fleet Results
              For a general discussion of the interrelationships of STE,
STRR, E  , and ST cut-points,  see Section 3.3.1.5.
              Tables 151 and 152 summarize the ST cut-point by selection
technique for the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal Three-mode,
respectively.  The corresponding policy ranks (refer to Section  3.3.1.5)
are given in Tables 153 and 154.
                                   3-40
-------
              The differences between the mean FTP levels of ST passing
vehicles and ST failing vehicles averaged about 1.6 grams/mile HC, 38
grams/mile  CO, and 2.0 grams/mile NO  in the case of the Federal Short
                                        2t
Cycle, and •were 1.2 grams/mile HC,  28.0 grams/mile CO, and 1.4
grams/mile  NO  in the case of the Federal Three-mode.
               j£
3.3.2.6       Parametric Variations
              Figures 3-15 through 3-18  and Figures 3-19 through 3-22
illustrate the variation of the cut-point parameters for the Federal
Three-mode and the Federal Short Cycle,  respectively.  See Section
3.3.1.6 for a general discussion  of trends.
3.4           207(b) IMPLEMENTATION SIMULATION ANALYSES
              The simulation computer programs described in Section 6 of
Volume I were used to estimate the differences in air quality benefit
resulting from 207(b)  implementation under various ST cut-point selection
techniques.  The results of the analyses  are reported below, first for  the
300-car fleet and then the  117-car fleet.
3.4.1         Simulations Based Upon 300-Car Fleet
              The program components,  specific assumptions, and
initializing data are described in  Section 6. 2 of Volume I.  Two ST were
analyzed, the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal Three-mode, using HC
and CO at the idle-in-drive mode and NO   at the  high-speed mode.  The
                                        5£
emission deterioration rates and  annual mileage  accumulation schedule
are shown in Tables 135 and 136 of Volume I.   The initial computer-
generated fleet  consisted of  3000  vehicles stratified into three engine
displacement families, as previously defined.  The  initial fleet statistics
are shown in Table 155.
              A 207(b) program was simulated by assuming various ST as
determined by cut-point selection techniques.  The technique E /(E  + FF)
                                                              c*    c
= 0. 1 or 0.2 did not always  yield practical cut-points and therefore was
eliminated from the simulation analyses  for both ST.  The primary
                                   3-41
-------
       30 i-
UJ
Q_
 O
      25
      20
      15
      10
       0
-  \ STRR
- VSTE
           EC+FF
                                     I
                 100        150       200

                         CUT-POINT IN PPM
                                    250
                                                1.2
1.0
0.8  +
                                                               o
                                                0.6
                                                0.4
                                                         0.2
                                                              on
                                                              00
    Figure 3-15.  Variation of Selected Parameters With HC
                   Cut-Point; Denver Fleet; Federal Three-
                   Mode ST; Idle in Drive Mode
                              3-42
-------
o

LU
Q_
    35
    30
    25
    20
    15
    10
                        STE
     0
            I
                                               EC+FF
                        	h —
                                     1.4
                                     1.2
                                     1.0
                                     0.8
                                                                        o
                                     0.6  <
                                          LU
                                          t—
                                          00





                                     0.4  £








                                     '0.2
          1000      2000
 3000      4000      5000


CUT-POINT IN PPM
6000
          Figure 3-16.  Variation of Selected Parameters With CO

                         Cut-Point; Denver Fleet; Federal Three-

                         Mode ST; Idle in Drive Mode
                                    3-43
-------
35
\
       1.4

30
25
20
15
10
        •%

      STRR\
       1.2
t
\
                    1.0
                    0.8
                    0.6
                    0.4
                                                                0.2
                                                                    CO
            I	I         I          I
     I         I
          1400      1600      1800      2000     2200      2400
                           CUT-POINT IN PPM
     Figure 3-17.  Variation of Selected Parameters With NOX
                   Cut-Point;  Denver Fleet; Federal Three-
                   Mode ST; High-Speed Mode
                               3-44
-------
25
20

i—
ul 15
0 ij
on
UJ
Q_
uP
10

5
0
PUT pniMT f rTF - n o>
LUI'rUIIMI bit -U.o^
TI PPTI r>M **Tr - n 7
btLtLI IUIM bit - U. /
TFrHMIOIIF0* - CTF - n fi
	 1 tLnlMiyUtb bit U. 0
rjpp - i f|
bl KK - l.U 	
r _ rn*
k EC - 5%
\
/-
STR\j/
—

* BASED ON INDIVIDUAL
CUT-POINTS FOR HC,
CO, AND NOX FOR
EACH TECHNIQUE -
V
/ -
E J(Er + FF) ^_
L> L> ^^
II 1 1
) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
                                                 -il.4
                                                 Hl.2
                                                 Hi.o
                                                 Ho.s
                                                 H0.6
                                                 Ho.4
                                                 Ho.2
                                                   0
                                                       UJ
                                                       on
                                                       en
                           STE
Figure 3-18.  Variation of Selected Parameters With STE on

              Multiple Constituents Test; Denver Fleet;

              Federal Three-Mode ST; Idle in Drive Mode
                          3-45
-------
LlJ
Q_
 O
    351-
    30
    25
    20
    15
    10
I
\
  Y
           x
         Ej.FF
                I         1         I         I
              0.75      1.0      1.25      1.50

                  CUT-POINT IN GRAMS/MILE
                                          1.2
                                          1.0
                                          0.8
0.6
0.4
                                                       0.2
                                                            o
                                                           LU

                                                           Ci
                                                           CO
   Figure 3-19.  Variation of Selected Parameters With HC
                 Cut-Point; Denver Fleet; Federal Short
                 Cycle ST
                             3-46
-------
    351—
    30
    25
    20
o
LLJ
0_
 o  15
i I   *••*
    10
                    6         8        10
                 CUT-POINT IN GRAMS/MILE
                                                     -i 1.4
                                                        1.2
                                                        1.0
                                                        0.8  ^
                                                             o
                                                           LLJ
                                                           Q
                                                        0.6
                                                        0.4
                                                       0.2
                                                           oo
   Figure 3-20.  Variation of Selected Parameters With CO
                 Cut-Point; Denver Fleet; Federal Short
                 Cycle ST
                             3-47
-------
C£
LLJ
Q_
    45 i-
    40
    35
    30
    25
20
    15
    10
                   vSTRR
-i 1.8
   1.6
   1.4
   1.2
  1.0  . p
                                                       0.8
   0.6
   0.4
                                                       0.2
        o
       LLJ

       O
       Z
       <
       LLJ

       GO

       OZ
       o;
       v—
       00
          2.5       3.0       3.5      4.0       4.5

                  CUT-POINT IN GRAMS/MILE

   Figure 3-21.  Variation of Selected Parameters With NOX
                 Cut-Point; Denver Fleet; Federal Short"
                 Cycle ST
                              3-48
-------
                CUT-POINT
                SELECTION
                TECHNIQUES'
    25 1-
    20
    15
o

LU
Q_


 O
    10
                    EC    = 5%
                    STRR"= i.o
                    STE   = 0.8
                    STE   • 0.7
                   LSTE   = 0.6
                                    STRR-
'BASED ON INDIVIDUAL CUT-POINTS
 FOR  HC,  CO. AND NOX FOR
 EACH TECHNIQUE
                                  EC/(EC+FF)
      0
     0.2
0.4       0.6      0.8

    STE
  1.4
                                                      1.2
                                            1.0
                                                     0.8
                                                           o
  °'6  2
      o:
      i—
      CO
                                                     0.4
                                                     0.2
1.0
 Figure 3-22.  Variation of Selected Parameters With STE on

               Multiple Constituents Test; Denver  Fleet;

               Federal Short Cycle
                            3-49
-------
techniques studied for both ST were STRR = 1.0, E  = 5%,  and STE = 0.60.
                                                  c
The techniques STE =0.7 and STE = 0.8 •were generally discarded on the
basis of STRR exceeding 1.0 for one or more engine families on at least
one of the ST.  The  effects of varying STE are  investigated on a  limited
basis in Section 3.4.1.3.
3.4.1.1      Effects of Cut-point Selection Technique
              For each technique studied and each ST simulated, all
maintenance model versions  (1,  2, and 3) were  simulated with periods of
effectiveness of 12,  9,  and 6 months on each version, as previously
discussed in Section 6. 2. 4 of Volume I.
              a)    STRR =1.0: The ST cut-points are  shown in Tables
156 and 158 for the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal Three-mode,
respectively. The associated FTP values equivalent to the 207(b)
cut-points  (see Section 3.2) are given in Tables 157 and 159.  If the FTP
equivalent  of the  respective ST cut-point fell below the corresponding FTP
standard, the FTP standard •was taken as the FTP emission level after
maintenance. Hence,  for this set of cut-points,  Tables 157 and  159 merely
contain the FTP standards.  The  simulation results are shown .in Tables
160 and 161, respectively, for the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal
Three-mode. Two efficiencies have been reported.  The efficiency "over
program life" is  based upon the accumulated emissions since the first
inspection,  and does not include the first year of operation.  The efficiency
"over fleet life" is based upon the accumulated emissions over the entire
50, 000 miles, and does include the first year of operation.  Since the
inspection  and maintenance program (as simulated)  does  not affect
emissions  in the first year of operation, the efficiencies  over fleet life are
less than those over program life by about 25% in the case of STRR  =  1.0.
                    The estimated HC and CO efficiencies are slightly higher if
the Federal Short Cycle as opposed to the Federal Three-mode is used to
test vehicles. The difference is about 1% on the average for HC and CO.
NO efficiencies are small and variable in nature.   This  is due to the
                                   3-50
-------
stochastic behavior of the inspection model and the fact that NO  deterioration
                                                             .X
has been taken to be zero.  The efficiencies are equal for maintenance
version 2 and version 3 for both the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal
Three-mode,  since the FTP equivalent cut-points •were held at the FTP
standard on version 3.  The Federal Three-mode  "over program life"
efficiency at 50, 000 miles is 40%  for HC and ranges from 44% to 50% for CO,
using a 12-month period of effectiveness. The corresponding efficiency at
the end of the first year of the program is 27% for HC and  ranges from 34%
to 40% for CO.  Maintenance version 1 generally had the higher CO efficiency,
while versions 2 and 3 were lower.
                    The  fact that the CO efficiency is reduced on maintenance
versions 2 and 3 illustrates that CO alone is not enough to  completely char-
acterize the HC and CO state of a vehicle, although they are highly correlated.
The fact that efficiencies decrease with decreasing periods of effectiveness
supports the intuitive relation that longer-lasting repairs  result in larger
emission reductions.
              b)    E  =  5%:  The ST cut-points are shown in Tables 162
                      c
and 164 for the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal Three-mode,
respectively,  with the associated  FTP equivalent cut-points  shown in
Tables  163 and 165.  The  simulation results are given in Table  166 for the
Federal Short Cycle and Table 167 for the Federal Three-mode.
                    The  Federal  Short Cycle  shows slight superiority over
the Federal Three-mode  when comparing HC and CO efficiencies.  The
average difference in efficiency is 2% to  3% on both HC  and CO.  The "over
fleet life" efficiencies are about 25% lower than  the "over program life"
efficiencies.  The first year of program  efficiencies for the Federal Three-
mode ranges from 21% to  23%  for HC and 28% to 34% for CO using a 12-month
period of effective maintenance.  The corresponding  50, 000-mile
efficiencies range from 33% to 35% for HC and from 38% to 44% for CO.
NO  efficiency was usually less than 1%.
                                    3-51
-------
               c)    STE = 0.6:  The ST cut-points and their FTP
equivalent values are shown in Tables  168 and 169 for the Federal Short
Cycle and Tables 170 and  171 for the Federal Three-mode.  The simulation
results are given in Tables 172 and 173 for the Federal Short Cycle and
Federal Three-mode, respectively.
                    The Federal Three-mode is slightly superior in
predicted efficiency than the Federal Short Cycle.  One explanation for this
reversal in ST superiority is the  relative difference of the FTP equivalent
cut-points for the two ST.   Comparing Tables 169 and 171  shows that the
Federal Three-mode ST cut-points in equivalent FTP units are uniformly
less than  or equal to the Federal  Short Cycle cut-points.  Hence  the
Federal Three-mode ST •will show an increased benefit for maintenance
version 3, since the adjusted values of the maintenance will be lower than
for the Federal Short Cycle.
                    The difference in HC and CO efficiencies between the
two short tests  is about 1% for both pollutants.   The Federal Three-mode
first-year efficiencies  "over program life" using a 12-month period of
effectiveness varied from  30% to  37% on CO and was  25% for HC.  The
corresponding  50, 000-mile efficiencies were 38% HC and 41% to  48% for  CO.
NOX efficiency was generally less than 1%.
3.4.1.2       Effect of Varying STE
              A series of simulations  was performed for maintenance
version 3  at a 12-month period of effectiveness to investigate the program
efficiencies at higher levels of STE.   Both the Federal Short Cycle and
Federal Three-mode short tests were used, taking cut-points as  determined
by the selection techniques STE = 0.6,  0. 7,  and 0. 8 for each pollutant.  The
various ST cut-points and  their respective FTP  equivalent values are
shown in Tables 168 through 181.   The simulation results are summarized
in Table 182.
                                   3-52
-------
              The difference in efficiency for HC and CO between the two
ST is less than 1%.  Clearly, as the STE is increased, so are the program
efficiencies. As STE  changes from 0.6 to 0.8, the Federal Three-mode
first-year efficiency varies from 25% to 29% HC, 30% to 35% CO over the
program life.  The corresponding 50,000-mile efficiencies range from 38%
to 42% HC,  and 40% to 46% CO over the program life.
3.4.1.3       I/M Program vs. 207(b) Program
              To investigate the differences between I/M programs
(simulated to reflect the use of cut-points based upon the pooled fleet) and
207(b) programs  (cut-points  based upon engine families within the fleet),
a series of computer runs was performed using maintenance version 3
•with a 12-month period of maintenance effectiveness.  The I/M ST cut-
points are shown in Tables 183 and 185 for the Federal Short Cycle and
the  Federal Three-mode, respectively.  The corresponding FTP equivalent
values are shown in Tables 184 and 186.   The  simulation results are
shown in Table 187.
              The general trends observed for the  207(b) simulations were
present for  I/M programs.   That is, the Federal Short Cycle results in
greater air  quality benefit for the techniques STRR  =1.0 and E   = 5%,
while the Federal Three-mode results in greater air quality benefit for
the  technique STE = 0.6.
              For STRR = 1.0, the difference  in HC and CO efficiencies
between I/M and 207(b) programs is negligible for both ST.   For E  = 5%,
the  maximum difference is about 1% (for CO) on both ST.  For STE = 0.6,
the  difference for HC and CO is less than 1% for  both ST.
3.4.2        Simulations Based Upon 117-Car Fleet
              Simulations of a 207(b) program were performed, based
upon the data collected from the 117  cars in Denver. Both the Federal
Short Cycle and the Federal Three-mode using HC and CO idle-in-drive
and NO  at the high speed were simulated. The emission deterioration
       X.
                                   3-53
-------
rate and annual mileage accumulation assumptions are  shown in Tables
135 and 136 of Volume I.  The computer-gene rated fleet consisted of
3000 vehicles stratified into three engine displacement  families, as
previously defined.  The initial fleet statistics  are given in Table 189.
               The ST cut-point techniques studied were STRR = 1.0,
E  = 5%,  and STE = 0. 6.  For each technique and each  ST,  all three
maintenance models were used with periods of  effectiveness of  12, 9, and
6 months, as described in Section 6. 2.4 of Volume I.
               a)    STRR = 1.0: The ST cut-points are shown in Tables
190 and 192 for the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal Three-mode,
respectively.  The associated FTP values equivalent to the 207(b) cut-
points  are given in Tables 191 and 193. The simulation results are given
in Tables 194 and 195.
                    The Federal Short Cycle is slightly superior to the
Federal Three-mode by about 1% over the fleet life and about 3% over the
program life for  HC and CO.   Maintenance version 3 yielded more con-
servative efficiencies,  •while version 1 yielded  the highest values.  The
"over fleet life" efficiencies were about 40%  less than the "over program
life" efficiencies.  The Federal Three-mode first-year efficiencies over
the program life  range  from 32% to 36% for HC and 33% to 47% for CO for
a 12-month  period of effectiveness.  The corresponding 50,000-mile
efficiencies range from 42% to 46% for HC and  40% to 55% for CO.   The
effect of reducing the period of maintenance effectiveness to six months
was to reduce the efficiencies  by approximately 50%.
               b)    E   = 5%:» The ST  cut-points and their equivalent values
in FTP units are shown  in Tables 196 and 197 for the Federal Short Cycle
and Tables 198 and 199 for the Federal Three-mode. The simulation
results are  shown in Tables  200 and  201.
                    The Federal Short Cycle is slightly superior to the
Federal Three-mode for HC and CO by about 4% over fleet life and about
                                   3-54.
-------
6% to 8% over program life.  The "over fleet life" efficiencies were about
30% less than the "over program life" efficiencies.  The Federal Three-mode
first-year efficiencies over the program life range from 25% to 30% for HC
and 25% to 41% for CO, using a 12-month period of maintenance effectiveness.
The corresponding 50, 000-mile efficiencies range from 36% to 41% for HC
and 33% to 48% for CO.
              c)    STE = 0.6:  The ST  cut-points and their equivalent FTP
values are given in Tables  202 and 203 for  the Federal Short Cycle and
Tables 204 and 205 for the  Federal Three-mode.  The simulation results
are shown in Tables 206 and 207.
                    The Federal Short Cycle is slightly superior to the
Federal Three-mode for HC and CO by approximately 2% over fleet life
and 2% to 4% over program life. The "over fleet life" efficiencies were
about 40% less than the "over program life" efficiencies.   The Federal
Three-mode first-year efficiencies over the program life  range from 25%
to 31% for HC and 26% to 42% for CO, using a 12-month period of
maintenance effectiveness.  The corresponding 50, 000-mile efficiencies
range from 35% to  41% for  HC and  33% to 50% for  CO.
3. 4. 3         Discussion of Simulation Results
              The first-year efficiencies for both fleets are summarized
in Table  208 for maintenance version 3.  The techniques having the higher
efficiencies on HC  and CO usually had the higher ranks (Tables 94 and 154).
Efficiencies were usually higher for the  117-car fleet than for the 300-car
fleet.  For STRR =1.0 and EC = 5%, the higher  HC efficiencies for the
117-car fleet are possibly explained by the higher level of HC STE on the
117-car fleet.  As  noted in Section 3. 3, the high STE in the 117-car fleet
is primarily an  altitude effect in that nearly 90% of.the high-altitude vehicles
fail the FTP, whereas 60% of the low-altitude vehicles fail the FTP.  For
STE = 0.7, the error of omission rate for the 117 cars is  approximately
twice that of the 300-car fleet for each engine family stratum.
                                   3-55
-------
              The maximum difference between the efficiencies with
varying periods of maintenance effectiveness is about 10% for HC and 14%
for CO on the 300-car fleet and 12% for HC and 14% for CO on the  117-car
fleet.
              If the techniques are ranked by their efficiency in ascending
order, then the  ranks would show the same ordering of the techniques,
as given in Tables 94 and 154 for  each  of the fleets.
                                   3-56
-------
              4.  SHORT TEST CORRELATION ANALYSES ON
           1974 MODEL YEAR AND 1975-PROTOTYPE VEHICLES

              This section contains the results of an extended contingency
table analysis using data collected on 1974 model year and 1975-prototype
vehicles under the FTP/ST correlation analysis program (Reference 2).
These  analyses were performed to assess the sensitivity  of the correlations
to FTP measurement variability and to assess the variability of the FTP.
4. 1           FLEET COMPOSITION
              The vehicles analyzed under the FTP/ST Correlation Analysis
Program consisted of two separate fleets.  The characteristics of these
fleets, described in detail in Reference 2, are briefy summarized as follows:
              a)   Catalyst-Equipped Experimental Vehicle Fleet
                   (CEV  Fleet): This fleet consisted of 40 "1975-prototype"
                   Ford Galaxies, owned by the Ford Motor Company.  Two
                   replicate FTP tests were performed on 26 of these
                   vehicles.
              b)   In-Use 1974 Model Year Vehicle Fleet:  This fleet
                   consisted of 147 1974 model year vehicles.   Included in
                   this fleet were  49 Ford Pintos,  49 Chevrolets (Caprice
                   and Impala),  and 49 Dodge/Plymouths (Coronet,  Charger,
                   Satellite).   Federal Short Cycle, Federal Three-Mode,
                   and FTP tests were performed on 144 of these vehicles.
4.2           ANALYSIS OF  FTP REPLICATE TESTS PERFORMED ON THE
              CATALYST-EQUIPPED EXPERIMENTAL  VEHICLES (CEV)
              Using the FTP replicate test data from the 26 cars of the  CEV
fleet, a contingency table analysis was performed in which the first FTP level
for a given vehicle was taken as its true FTP  level, and the second FTP level
was used as its  "short test" level.  Cut-points for HC,  CO, and NOX were
selected for the "ST  levels" using  the two techniques E =5% and STRR=1. 0.
As  the appropriate FTP standards to which the CEV fleet was designed were
uncertain,  four  sets  of FTP standards were used in the analysis, as specified
in Table 209-
                                    4-1
-------
              As noted in Section 3. 1. 1, the technique STRR = 1. 0 is
equivalent to adjusting  the ST failure rate to equal that of the FTP failure
rate.  Since the ST and the FTP under analysis here are replicate
measurements from the 1975 FTP,  the results of applying this technique
may be used to characterize the quality of the 1975 FTP.
              The other  relevant information produced by these analyses
is the  relative uncertainty inherent  in the FTP standards used against the
data.  Although the FTP standards are precise fixed points in each analysis,
the number of vehicles  passing and  failing the FTP will vary from data set
to data set and can be quantified in terms of FTP standard uncertainty
•which  is produced by the measurement process.
              The results, presented below,  are presented first on the
basis of individual pollutant, followed by the results of a multiple-
constituent test.
4.2.1         Hydrocarbon Emission
              The results are given in Tables 210  and 211 for the
techniques STRR =1.0  and E  = 5%, respectively.
              a)    STRR = 1.0, Table 210:  The STE value decreased
from 0.92 to 0.78 as the HC standard increased from  0.41 gram/mile
to 0.90 gram/mile.   The total error rate (E   + E  ) varied between
9. 8% and 13. 2% in response to varying the HC standard.  The ST cut-
points, in both ST and FTP units, shown in Table 210,  tend to  closely
track the HC standard.
              b)    E  = 5%,  Table 211:  The STRR value varied from
0.93 to 1.01 as the HC  standard was changed.  The STE values decrease
from 0. 90 to 0. 78 as the HC standard was increased.  The ST  cut-points
shown  in Table 211 indicate the same trend as •was  reported for the
previous technique.
              The closeness and similarity of the results  of the two techniques
are a direct consequence of the fact that for STRR =1.0,  E  is approximately
5% and vice versa at each HC standard.

                                   4-2
-------
4.2.2         Carbon Monoxide Emission
              The results are summarized in Tables 212 and 213 for the
respective techniques STRR = 1.0 and EC = 5%.
              a)    STRR = 1.0,  Table 212:  The STE value decreased from
0.77 to 0.51 as the CO standard was increased from 3.4 grams/mile to  9.0
grams/mile.  The total error rate likewise decreased from 10.8% to 0.4% in
response to the increases in the CO standard. The ability of the ST cut-point
to track the standard deteriorated as the standard increased.  The decreasing
error rate and inability to track the CO standards when coupled with the
extreme decrease in the FF rate (18% to 0. 2%) indicate that the analysis is
being performed in a tail region of the  distribution; i.e.,  where the
probability of vehicles having high emission values,  such as exceeding the
standard,  is extremely low.  Thus, characterization of the FTP measurement
process should be drawn at the lower values of the CO standard.
              b)    E  = 5%, Table 213:  The STRR value increased from 0.92
                      c
to 13.67 as the CO standard was increased.  The corresponding STE values
varied from 0.76 to 0.99.
              As the CO standard is increased,  the FTP rate tends rapidly  to
zero.  Hence the E  = 5% technique is disproportionately unfair in terms of
STRR,  even though the total error rate is  5% (i.e.,  E  a  0%) at the  CO
standard of 9.0  grams/mile. At the CO standard of 3.4 grams/mile,  the two
techniques yield  equivalent results:  total error  rate of 10.8%,  STE  ca 0.77,
and an ST cut-point close to the CO standard.
4. 2. 3         Oxides of Nitrogen Emission
              Tables 214 and 215  summarize the results of the techniques
STRR =1.0 and E  = 5%.
                 c
              a)    STRR = 1.0,  Table 214: The STE value is  0.58, and the
total error rate is  16.8% (E  = 8.4%) as compared with the FF rate  of 11.4%.
                                    4-3
-------
The ST cut-point (2.99 grams/mile) closely approximates the NOX
standard of 3. 1 grams /mile.
             b)    E  = 5%, Table 215:  Since E  = 5% is below the E
                    c                         c                    c
rate produced by the previous technique,  STRR (0.71) and STE (0.47) are
likewise reduced.  The ST cut-point (3. 14 grams/mile) is increased over
the cut-point determined by the previous  technique.
             Two observations noticeably distinguish the  NOX results: the
relatively high error  rate in proportion to the vehicles correctly identified,
and the sensitivity of the parameters to shifts in the ST cut-point.  For
example,  the cut-points as determined by the techniques differ by 0. 15
gram/mile about a level of 3. 1 grams/mile.  This difference was reflected
in a 30% difference in STRR and a 17% difference in STE.
4.2.4        Multiple Constituent Tests
             The multiple-constituent test results are summarized in
Tables  216 and  217 for both techniques.
             a)    STRR = 1.0, Table 216:  The resulting STRR value
varied from 0.86 to 1. 18 for the  various  FTP levels.  The corresponding
variation in STEI was 0.71 to 1. 0 and was  19% to 0% for the total error rate.
             b)    E  = 5%, Table 217:  The results closely follow those
of the previous  technique.
             As was discussed in Reference 2, the  dominant pollutant in
the multiple-constituent results for this fleet was HG. Similarity of the
HC results and  the multiple-constituent results is therefore present  in
this analysis.
                                   4-4
-------
4.3
ANALYSIS OF IN-USE 1974 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
BY INERTIA WEIGHT CLASS
              Using the FTP/ST data on the 147-car fleet of in-use 1974
model year vehicles (Reference 2),  a contingency table analysis by inertia
weight was performed.  The fleet was stratified into three inertia weight
groups as follows.
              a)    250'l to 3500 Ib cla,ss:
                    Consisted of 46 Ford Pintos,  each having an inertia
                    weight of 2750 Ib (140 CID)
              b)    3501 to 4501 Ib class:
                    Consisted of 49 Dodge/Plymouths,  each having an
                    inertia weight of 4000 Ib (318 CID)
              c)    From  4501 Ib class:
                    Consisted of 49 Chevrolets,  each having an inertia
                    weight of 5500 Ib (400 CID)
Federal Three-mode and Federal Short Cycle cut-points were determined
for HC, CO, and NO  for each inertia weight group, using the two techniques
E   = 5% and STRR = 1.0.  The FTP measurements were made using the 1975
FTP, and the FTP standards used for this analysis (in 1975  FTP units) were
3.02 grams/mile HC,  28.0 grams/mile CO,  and 3.10 grams/mile NO  .
              The results  are presented below, first by individual pollutant,
followed by the multiple-constituent test results.
4.3.1         Hydrocarbon Emission
              The results  are summarized in Tables 218 through 221 for
both ST as follows.
ST Cut-point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
. E = 5%
c
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
218
220
Federal
Three -mode
219
221
                                   4-5
-------
             a)    STRR - 1.0: In the  case of the Federal Short Cycle,
Table 218,  the STE value  ranges from 0. 18 to 0.93  for the inertia weight
groups,  and is 0. 79 for the pooled fleet.  The influence of the FTP failure
rate in determining the  contingency table parameters is quite visible.  The
heaviest vehicles had an FTP failure rate of 1. 12%, with an associated FF of
0.2% (STE = 0.18),  whereas  the medium-weight cars had an FF value  of
75. 6% and an associated E  rate of 5. 7% (STE = 0. 93).  The pooled fleet E
was 6.4%, with an E  /(E  + FF) of 0.21.
                   For  the Federal Three-mode ST, Table 219, the idle
mode was superior on the basis of STE value for the pooled fleet and the
weight groups, with the exception of the heaviest vehicle group.  The idle
mode STE value  ranged from 0.01 to 0.86 on the inertia weight groups,
with the  5500-lb  vehicles scoring the lowest, and was  0.57 on the pooled
fleet.  The EC rate was 14. 2% for the pooled fleet.
                   The  extreme variance in the results from each inertia
weight group is probably technologically based. The small and heavy
vehicle groups have idle mode cut-points close in  value, 133  ppm and 124
ppm, respectively, whereas the intermediates had a cut-point of 24 ppm.
As noted above,  the FTP failure rates were extremely divergent.
       ,  ,   .b)   ,E  = 5%:..  In the  case of the Federal Short Cycle ST,
Table  220, the STE value ranged from 0.46 to 0.92  on the inertia weight
groups, and was  0.75 for the pooled fleet.  The corresponding STRR value
varied from 0. 98 to 4. 94 on the weight groups, and  was 0. 91  over all
vehicles.
                   For the Federal Three-mode ST, Table 221, the  idle
mode is generally superior with the exception noted  above. The STE value
for this mode was 0. 32 on the pooled fleet, with an associated STRR of
0.47, and varied irorn 0.02 to 0.62 on the weight groups, with a corres-
ponding STRR range of 0. 68 to  2. 79.  The idle mode cut-points vary from
49 ppm to 163 ppm on the weight groups.
                                    4-6
-------
4.3.2
Carbon Monoxide Emission
             The results are given in Tables 222 through 225 for both ST
as follows.
ST Cut-point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
Ec = 5%
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
222
224
Federal
Three-mode
223
225
             a)     STRR =  1.0:  For the Federal Short Cycle ST,  Table 222,
the STE value varied from 0. 71 to 0. 98 on the inertia weight groups and
•was 0. 90 for the pooled fleet.  The accompanying E  values were  2. 2% to
15. 2% on the weight groups, and 7. 5% for the combined fleet.  The FTP
failure rate varied from a low of 43. 2% on the heavy vehicles to a high of
91. 2% on the intermediates.
                   The Federal Three-mode ST,  Table 223,  showed the idle
mode to be uniformly superior on the basis of STE value,  which was 0. 65 to
0.95 on the  inertia groups,  and 0. 86 for the pooled fleet.  The idle mode E
rate was 10.4%  on the combined fleet and ranged from 4.9% to 18.9% on the
weight groups.  The idle mode ST cut-point varied between 0. 17% and 0. 24%
for the inertia weight groups and was 0. 20% for the pooled fleet.
             b)     E  =  5%: In the case of the Federal Short Cycle ST,
Table  224, the inertia weight group STE and STRR values varied from 0.42
to 1.00 and  0.51 to 1.05, respectively,  and the pooled fleet values were
0.81 on STE and 0.91 on STRR.  The ST cut-points for the weight groups
were  between 18.0 grams/mile and 34.0 grams/mile.
                   The idle mode of the Federal Three-mode ST,  Table 225,
was uniformly superior on the basis of STE, which was 0. 27 to 0. 95 for the
                                   4-7
-------
inertia weight groups and 0.69 for the pooled fleet.  The corresponding
STRR  values -were 0.36 to 1.00 for the vehicle  groups and 0.76 on the
combined fleet.  The idle mode ST cut-points were between 0. 24% and 0. 56%.
4.3.3
Oxides of Nitrogen Emission
             The NOX results are summarized in Tables 226 through 229
for both ST,  as follows.
ST Cut -point
Selection
Technique
STRR =1.0
E - 5%
c
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
226
228
Federal
Three-mode
227
229
             a)    STRR = 1.0:  In the case of the Federal Short Cycle ST,
Table 226, the STE value varied from 0. 19 to 0. 55 on the vehicle weight
groups and was 0. 50 for the entire fleet.  The E  range for the vehicle
groups was  1.8% to 9.2%,  and was 8.6% on the whole. The ST cut-points
•were between 1.75 grams/mile and 3.98 grams/mile.
                   The mode superiority -was mixed for the Federal Three-
mode ST, Table 227.  The high-speed mode had the highest STE, 0.44, for
the pooled fleet, whereas the low-speed mode was uniformly the  highest in
STE, 0.30 to 0.60, for the inertia weight groups.  The low-speed mode
cut-point varied from  2035 ppm to 341 ppm, while E  ranged from  1.6%
to 11.4%.
             b)    E  = 5%: The Federal Short Cycle STE values,  Table 228,
                    C
varied from 0. 41 to 0. 55,  accompanied  by an STRR variation of 0. 66 to 2. 64
on the inertia weight groups.   The ST cut-points were between 1.91 and
3.39 grams/mile.
                                    4-8
-------
                  For the Federal Three-mode ST, Table 229, mode
superiority trends are the same as noted in the previous technique.  The
low-speed mode STE and STRR ranges are 0. 41 to 0. 54 and 0. 58 to 2. 83,
respectively.  The cut-points for the low-speed mode are  between 2263 ppm
and 371 ppm.
4.3.4
Multiple Constituent Tests
The multiple-constituent results are summarized in Tables
230 through 233 for both ST as follows.
QT fnt- r>r>inf
Selection
Technique
STRR = I.'O
Ec = 5%
Short Test Table Number
Federal
Short Cycle
230
232
Federal
Three-mode
231
233
             The best combination of modes based upon the pooled fleet
correlation coefficients was found to be HC and CO at idle and NO  at the
                                                              .X
high-speed mode.
             a)    STRR = 1.0:  For the Federal Short Cycle ST, Table
230, the STRR value ranged from 0.95 to 1.03 on the inertia weight groups,
and was  1.00 for the entire fleet. STE,  E  , and FF ranged between 0.68
and 0.96; 4. 1% and 22.5%; and 42.9% and 91.8%; respectively.  The ST
discrimination was poorest on the heavy vehicles.
                  For the Federal Three-mode ST, Table 231, the STE
values for the best mode combination are between 0.65 and 0.96.  The
corresponding E  and STRR ranges are 2.0% to  18.4% and 0.94 to 0.98.
                c
Although other mode combinations had higher STE values, the E  level was
                                                             G
also generally higher and STRR frequently exceeded 1.0.
                                   4-9
-------
              b)    E  = 5%:  STE varied from 0.45 to 0.96 for the Federal
                     c
 Short Cycle ST,  Table 232,  on the inertia weight groups.  The associated
 E  and STRR ranges are 4. 1% to 6. 1% and 0. 55 to 1. 00.
                   For the Federal Three-mode ST, Table 233, the STE
 values for the best mode combination are between 0.39 and 0.94.  The E
                                                                       c
 values are between  2.0% and 4. 1%, while STRR is between 0.45 and 0.96.
 In those cases where  other mode combinations had higher STE, the  E was
 also elevated.
 4.4          DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
              With regard to the analysis of the FTP replicate data on 26
 cars, the STRR =1.0 technique results can be used to characterize  the
 quality of the FTP.  The estimated error rates were 11.4% HC, 10.8% CO,
 16. 8% NO  ,  and  19. 2% on the multiple-constituent FTP at the lowest level
          X.
 of FTP standards (0.41,  3.4, and 3. 1 grams/mile). At this  same set of
 FTP  standards, the "ST"  cut-points determined from the second replicate
 (0.42, 3.35,  2.99 grams/mile) closely agree with the assumed standards.
              For the  1974 model year fleet of in-use vehicles,  the corres-
 pondence between inertia weight group classification and the CID grouping
 classification used for the 1975 model year vehicles is not one-to-one, since
 there were no vehicles with  engine displacements of 151 to 259 CID.   (The
Pintos were 140 CID,  the Dodge/Plymouths were 318 CID, and the
 Chevrolets were  400 CID. )  Hence, strictly parallel comparisons by group
 cannot be made.
             However, this fleet does point out the difficulties stemming
 from  technological differences probably more effectively than the 300-car
 analyses, as the  inertia weight groups are homogeneous with respect to
 vehicle nomenclature  and equipment.  The persistence of the idle mode as
 an effective ST on HC and CO and of the high- and low-speed modes for NO
                                                                         X.
 discrimination for both the 1974 and 1975 vehicles is an important finding
 which reflects a basic invariant in the Federal Three-mode ST.
                                   4-10
-------
                      5.  SHORT TEST VARIABILITY
               This section discusses the methodology and calculation
techniques applied to estimate the standard errors of the ST cut-points and
of other  contingency table parameters.   The results  of the calculations also
are summarized in this section.
5. 1            DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
               The applicable methods used for individual pollutant analysis
are presented first, followed by the multiple-constituent procedures.
5.1.1          Individual Pollutants
5.1.1.1        ST Cut-point Estimation
               For the three ST cut-point selection techniques, STRR =1.0,
E  = y %,  and STE =  ct, the problem of estimating the cut-point is  closely
related to the statistical  problem of estimating quantiles of a statistical
distribution function.  A  quantile is  a value of the random variable (such as
HC concentration on vehicles with displacement of 150 CID or less)  which
divides the area under the probability curve into two parts, each consisting
of a specified percentage of the area.
               As discussed in Section 3. 1, the technique STRR =1.0 is
equivalent to adjusting the ST failure rate (E   + FF)  to equal the  FTP
failure rate (E  + FF).  Hereafter the FTP failure rate will be denoted as F%.
Hence  the appropriate ST cut-point is the ST  value which divides the vehicle
population under analysis into a failing  group having F% vehicles and a passing
group  having 100% - F% vehicles.
               The situation is quite similar for the technique E  =  Y%.
Although E  is expressed as a percent of the  total population, for a  fixed
FTP standard,  E  can be expressed as a percent of the vehicles  passing
the FTP.  If P% pass  the FTP, then E  equaling  Y% of all vehicles is
equivalently ( y/P)% of the passing vehicles.   The value of the ST which
divides the FTP passing  vehicles into an ST failing group (the E  's,
consisting of ( y/P)%  of  all FTP passing vehicles), and an ST passing
                                     5-1
-------
group (the PP's, consisting of the remainder of all FTP passing vehicles)
•will estimate the cut-point for the E  =  y % technique.
               Since STE is the ratio of  FF to total FTP failures, the
technique STE = Ct  is  equivalent to adjusting the ST cut-point so that the
percentage of FF vehicles is equal to Ot  • F% of all the vehicles, or Ct %
of the FTP failing vehicles.  The value of the ST, which divides the FTP
failing vehicles into an ST failing group  (the FF's, consisting of  Ct% of
all FTP failing vehicles) and an ST passing group (the E 's,  consisting of
the remainder of the FTP failing vehicles) will estimate the  cut-point for
the STE = «  technique.
               The technique E /(E + FF)  = /? is substantially different
from the other three techniques discussed above.  This technique requires
that the E  rate be equal to /S % of  the ST failure rate.  At first glance,
this technique appears similar  to the E  =  y % and the  STE  = Ct techniques.
However,  as E is adjusted, the ST failure rate  (E  + FF) changes, and the
calculation of a new E  rate depends both on E  and FF.  Therefore,
cut-point estimation for this technique cannot be based  solely upon the ST
observations or a portion of these observations,  as can be done for the
other three techniques.
               In conclusion, the  techniques STRR = 1.0, STE =  Ct , and
E   =  y % are technically similar  in that the same estimation procedure is
used to determine cut-points (i.e.,  quantiles of the ST measurements).
However,  each technique requires  a different application of this procedure:
for STRR = 1.0, the procedure is applied to all vehicles; for STE = Ct , the
procedure is applied to the FTP failing vehicles; and for E   = y , the
procedure is applied to the FTP passing vehicles.   The remaining technique,
based upon E /(E  + FF) requires  the use of alternative methods  of
estimating cut-points. This alternative  method is discussed in
Section 5. 1. 1. Z. 4.
                                    5-2
-------
5.1.1.2       Statistical Estimation Procedures
              The procedures which were employed to estimate the ST
cut-point (Reference Section 3. 1) fall into two broad categories: parametric
and non-parametric estimation.   Parametric method assumed the distri-
bution of the ST and FTP values  to be either normal or log-normal.  The
non-parametric method was distribution-free  in that no assumption was
made about the shape of the distribution of the ST and FTP values.
              For each type of cut-point estimate, an estimate of the
error in the  cut-point can be made.  For a parametric  ST cut-point
estimate, a standard error can be calculated parametrically, and for a
non-parametric ST cut-point estimate, an error can be calculated
non-par ametrically.
              The calculation of standard errors based upon a parametric
model was not pursued.
              The two non-parametric procedures available for estimating
standard errors fall under small sample procedures and large sample
(asymptotic) procedures.  Both are based upon the order  statistics  of the
sample and are  briefly reviewed in Section 5.1.1.2.1.  The  small sample
procedures are  equivalent to forming confidence interval  estimates for
population quantiles and are discussed in Section 5. 1. 1. 2. 2.  The
asymptotic or large sample methods are described in Section 5. 1. 1.2. 3.
5.1.1.2.1    Order Statistics
              Suppose a sample of N vehicles is drawn  from a population
and an ST measurement of a pollutant's emission is made  for each vehicle.
Denote this collection of measurements as  X.,  X0, ...,  XT.,  ..., X..,
                                             i    L        is.        IN
where X,, is the measurement associated with the K-th vehicle.  If  these
        j\
sample values are ordered,

                    X(l) - X(2)  ~ '' ' - X(K) -  ' ' ' - X(N)
                                    5-3
-------
(the notation X-,is distinct from X,-,.:  whereas X., means the value for
the K-th vehicle, X/T., means the K-th smallest value),  the number of
vehicles •with values below X/T, , is K-l and the number of vehicles with
                             (K)
values greater than or equal to X,.,., is N - K 4- 1.  Therefore,  for
STRR = 1, X .    is the ST value which will estimate the  cut-point where
             (K*)                                            P
K* is chosen to be the largest integer satisfying

                          N - K* + 1 <•  F%
                               N       ~100

      is said to  estimate the F-quantile  of the population.
               The value of X,T, ,_, •will change from one data  set to another
                             (K-<-)
even  if the number of vehicles in each data set is  the same and the ST is
the same. If the statistical distribution  of X,.,^ . can be found, the variance
of X/T,j,. and hence the standard error of the estimate can be calculated.
    (K.^)
The exact statistical distribution which describes the variation of the values
of X,,, . > is considerably more complex (in the mathematical sense),  due to
    (K*;
the ordering, than the distribution •which describes the variation of the
values of X^,..  Furthermore, the distribution of X,KS,,, is functionally
dependent upon the distribution of
               As the sample size becomes extremely large, the asymptotic
distribution of X/T, .. is normally distributed,  although it depends on the
                (&*)
distribution of X,, in a simple manner.  If the asymptotic assumption can be
applied, the  distribution of X,.. can be estimated from the sample values,
and the distribution of X.^-.^.. can be approximated.  If the asymptotic
assumption does not- apply, the  confidence interval approach can be applied
if variance estimates are desired.
5.1.1.2.2     Confidence  Interval Estimates for Population Quantiles
               Let Q_ be the  true (population) value of a quantile of order F%.
                    J?
An a % confidence interval estimate of Q^ is constructed by finding two
                                        £
numbers  r  and s ,  where r < s,  such that the probability is OJ % that
(X, » <  Q,-, <  X. .).  This  probability is given by (Reference 4):
  (r)    £     \s)
                                     5-4
-------
                    ..i,,   rvN-1  ,.   F%    TVT        ,    .               /c  1\
                    f (1 - f)   , f = -      '  N = sample size             (5-1)
 By setting Equation (5-1) equal to ( & %/100%),  r and s can be found such
 that s - r is a minimum and r < K* < s.
               This procedure should be implemented and accompany non-
 parametric estimates of the ST cut-points as were described in the
 previous section.  The difficulty with this procedure is that there is no
 convenient way to  relate the length of the confidence interval to the sample
 size.  Note that Equation (5-1) describes a relation between r,  s, and the
 sample  size N, not a relation  between the interval  length and the sample size.
 This will of course make difficult the design of experimental trials to
 estimate cut-points with a precision based upon the value  of the cut-point;
 i.e., +_ 10% of the estimate.
(5. 1.1.2.3     Large Sample Approximations
                                                          N -  K* + 1
               As the sample size approaches infinity and
                                                              N
 remains fixed, the distribution of X. approaches the normal distribution
 (Reference 4) with mean Q_ and variance
 •where  g  is the probability density of ST values X.,, Q,-, is the F-quantile,
 and f  is defined in Equation (5-1).
               Thus,  the estimate X,T,.. of Q..-, (as described in Section
                                    (K.*)     S
 5. 1. 1. 2. 1) has an asymptotic standard  error of

                                       t( 1  - i)                           /c o\
                                      ~^~~
 The difficulty associated with Equation  (5-3) is that knowledge of  g  is
 required.  Otherwise, the relation between the standard error and sample
                                     5-5
-------
size expressed .in Equation (5-3) is suitable for sizing experiments for
determining ST  cut-points.
              Notice that knowledge of g  is  generally adequate when
asymptotic  assumptions apply.  Also,  to apply Equation (5-3) for a single
quantile,  only g(Q,-,) need be approximated.  This is occasionally, depending
                  X
on the quantile to be estimated, much  easier than approximating  g over
its entire range.
              For sizing experiments generally, a range for g(Q_.,) is
estimated and through the use of Equation (5-3) a range for the sample size
can be extracted. After  the sample sizes have been estimated, the
appropriateness  of the asymptotic assumption can be examined.  For
example,  a sample size estimate of 400 vehicles in the 151 to 256 CID
range -would probably yield statistics closely following the large sample
approximations.   However, any estimate of sample size less than 50
may require smaill sample techniques.
5.1.1.2.4    Procedures Implemented
              For each ST cut-point selection technique,  non-parametric
and parametric  cut-point estimates were made as described in Section 3. 1.
Additionally, Equation (5-3) was used to estimate the  standard  error  of the
cut-point  estimates.  The density function,  g,  in Equation (5-3) was based
on the normal or log-normal  density function,  depending upon which best
described the data.  The exact version of Equation (5-3) used for each
technique is listed below.
              a)    STRR =1.0:  g is the density function for the ST
measurements,  f is the  probability of ST failure; i.e., F%/100%  and N
are the total number of vehicles in the group.
              b)    E   = 7 %:  g  is the density function for the ST
measurements of the FTP passing vehicles, f  is the probability of an E ,
                                                                      c
given the  vehicle passed  the FTP;  i.e.,  y/P.  N is the total number of
vehicles passing the FTP.
                                    5-6
-------
               c)    STE = a :  g  is the density function for the ST
measurements of the FTP failing vehicles,  f  is Ct (the probability of an FF,
given the vehicle failed the FTP).  N is the total number of vehicles
failing the  FTP.
               d)    E /(E  + FF) = yS :  g  is the density function for the
ST measurements and  f  isyS»(E  + FF) at  the solution point which is
determined iteratively.  N is the total number of vehicles.
               To this point,  the only source of variability that has been
assumed is the variability of the ST measurements.  However, the FTP
measurements vary from vehicle to vehicle.  For example,'when using
the technique STRR =  1.0,  it is necessary to estimate the FTP failure
rate F% from the sample data.   The F%  estimate is subject to statistical
fluctuations, hence the standard error as given by Equation  (5-3) (which
assumes F% is fixed) •will be underestimated.  In the case of E  or STE
based policies, the situation is  worse, since the densities,  g,  are based
on FTP passing or FTP failing  vehicles,  respectively, and hence are
subject to a greater degree of statistical fluctuation.  Again, Equation (5-3)
will tend to underestimate the standard error of the ST cut-point.
               To assess the degree to •which the ST standard error is
underestimated,  two computations •were  performed.  Using Equation (5-4)
from Volume I, the standard error of the percent of vehicles failing the
individual FTP pollutants was calculated for each CID group.  The results
for the 300-car fleet are shown in Table 234.  The standard errors  of the
estimated percent of vehicles passing are equal to those  shown in Table Z34
due to the symmetry of Equation (5-4) of Volume I.
               A standard error for  the FTP  standard or cut-point •was
computed using Equation (5-3) where f  is F%/100% and  g  is the density
function of the FTP measurements.   The results for the  300-car fleet are
shown in Table 235 for each CID group.  These errors represent the
"fuzziness" of the standards to each data set.
                                    5-7
-------
5.1.1.3       Contingency Table Parameters
               The standard errors associated with E  ,  E ,  FF, and PP
are parametrically computed by calculating E , E  , FF, and PP at the
four combinations of the ST cut-point +_ one of its  standard errors and the
FTP cut-point +_  one of its standard errors.  The  maximum difference of
each parameter (E , E , FF, and PP) was  divided by 2 and used as the
estimate of the standard error of the corresponding parameter.  This method
allows for the  computation  of symmetric confidence intervals based upon an
estimate of the standards.  Note that this error includes both ST and FTP
fluctuations.  Errors based upon only the ST fluctuations are computed by
fixing the FTP cut-poont exactly at the standard.
5. 1. 2          Multiple Constituent Results
               See the discussion in Section 3. 2 and Section 5. 2. 2 of
Volume I.
5.2            ERROR ESTIMATES FOR 300-CAR FLEET
               Shown in Tables 236 and  237  are the Federal Short Cycle
and Federal Three-mode ST cut-points and  their  standard errors  for each
technique on the pooled fleet of 300 cars.  Care must be exercised in
comparing errors between  technique types,  since the "N" in Equation (5-3)
varies among techniques.   However, the general  trends discussed in
Section 5. 2. 1  of Volume I and shown in Figure  5-1  are  demonstrated.
               In the case of STE =  0. 6, 0. 7, and 0. 8,  as the ST cut-point
increases,  so does the standard  error.  This phenomenon demonstrates
the dependency between the level  of the ST cut-point and its standard
error (N is fixed for this technique).
               For the technique STRR = 1.0,  "N"  from Equation (5-3)
was equal to 300.  The cut-points estimated under this  technique have the
lowest possible standard error for that cut-point.  This clearly shows the
influence of the sample size in controlling the cut-point error.
                                    5-8
-------
8U
70
60
LI-
LI-
§ 50
o
LU
0<0
LU
Z
LU
£ 30
LU
Q_
20
10
n
T ERROR BAR INDICATES PLUS AND M
1 STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE ESTIM

Ec
•^.^ 0
^\
X
: V;];
s i.
_ / J-
s
s
s
\ \ \ \ ^1 	 'A 	 L 1
                2      3      4      5.6
                    HC FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE, gm/mi
Figure 5-1.  Typical Variability of Predicted Population Results
                              5-9
-------
              Tables 238 and 239 compare the standard errors for the
Federal Short Cycle and Federal Three-mode ST  cut-points on the basis
of CID groups under the STRR =1.0 technique.  Not only does N change
among vehicle groups for these tabulations, but the density  g also
changes (primarily due to changes in the means and variances among the
CID groups). However, functional changes are also possible; i.e.,
changes between normal and log-normal models.
              Using the  variability in F% as shown in Table 234 to compute
the change in the  radical in Equation  (5-3),  the ST cut-point errors shown
in Tables  238 and 239 for the 300-car fleet are underestimated by about
3% for HC, 0.3% for CO,  and 4% for  NO .  Similarly, the ST cut-point
errors for the 151 to 259 CID group,  as shown in  Tables  238 and 239, are
underestimated by 6% for HC, 0. 7% for CO, and 9% for NO  .
                                                        J\.
              The standard errors of the contingency table parameters
•were  calculated for the technique STRR =1.0 and  are shown in Tables
240 and 241 for the Federal Short Cycle and the Federal Three-mode,
respectively.
5.3           ERROR ESTIMATES FOR 117-CAR FLEET
              The FTP failure rates estimated for the 117-car fleet are
shown in Table 242 with their associated standard errors.  Shown in
Table 243 are the standard  errors associated with the FTP standards as
applied to the 117-vehicle fleet.
              The ST  cut-points for  STRR =1.0 (pooled  fleet) and their
standard errors are shown  in Table 244 for both ST.   Tables 245 and 246
show  the corresponding contingency table parameters and their associated
standard errors for the Federal Short Cycle and Federal Three-mode,
respectively.
              Based upon the variability of the FTP  failure rate errors,
the ST cut-points shown in Table 244 are underestimated by about 3%
for HC, 12% for CO, and  16% for NOx.
                                  5-10
-------
5. 4            DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
               The normalized dispersions, Equation (5^-4),

                             Standard Error                          ._  ..
                             Cut-point Value                          (    '

•were computed for both ST and both fleets and are  shown in Table 247 for
the STRR =1.0 technique.  For the 300-car fleet,  the estimated procedures
are comparable for the two ST, whereas for the 117-car fleet"the Federal
Three-mode shows more variation, particularly on CO.  The effect of
sample size, although confounded by different cut-points in the two fleets,
is primarily responsible  for the increased dispersion  in the ST cut-points
of the  117-car  fleet.
                                    5-11
-------
                              REFERENCES
1.    Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance Analysis of the FY 73
     Program, EPA-460/3-75-007,  July 1975

2.    Federal Test Procedure and Short Test Correlation Analyses,
     EPA-360/3-76-011, April 1976

3.    Short Test Correlation Analyses on 300, 1975 Model Year Cars,
     Volume I, EPA-460/3-76-010a,  October 1976

4.    Gibbons,  J.  D.,  Non-parametric Statistical Inference,
     McGraw-Hill, New York,  1971
                                   R-l
-------
APPENDIX OF TABLES
-------
Table 1.  Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Number of  , .
          Cylinders and Engine Displacement -  Denver
Numbe r
of
Cylinders
4
6
8
Engine Displacement
150 CID(b)
or Less
33
0
0
151 to
259 CID
0
18
0
260 CID or
Greater
0
0
66
(a)117 vehicles total
CID = cubic inch displacement
Table 2.  Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Inertia Test Weight
          and Engine Displacement - Denver
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(Ib)
2500 or less
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or
Greater
Engine Displacement
150 CID(a)
or Less
16
17
0
0
33
151 to
259 CID
1
15
2
0
18
260 CID or
Greater
0
8
42
16
66
Total
Number of
Vehicles
17
40
44
16
117
CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 3.  Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Engine Displacement
          and Emission Control System Type - Denver
CID(a)
150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More
Catalyst(b)
Yes
Secondary Air'c'
Yes
6
4
26
36
No
4
7
39
50
No
Secondary Air
Yes
16
3
1
20
No
7
4
0
11
Total Number
of
Vehicles
33
18
66
117
CID = cubic inch displacement
Oxidation catalyst
(c)
Secondary air injection system
Table 4.  Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Inertia Test Weight
          and Emission Control System Type - Denver
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(Ib)
2500 or Less
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or
Greater
Catalyst^
Yes
Secondary Air
Yes
3
12
15
6
36
No
0
14
26
10
50
No
Secondary Air
Yes
8
10
2
0
20
No
6
4
1
0
11
Total Number
of
Vehicles
17
40
44
16
117
^Oxidation catalyst
Secondary air injection system
-------
Table 5.  Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Fuel System and
          Emission Control System Type - Denver
Fuel System
Type
Fuel Injection
Carburetion
Catalyst(a)
Yes
Secondary Air
Yes
1
35
36
No
0
50
50
No
Secondary Air
Yes
4
16
20
No
5
6
11
Total Number
of
Vehicles
10
107
117
(a)
Oxidation catalyst
Secondary air injection system
 Table 6.  Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Inertia Test Weight
           and Fuel System Type - Denver
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(lb)
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or Greater

Fuel System Type
Fuel Injection
6
2
2
0
10
Carburetion
11
38
42
16
107
Total Number
of Vehicles
17
40
44
16
117
-------
Table 7.  Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Engine
          Displacement and Fuel System Type  - Denver
CID^a) Group
150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More

Fuel System Type
Injection
7
2
1
10
«
Carburetion
26
16
65
107
Total Number
of Vehicles
33
18
66
117
CID = cubic inch displacement
Table 8.   Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Engine
           Displacement and Transmission Type - Denver
CID^a' -Group
150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More
Transmission Type
Autpmatic
9
12
66
87
Manual
24
6
0
30
Total Number
of Vehicles
33
18
66
117
^a'CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 9.   Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Inertia Weight
           and Transmission Type - Denver
Inertia Test
Weight Group
(Ib)
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or Greater

Transmission Type
Automatic
3
25
43
16
87
Manual
14
15
1
0
30
Total Number
of Vehicles
17
40
44
16
117
Table 10.  Cross Tabulation of Vehicles by Manufacturer
           and Engine Displacement - Denver
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Datsun
Toyota
VW, Audi, Porsche
Honda
Others
Engine Displacement
150 CID^a)
or Less
4
2
0
0
4
3
6
2
12
33
151 to
259 CID
5
4
2
4
0
0
1
0
2
18
260 CID
or Greater
31
19
13
2
0
0
0
0
1
66
Total
Number of
Vehicles
40
25
15
6
4
3
7
2
15
117
CID = cubic inch displacement
-------
Table 11.  FTP Means and Standard Deviations by City - Four Cities
City
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Denver
Numbe r
of
Vehicles
100
100
100
117
FTP Emissions (grams/mile)
HC
Mean
1.283
1.534
1.288
2.282
Standard
.834
1.335
.930
.1.413 .
CO
Mean
21.665
27.598
22.934
48.638
Standard
17. 145
32.812
21.378
37.580
NO
X
Mean
2.375
2.446
2.357
1.691
Standard
.896
1.050
.974
.859
-------
      Table 12.   Correlation Coefficient Summary - Denver
ST
Federal
Short Cycle
Federal
Three-mode


Mode

High
Low
Neutral
Drive
Number
of
Vehicles
118
117
117
117
87
ST/FTP Correlation Coefficient^1*
HC
.81
.50
.51
.31
.74
CO
.86
.60
.61
.65
.62
NO
X
. 88
.64
.70
.28
.24
Log
(HC)
.82
c
.52
.60
.59
.68
Log
(CO)
.82
.58
.61
.60
.58
Log
(N0x)
.86
.63
.64
.28
.29
'Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk.
Table 13.  FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Engine Displacement - Denver
CID
Less than 150
150 to 260
Greater than 260
Number
of
Vehicles
33
18
66
FTP Emissions (grams/mile)
HC
Mean
2.24
1.81
2.43
Standard
1.00
0. 888
1.67
CO
Mean
35.89
34.74
58.8
Standard
20.6
19.1
44.4
NO
X
Mean
1.57
1.91
1.69
Standard
0.803
0.830
0.894
-------
                Table 14.  Correlation Coefficient Summary by Engine Displacement - Denver
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle


Federal
Three -mode








CID
All
150 or Less
151 to 259
260 or More
All


150 or Less

151 to 259

260 or More

Mode




High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
Number
of
Vehicles
117
33
18
66
117
117
117
87
33
33
33
9
16
16
16
12
66
66
66
66
ST/FTP Correlation Coefficients * '
HC
.81
.70
.40*
.93
.50
.51
.31
.74
.21*
•39*
•17*
.49*
.24*
.56
*
-.01
.70
.64
.59
.77
.78
CO
.86
.70
.55
.88
.60
.61
.65
.62
.33*
.50
.63
.76
#
.25
.51
.73
.60
.72
.69
.77
.63
NO
X
.82
.90
.97
.85
.64
.70
.28
.24
.66
•69*
.15
.52
.72
.67
.49^
*
.30
.76
.73
.25
.13*
Log
(HC)
.82
.84
.66
.86
.52
.60
.59
.68
#
.23
.46
•39
&
.48
.51
.72
*
.40
.72
.67
.65
.78
.71
Log
(CO)
.82
.75
.73
.85
.58
.61
.60
.58
.46
.61
•64*
.53*
.46*
.62
.64
.59
.69
.64
.67
.60
Log
(N0x)
.86
.90
.97
.81
.63
.64
.28
.29
.79
.80
#
•2<^
.56*
.75
.84
.54^
*
.32
.60
.53
.19*
.15*
* 'Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk.
00
-------
Table 15.  FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Inertia Test Weight - Denver
Inertia Test
Weight Group
2500 Ib or Less
2501 to 3500 Ib
3501 to 4500 Ib
4501 Ib or Greater
Numbe r
of
Vehicles
17
40
44
16
FTP Emissions (grams/mile)
HC
Mean
2. 15
2.03
2.50
2.45
Standard
.927
1.08
1.75
1.53
CO
Mean
31.5
36.6
60.6
63.9
Standard
14.5
24.1
46.8
39.1
N0x
Mean
1.74
1.68
1.73
1.53
Standard
.830
.787
1.05
.384
-------
Table 16.  Correlation Coefficient Summary by Inertia Test Weight Group - Denver


Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle



Federal
Three -mode




















Inertia
Weight
(lb)
All
0 to 2500
2501 to 3500
3501 to 4500
4501 or More
All



0 to 2500





2501 to 3500



3501 to 4500



4501 or More





Mode





High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low

Neutral

Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
•Neutral
Drive
Number
of
Vehicles
117
17
40
44
16
117
117
117
87
17
17

17

3
40
40
40
25
44
44
44
43
16
16
16
16
ST/FTP Correlation Coefficients* '

HC
.81
.84
.70
.89
.93
.50
.51
.31
.74
.36*
.65
*
.08

.37*
#
.20
.33
.39
.71
.59
.58
*
.24
.78
.84
.91
.96
.91

CO
.86
.92
.69
.91
.77
.60
.61
.65
.62
.41*
.65

.50
#
.97
*
.27
.39
.72
.68
.73
.73
.74
.68
.84
.78
.92
.75

N0x
.82
.94
.90
.88
.72
.64
.70
.28
.24
*
.47
.43*
*
-.27
*
-.17
.68
.75
.50
.44
.80
.75
.30*
.11*
.63
.62
-.11*
-.01*
Log
(HC)
.82
.93
.77
.81
.90
.52
.60
.59
.68
.40*
.77

.53
*
.53
.33
.42
.52
.77
.72
.73
.56
.69
.71
.90
.96
.80
Log
(CO)
.82
.92
.71
.87
.81
.58
.61
.60
.58
.31*
.63

.62
*
.94
.55
.59
.72
.75
.72
.62
.60
.56
.62
.71
.71
.63
Log
(N0x)
.86
.92
.91
.85
.68
.63
.64
.28
.29
.66
.54
*

*
.10
.67
.82
.43
.46
.78
.67
•34
*
.19
.47*
.44*
.04*
*
.08
(^'Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk.
-------
Table 17.  FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Emission Control System  - Denver
Catalyst
Yes
Yes
No
No
Secondary
Air-
Injection
Yes
No
Yes
No
Number
of
Vehicles
36
50
20
11
FTP Emissions (grams /mile)
HC
Mean
1.90
2.63
2.03
2.42
Standard
1. 89
1.25
.873
.541
CO
Mean
44.6
61. 7
32.7
31.6
Standard
50.3
32.6
12.0
18.2
NO
X
Mean
1.69
1.61
1. 58
2.27
Standard
.946
. 770
.889
. 776
-------
Table 18.  Correlation Coefficient Summary by Emission Control System Type - Denver


Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle



Federal
Three -mode





















Catalyst-""^
^^^^
Secondary Air
All
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/Yes
No/No
All



Yes/Yes



Yes /No



No/Yes




No/No







Mode





High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive

High
Low

Neutral

Drive
Number
of
Vehicles
117
36
50
20
11
117
117
117
87
36
36
36
31
50
50
50
47
20
20
20
4

11
11

11

5
ST/FTP Correlation Coefficients ^'

HC
.81
.95
.83
.74
.91
.50
.51
.31
.74
.64
.52
.85
.85
.46
.56
.70
.64
*
•19*.
.22
-.10*
.90*
5fc
-.32
5JC
.09
*
.54
*
-.88

CO
.86
.96
..76
.43*
.73
.60
.61
.65
.62
.61
.66
.65
.55
.55
.60
.75
.78
.63
.48
.53
.64*
?k
.37
$
.34
*
.43
*
.30

NO
X
.82
.94
.82
.92
.94
.64
.70
.28
.24
.83
.84
.25*
.39
.55
.73
.36
.15*
.72
.70
-.05*
.65*
*
.28
.43*
*
.09
*
.75
Log
(HC)
.82
.87
.80
.71
.92
.52
.60
.59
.68
.64
.75
.79
.81
.36
.52
.62
.58
*
•33*
.36
.08*
.95
*
-.35*
*
-.03
*
.45

-.90
Log
(CO)
.82
.82
.83
.79
.84
.58
.61
.60
.58
.71
.77
.81
.76
.38
.51
.60
.57
.73
.63
.69
.44*
*
.39
.34*

.70
$
.61
Log
(N0x)
.86
.87
.83
.92
.94
.63
.64
.28
.29
.72
.60
.17*
.29*
.40
.61
.33
.26
.83"
.75
.12*
.72*
&
.32*
*
.55
*
.07

.72
Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk.
-------
                        Table  19.  FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Manufacturer - Denver
oo
Manufacturer
GM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Others
Number
of
Vehicles
40
25
15
6
31
FTP Emissions (grams /mile)
HC
Mean
2. 14
2. 11
3.32
1.91
2. 17
Standard
1.21
2.11
1.17
.85
.936
CO
Mean
51.0
51.9
74.7
31.9
33.6
Standard
32.4
56.8
33.2
22.2
16.4
NO
A
Mean
1.59
1. 57
1.76
3.24
1.59
Standard
.836
.505
.407
1.69
.820
                         Table 21.  FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Transmission Type - Denver
Transmission
Automatic
Manual
Number
of
Vehicles
87
30
FTP Emissions (grams /mile)
HC
Mean
2.30
2.21
Standard
1.53
1.02
CO
Mean
54.5
31.6
Standard
41. 1
15.4
NO
X
Mean
1.75
1.51
Standard
.869
.818
-------
Table 20.  Correlation Coefficient Summary by Manufacturer - Denver


Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle




Federal
Three-mode






















-

Manufacture r
All
GM
Ford
Chrysler
AMC
Others
All



GM



Ford



Chrysler



AMC



Others





Mode






High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
Number
of .
Vehicles
117
40
25
15
6
31
117
117
117
87
40
40
40
38
25
25
25
22
15
15
15
14
6
6
6
5
31
31
31
8
ST/FTP Correlation Coefficients'1'

HC
.81
.84
.99
.76
.97
.63
.50
.51
.31
.74
.62
.72
.80
.69
.75
.61
.89
.84
*
.23*
.60
.54
.30:

. 63^
.64
.23*
•34:

.*53*

CO
.86.
.78
.97
.91
.90
.48
.60
.61
.65
.62
.65
.75
.73
.73
.77
.78
. .74
.49
.68
.52
.80
.92
.95
.86*
.72
.92
.54
.62
•50*
.53

NO
X
.82
.91
.73
.82
.97
•91
.64
.70
.28
.24
.63
.81
-•41*
.22*
.65
•54*
•°4*
.02*
X
•43*
.02:
-.12
.75:
• 65*
-'23*
.22
.67
•68*
.05*
-.20
Log
(HC)
.82
.83
.94
.66
.98
.70
.52
.60
.59
.68
.57
.69
.68
.60
.78
.75
.78
.78
.52
.25
.78
.75
*
•39*
.64
• 84*
.84
.27*
•48*
.26:
.53
Log
(CO)
.82
.87
.91
.76
.92
.57
.58
.61
.60
.58
.69
.70
.54
.54
.65
.66
.75
.68
•32:
.40
.90
.86
.96
.93
.93
.96
.51
.66
•62*
.53
Log
(NO )
x x'
.86
.87
.78
.82 :
.98
,91
.63
.64
.28
.29
.37
.59
.38
.36
.70 '
.59*
•08*
.14
.29:
•45*
•o<
-.08
#
•75*
•67*
-.10*
.47
.83
.76*
•19*
-.15
Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk.
-------
Table 22.  Correlation Coefficient Summary by Transmission - Denver
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle

Federal
Three-mode










Transmission
All
Automatic
Manual
All



Automatic



Manual


Mode


High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
Number
of
Vehicles
117
87
30
117
117
117
87
87



30


ST/FTP Correlation Coefficients^
HC
.81
.92
.61
.50
.51
.31
.74
.57
.54
.75
.74
*
.27
.42
.01*
-
CO
.86
.88
.53 .
.60
.61
.65
.62
.64
.66
.72
.62
.38
.48
.60
-
NO
X
.82
.86
.95
.64
.70
.28
.24
.71
.74
. 32
.24
.73
.63
.19*
-
Log
(HC)
.82
.85
.73
.52
.60
.59
.68
.61
.65
.75
.68
*
.30
.49
.25*
-
Log
(CO)
.82
.85
.66
.58
.61
.60
.58
.62
.66
.66
.58
.46
.55
.60
-
Log
(N0x)
.86
.84
.94
.63
.64
.28
.29
.57
.59
.32
.29
.84
.77
*
.33
-
Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk.
-------
Table 23.  FTP Means and Standard Deviations by Fuel System Type - Denver

Fuel
Injection
Yes
No

Number
of
Vehicles
10
107
FTP Emissions (grams /mile)
HC
Mean
2.23
2.28
Standard
.722
1.46
CO
Mean
31.5
50.2
Standard
18. 1
38.6
NOX
Mean
1.62
1.70
Standard
. 744
.872
-------
Table 24.  Correlation Coefficient Summary by Fuel System Type - Denver
Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle

Federal
Three -mode










Fuel
Injection
All
Yes
No
All


Yes



No



Mode



High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
High
Low
Neutral
Drive
Number
of
Vehicles
117
10
107
117
117
117
87
10
10
10
3
107
107
107
84
ST/FTP Correlation Coefficients^ '
HC
.81
.03*
.84
.50
.51
.31
.74
.44*
.70
-.05*
.90*
.50
.51
.44
.74
CO
.86
.90
.86
.60
.61
.65
.62
.80
.75
*
.21
&
.62
.60
.61
.67
.62
NO
X
.82
.95
.88
.64
.70
.28
.24
.80
.86
.51*
.13*
.64
.69
.27
.24
Log
(HC)
.82
.15*
.84
.52
.60
.59
.68
.62*
.78
*
.08
.90*
.51
.60
.64
.68
Log
(CO)
.82
.93
.82
.58
.61
.60
.58
.51*
.64
.53*
.77*
.60
.62
.64
.60
Log
(N0x)
.86
.95
.85
.63
.64
.28
.29
.83
.73
.62*
.08*
.61
.63
.26
.29
Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk.
-------
                     Table 25.  FTP Means and Standard Deviation by Mileage Group - Denver
00
Mileage
Group
4000 Miles or
Less
Greater than
4000 Miles
Number
of
Vehicles
7

110

Emissions (grams /mile)
HC
Mean
1.98

2.30

Standard
1.50

1.41

CO
Mean
32.4

49.7

Stan da re
33.1

37.7

NO
X
Mean
0.857

1.74

Standard
0.231

0.858

-------
Table 26.  Correlation Coefficient Summary by Accumulated Mileage - Denver


Short Test
Federal
Short Cycle


Federal
Three-mode














Mileage
Group
All
4000 or Less
Greater
than 4000
All




4000 or Less





Greater
than 4000




Mode




High
Low
Neutral
Drive

High
Low
Neutral

Drive

High
Low
Neutral
Drive
Number
of
Vehicles
117
7
110

117
117
117
87

7
7
7

3

110
110
110
84
ST/FTP Correlation Coefficients' '

HC
.81
.88
.88

.50
.51
.31
.74
$
-.12
-.26*
.23*
*
.997

.52
.58
.32
.74
it
CO
.86
.67*
.88

.60
.61
.65
.62.
&
-.10
.01*
.76

.999

.62
.67
.65
.60

N0x
.82
.83
.88

.64
.70
.28
.24

.83
.79
.39*
*
.93

.62 .
.68
.26
.24
Log
(HC)
.82
.71*
.84

.52
.60
.59
.68
*
.05
-.31*
.14*
*
.97

.57
.70
. 62
.66
Log
(CO)
.82
.6.6*
.83

.58
.61
.60
.58
*
.47
.36*
.87
*
.99
i
.57
.63
.56
.55
Log
(NO )
X
.86
.81
.86

.63
.64
.28
.29

.81
.80
.45*
*
.96

. 60
.60
.27
.66
' Correlation Coefficients are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
except where indicated by an asterisk.
-------
                TABLE 27
 SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE ANALYSIS— JHC_
"GROUPED BY	  CIO 	              ""	
 FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE <-  117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
 METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS  OF  COMMISSION;, EC =


ALL
CIO
150
CIO

CIO
<« 150
TO 260
>= 260
NO-
OP
VEHICLES "
1 17
33
18
66
M
0
0
E



CUT POINTS
Sf UNITS FTP
1 .06
0.89
1 .28
1.07

"OMITS
1.82
1.92
1.84
1.68
CORRECT
"FAILURES"
"52.96
61 .34
27.29
57:91
*
-.-'EC"
5VOO~"
5.00
5.00
5."00 '
X
EO
'is. id"
1 1 .88
26.75
~"T1T58

STE"
0.78
0.84
0.50
0.83

STRR
O.'SS"
0.91
0.60
0791

"EC7(ECTFFT
0.09
0.08
0.15
0.08 '
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.29
1.22
1.45
1 .33
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.82
2.56
2.38
3.02
CORRE-
LATION
0.5871 	
0.6100
0.4223
0.6383
-------
                     TABLE 28
SUMMARY  OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  HC
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5%

CID
ALL
CIO <=• 150

150 TO 260

CIO > = 260

NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS
VEHICLES" 0~SrUNITS FTP UNITS
E
1 17
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
86.78
89.33
167.58
132.89
123.35
"•'126.66
221 .02
168.41
123.70
91 .68
322.89
281 .85
69.69
77.38
113.53
87.08 '"
2.27
2.17
2.22
2.19"
2.34
1 2.32
2.22
2.20
1.98
1.79
1 .«1
1.81
2.12
2.17
1.95
'1.87
%
CORRECT
FAILURES"
" "32.59"
37.63
33.30
36.72
25.77
36.23
29.30
32.12
15.54
30.88
15.61
15.78
43. bb
42.30
46.38
"5f ;48
%
""EC"
"5.00
5.00
5.00
" 5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
"5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
s;oo
%
...... EQ._.. ..
""35.58
30.55
34.87
31.45"
51.08
40.62"
44.48
41.66
48.17
23.16
""38.43
38.26
25.84~
27.19
23.1 1
~" 18.00

"•• STE
"- "0:48
0.55
0.49
" 0.54
0.34
0.47 "
0.40
0.44
0.24
0.57
0 . 29
0.29
' 0.63
0.61
0.67
	 0.74 ""

STRff" EC
o . 55-
0.63
0.56
0.61
0.40
0.54 "
0.46
0.50
0.32
0.66
0.38"
0.38
0.70
0.68
0.74
• 0.81 '"
:/(EC+FFT
"O" 1 3
0.12
0.13
O."12
0. 16
o;~i2
0.15
0. 13
0.24
0. 14
0.24
0.24
' 0 . 1 0
0.11
•0. 10
" ' 0.09""
FTP AVG
FOR ST
PASS "
1.83
1.59
1.72
	 1.73 '"
2.15
1.90
2.07
2.04
1.84
1 .41
1 I 75 "'
1 .75
1 .b5
1.63
1.51
.... 1 -4Q
FAIL
• 2:95
2.94
2.96
3.01
2.40
2.63"
2.49
2.58
1.64
2.44
2.31
2.31
3.22
3.34
3.35
3.27
CORRE-
LATION '
0.3086
0.3719
0.3175
0.3G05
0. 1091
0.2189
0. 1913
0.2227
0. 1263
0.4807
0. 2219
0-2250
0. 4277
0.4103
0.4639
O.bJbO
-------
                                                                            TABLE 29
IS)
ts)


NO. M
OF 0
CIO VEHICLES 0
E
ALL 11V
CIO <= 150 33
150 TO 260 18
'CIO >- 260 66


SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CO
GROUPED BY " ' ClO
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER1
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5% -
% % % FTP AVG
CUT POINTS CORRECT FOR ST CORRE-
STTJNITS FTP'UNITS FAILURES" EC" ~ Eo " STT STRR EC/CEC+FF) "PASS FAIL '" LATION
3.28 22.28 88.52 5.00 2.25 0.98 1.03 0.05 21.73 50.88 0.5095
6.01 22.50 81.91 5.00 6.52 0.93 0.98 0.06 18.53 39.74 0.4676
3.70 26.08 76.12 5.00- 10.06 0.88 0.94 0.06 28.76 35.93 0.4597
1.73 23.17 93.51 5.00 0.21 1.00 1.05 0.05 9.66 60.34 0.4038
-. - ..

-------
                                                               TABLE 30
tSJ
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — co
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5X

CIO
ALL
CIO <- 150

150 TO 260

CIO > = 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
117
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0
0
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS
1978.06
1191 .10
984.23
674.82
17373.87
1 1520.56
2910.54
21 14.90
19583.11
1049.13
9772.40
1940.52
7556.57
6753.17
11836.14
104.14
FTP UNITS
26.25
28.21
28.03
27.44
35.42
32.16
22.92
25.45
34.92
28.75
29.03
23.49
36.36
39.03
43.49
28.65
CORRECT
FAILURES
81 .94
82.91
81 .10
82.71
47.70
59.06
77.79
77.65
43.43
70.39
64.75
73.85
70.83
69.05
65.66
92.49
X
EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
% FTP AVG
FOR ST
EO
8.83
7. '86
9.67
8.06
36.81
25.45
10.67
10.81
41 .47
15.79
20. 15
11.05
12.95
14.74
18.13
1 .23
STE
0.90
0.91
0.89
0.91
0.56
0.70
0.88
0.88
0.51
0.82
0.76
0.87
0.85
0.82
0.78
0.99
STRR
0.96
0.97
0.95
0.97
0.62
0.76
0.94
0.93
0.57
0.87
0.82
0.93
0.91
0.83
0.84
1.04
EC/(EC+FF)
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.05
PASS
25.60
25.17
29.70
28.27
26.26
22.00
17.19
17.07
32.88
20.79
21 .80
21.80
34.40
32. 11
33.74
0.00
FAIL
52.83
54.38
55.47
55.98
48.94
47.45
40.04
40.95
37.65
41.71
42.97
42.97
67.96
69.60
77.28
58.81
CORRE-
LATION
0.3100
0-3299
0.2942
0.3256
0. 1751
0. 2836
0.3776
0.3751
0. 1293
0.3644
0.3364
0.4724
0.4625
0. 4337
0.3848
0.2960
-------
                                                         TABLE 31
                                    SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  NOX	
                                   'GROUPED BY   "   CIO 	"	
                                    FEDERAL SHORT  CYCLE  -  117  CAR FLEET  (DENVER)
                                    METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION;  EC=    5X
                    NO.     M                           %        %        %                                    FTP  AVG
                    OF      0       CUT POINTS       CORRECT                 	   	                     FOR  ST   	CORRE-
CIO
ALL
CID <« 150
150 TO 250
'CIO >-"260" "
"VEHICLES"
33
18
66
0" ST UNITS "•
E
2.54
2.19
2.99
2.S2
"FTP UNITS
2.66
2.56
2.85
2.67
FAILURES"
"4 .' 1 9
4.69
7.42
"2778"
	 EC
•"5:06~~ "
5.00
5.00
5.00 "
EO
"1 .48
1.03
0.23
1726
STE"
07 74
0.82
0.97
0 ". 69
STRR EC/rEC+FFl
1.62 0.54
1.70 0.52
1.62 0.40
1.93 0.64
PASS"
1.52
1 .49
1.72
" 1 . 52
FAIL
3752
4.10
3.47
3.76
LATION
0.5490
0.6022
0.7380
0.4673
ro
-------
                     TABLE 32
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
GROUPED BY ' CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS
NO.
OF
CIO VEHICLES
ALL 117
1 17
1 17
1 1 7
CID <=» 150 33
33
33
33
150 TO 260 18
18
18
18
CID >= 260 66
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
Kl
H
L
D
N
H
L
N
H
L
0
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS 	 FTP UNITS
" 2226.67 2.75
1567.75 2.93
262.73 2.03
108.25 2.19
2674.86 2.53
1198.68 2.42
97.86 1.82
102^08 1.81
2211.37 2.87
1589.43 2.69
447.11 2.51
120.14 2.51
1 1863.41 3.15
1399.00 2.90
281.31 1.95
101 .04 2.19
CORRECT
"FAILURES"
"2.32
2.34
0.90
O.Bb
3.52
1 .54
0.33
0.87
5.87
3.35
4.07
2.02
1 . 59
1 .31
0.40
0.46.
CAR FLEET
OF COMMIS
*
EC
"5.00 ~
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
" 5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00 '
5.00
' 5.00
5.00
5.00
' 5.00
(DENVER)
ION; EC=
X
EO
3.34
3.33
4.76
"4.81 ' '
2.20
"1.33 "
2.54
4.84
5.77
4.30
7.57 '
5.63
"2.45
2.73
3.64
3.58 "

S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5X

TE
".41
.41
.16
: is
.62
.54
.12
.15
.50
.44
.35
.26
:39
.32
.10
.11 "




"STRR E
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
.30
.04
".03
.49
.28
.86
.03
.93
.09
.92
.63
.56
.34
."35

C/fEC
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
"0.
0.
0.
0.
. 0.
0.


+ FF)
68
68
85
85"
59
76
94
85
46
60
55 '
71
76 	
79
93
92



FTP
FOR
PASS""
' 1
1


1
1
1
1
— T
1
1
1
.60
.60
.66
.64
.55
".50
.60
.60
.80
.90
"1 80
.90
".54
.54
.69
. 63

AVG
ST


"FAIL"
2
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
1
3
.92
.19
.01
."72
.99
.31
.30
.13
.85
.18
.85
.16
.86
.56
.60
.58

CORRE-
LATION
0.3164
0.3187
0. 1043
0.0958
0.4676
0.3273
0.0475
0.0983
0.4611
0.3692
0.3271
0.2186
0.2V1b
0.2202
0.0401
0. Ob30
-------
TABLE 33


— ™-
ALL
CIO <= 150
150 TO 260
C1D >*'260"~


NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES D ST
E
117
33
18
66
sur
GR(
FEl
ME'
CUT
"UNITS"



rtMARY OF CON
DUPED BY'
JERAL SHORT
moo OF BOUN
POINTS
FTP UNITS



TINGENCY TABLE
ANALYSIS-- CMP3
CIO .
CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
DEO ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5X
CORRECT
FAILURES
88.89
84.85
77.78
92.42 '
%
EC"" "
5.98
0.00
5.56
6.06
*
EO STE
"2.56 0.97 "
9.09 0.90
5.56 0.93
0.00 1 . 00

STRR
" 1 . 04
0.90
1 .00
1:07"

FTP AVG
FOR ST
~EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
0.
0.
0.
06
00
07
0.06
CO
	 LA
0.
0.
0.
o.
iRRE-
TION
3447 '
6011
6000
4332
-------
TABLE 34
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS

CIO
ALL

CIO <* 150

150 TO 260

CID >« 260

NO.
OF
CAR FLEET (DENVER)
OF COMMISSION; EC* 5X
M % %
0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
VEHICLES D ST UNITS
E
117
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
,18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
H
L
0
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
FTP UNITS FAILURES
85
82
76
74
81
63
66
81
78
75
50
61
55
61
50
80
77
60
92
83
.47
.05
.07
.36
.20
.64
.67
.82
.79 '
.76
.00
. 11
.56
. 1 1
.00
.30
.27
.61
'.42
.33
EC
0.85
0.85
3.42
1.71
0.85
0.00
0.00
3.03
3.03
0.00
0.00
5.56
11.11
5.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.52
7.58
0.00
X
EO
5.98
9.40
15.38
17.09
10.26
30.30
27.27
12.12
15. 15
18.18
33.33
22.22
27.78
22.22
33.33
12.12
15.15
31 .82
0.00
9.09

STE
0.93
0.90
0.83
0.81
0.89
0.68
0.71
0.87
0.84
0.81
0.60
0.73
0.67
-0.73
0.60
0.87
0.84
0.66
" r.oo
0.90

FTP
FOR
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
0.94
0.91
0.87
0.83
0.90
0.68
0.71
0.90
0.87
0.81
0.60
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.87
0.84
0.67
1 .08
0.90
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.17
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.08
0.00
AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATION
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.6791
.5920
.2990
.4017
.5740
.3360
.3592
.2469
.2095
.4490
.4472
.3162
.0000
. 3162
.4472
.5781
.5279
. 2486
INDEF
0.6402
-------
                                                                   TABLE 35
IS)
oo


NO. M
OF 0
CID VEHICLES D
E
ALL 300
CIO <•> 150 95
150 TO 260 54
CIO >= 260 151


SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— HC
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR= 100%
% % % FTP AVG
CUT POINTS " CORRECT FOR ST CORRE-
~ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC EQ STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATtON
\
1.04 1.40 22.70 9. Ol" 9.01 0.72 1.00 0.28 0.92 2.22 0.5340
1.03 1.35 23.16 8.98 . 8.98 0.72 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.97 0.5884
0.96 1.41 17.51 9.76 9.76 0.64 1.00 0.36 1.03 1.83 0.5080
1.07 1.42 24.20 8.69 8.69 0.74 1.00 0.26 0.82 2.45 0.6062


-------
TABLE 36
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — HC


CID
ALL
CIO <=• 150

150 TO 260

"CID >» 260


NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151

M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL 3-MODE -
FIXED SHORT TEST
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS FTP UNITS
55.04 1.39
57.88 .42
112.27 .37
105.28 .36
62.90 .35
65.09 .36
124.10 .31
105.20 .32
54.92 .32
69.90 .33
137.81 .35
122.23 .33
50.65 1.44
50.21 1.49
96.89 1.40
100.05 1.39
CID
300 CAR FLEET
REJECTION RATIO;
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
14.03
15.87
19.01
18.27
15.08
16.61
18. 16
17.08
10.09
12.43
14.42
13.51
14.80
16.83
21 .23
20148
%
EC
' 17. 57
15.74
12.70
13.44
17.06
"15.52
13.98
15.05
17.18
14.84
12.85
13.76
1 7 . 90 "
15.86
11.66
12:41"
STRR= 100X
%
EO
17.57
15.74
12.70
13.44
17.06
15.52
13.98
15.05
17.18
14.84
12.85
13.76
~ir;9o"
15.86
11.66
12.41


STE STRR
0.44 1.00
0.50 1.00
0.60 1.00
0.58 1.00
0.47 .00
0.52 .00
0.57 .00
0.53 .00
0.37 .00
0.46 .00
0753" .00
0.50 .00
0.45 .00
0.51 .00
0.65 .00
0.62 1.00



FTP
FOR
EC/(EC+FF) PASS
0.56
0.50
0.40
0.42
0.53
0.48
0.43
0.47
0.63
0.54
0.47
0.50
0.55
0.49
0.35
0.38
1.21
1.14
0.99
1.00
1.23
1.17
1 .09
1 .09
1 .09
1.11
1.07
1.07
1.27
1.13
0.87
0.93

AVG
ST
FAIL
1.76
1.92
2.15
" 2.17
1.49
1.65
1.87
1.82
1 .78
1.65
"' 1.86
1.91
" 1.94
2.18
2.43
2749

CORRE-
LATION
0. 1870
0.2720
0.4136
0.3794
0.2179
0.2884
0.3591
0.3098
0.1340
0.2518
0.3523
0.3062
0. 1868
0.2791
0.4718
— OT4379 	
-------
TABLE 37
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — HC
GROUPED BY cio
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300
EC/(EC+FF) • 10X AND 20X:

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID > = 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
95
54
151
M
0 CUT
D ST UNITS
E
2.06
1 .90
2.65
2.01
POINTS
FTP~UNITS
2.26
1.78
2.78
2.41
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
10.89
11 .47
4.33
13.28
CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF)a 10X
X
EC
1.21
1.27
0.48
1.48
X
EO
20.82
20.66
22.94
rg;6f

STE "STRR "
0.34 0.38
0.36 0.40
0.16 0.18
0.40 0.45
FTP
FOR
EC/(EC+FFJ PASS
0.10 1.14
0.10 1.23
0.10 1.21
0.10 1.06
AVG
ST
FAIL
_CORRE- 	
3.18 0.4647
2.79 0.4735
2.75 0.3168
	 3722 	 07-5058 	
-------
                        TABLE 38
SUMMARY OF  CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  HC
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
EC/JEC+FF) « 10% AND 20%: EC/ ( EC+FF)*


CID

ALL


CIO <= 150



150 TO 260



CID >= 260


NO.
OF
VEHICLES

300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N

CUT POINTS
ST UNITS FTP UNITS

*****
*****
572.65 . 3.42
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
353.06 3.32
467.71 3.22
X
CORRECT
FAILURES

PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
1.73
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
4.42
2.84
X

EC

SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0. 19
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.49
0.32
%

EO

DOES
DOES
10%




NOT
NOT
29.98
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
28.
30.
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
47
05


STE

EXIST
EXIST
0.05
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
0. 13
0.09
FTP
FOR
STRR EC/(EC-fFF) PASS

*****
*****
. 0.06 0.10 1.35
**** *
*****
*****
*****
*****
*** * *
*»* **
*** **
*** **
*****
*****
0.15 0.10 1.42
0.10 0.10 1.41
AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATION


3.14 0.1754










1.85 0.2761
2.13 0.2194
-------
TABLE 39


SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS—
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300
EC/(EC+FF) = 10X AND 20X:

CIO
ALL
CIO <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >» 260
NO.
OF
"VEHICLES"
300
95
54
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
1.37 1.68
1.31 1.49
1.66 1.99
1.33 1.69
X
CORRECT
"FAILURES
17.99
18.68
9.50
20.60
HC -CONTINUED
CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF)= 20X
X
EC
" 4.50 "
4.67
2.38
5. 15
X
- EO
T3.72
13.45
17.77
— 12T29—

FTP AVG
FOR ST
STE STRR EC/TEC4-FFT" PASS FAIL
0.57 0.71 0.20
0.58 0.73 0.20
0.35 0.44 0.20
0.63 0.78 0.20
1.02 2.59
1.07 2.28
1.17 2.54
0.93 2.65
CORRE-
LATION
0.5590
0.5657
0.4347
0.5905
OJ
-------
                                TABLE 40
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  HC  -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF) * 10X AND 20%: EC/(£C+FF)= 20%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS
E
H
L
D 298.12
N 345.00
H
L
D 455.95
N 524.38
H
L
D 470.11
N
H
L
D 195.41
N 242.14
FTP UNITS
*****
*****
2.19
2.28
*****
*****
2.24
2.32
*****
*****
. 2.59
*****
*****
*****
2.14
2.09
CORRECT
FAILURES
PRACTiCAL"
PRACTICAL
6.09
4.09
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
3.20
1 .27
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
1 .72"
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
10.85
8.39
*
EC
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
1.52
1.02
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.80
0.32
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.43
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
2.71
2.10
X
EO
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
25.61
27.61
DOES NOT
DOES NOT'
28.93
30.86
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
25.55 ~
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
22.04
24.50

STE STRR
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
0.19 0.24
0.13 0.16
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
0. 10 0.12
0.04 0.05
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
0.06 . 0.08
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
0.33 0.41
0.26 0.32

EC/(EC+FF)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20

0.20
0.20
0,20
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.25
1.32
1.26
1.30

1.27
1.15
1.21
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.39
2.06
2.39
2.06

0.00
2.66
2.65
CORRE-
LATION
0.2980
0.2410
0.2094
0.1303

0.1757
0.3973
0.3432
-------
TABLE 41
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — HC
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC
NO. M
OF 0 CUT POINTS
CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID > 0*260
VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
300 1.32
95 1.28
54 1.27
151 1.35
1 .64
1.48
1.67
1.71
X
CORRECT
"FAILURES
18*68
19.13
13.31
" 20.40 -
X
EC
5.06
5.00
5.00
5.00'
%
EO
f 3. 03
13.00
13.96
112:49
5X

STE STRR EC/(EC+FF)
0.59 	 0.75 0.21
0.60 0.75 0.21
0.49 0.67 0.27
0.62 0.77 0.20

FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
PASS FAIL LATION
1.01 2.51 0.5646
1.07 2.24 0.5693
1.13 2.39 0.4830
0.93 2.65 0.5891
OO
-------
                                                               TABLE 42
OJ
Ul
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— HC
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS

CID
ALL
CID <=• 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS
VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
H
L
D
N
H
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
92.48
92.75
183.79
181.25
106.89
105.32
219.49
192.09
91 .97
110.34
' 212.65
210.37
83.42
78.62
150.51
165.39
1.62
1.79
.69
.65
.54
.63
.58
.52
1.56
1.57
1.63
1 .66
1.65
2.04
1 .80
1.71
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
5.43
7.48
11 .90
10.72"
6.24
"8.07
10.21
8.68
3.69
5.95
8.43
7.23
"5165
7.97
14.61
13.29
FLEET
OF COMMISSION; EC
X
EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
"5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00"
*
EO
26. 17
24.12
19.81
"20.98 "
25.89
" 24.06 "
21.92
23.45
23.58
21 .32
18.83
20.04
"27;os
24.73
18.27
19.60
5X

" STE "
0.1 7
0.24
0.38
0.34 "
0. 19
"0.25
0.32
0.27
0. 14
0.22
' 0.31
0.27
0.1 T~
0.24
0.44
-------
TABLE 43
SUMMARY OF
CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — HC

GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE- 60X
NO. M
OF 0 CUT POINTS
XXX FTP AVG
CORRECT FOR ST
CtD VEHICLES 0 St UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC EO STt STHR EC/16C+H-) PASS hAU
E
ALL 300 1.29 1
CIO <= 150 95 1.27 1
150 TO 260 54 1.04 1
CIO i»= 260 151 1.40 1
.62 19.02 5.27 12.68 0.60 0.77 0.22 1.00 2.50
.47 19.28 5.12 12.85 0.60 0.76 0.21 1.07 2.24
.48 16.36 8.20 10.91 0.60 0.90 0.33 1.06 1.88
.77 19.73 4.52 13.16 0.60 0.74 0.19 0.93 2.72
CORRE-
LATION
"0.5673
0.5705
0.5041
0.5839

OJ
-------
                         TABLE 44
SUMMARY  OF  CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  HC
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 60%
NO. M
OF 0
CUT POIN
cio VEHICLES o ST UNITS FT
E
ALL 300 H
300 L
300 0
300 N
CIO <= 150 95 H
95 L
95 0
95 N
150 TO 260 54 H
54 L
54 D
54 N
-1 CIO >- 260 151 H
151 L
151 D
151 N
42.70
49.25
112.14
99.71
50.33
56.50
114.59
90.45
37.14
54.52
120.18
96.87
40.44
44.00
107.32
105.54
TS
P UNITS
1.31
1.32
1.37
1.34
1.29
1.30
1 .28
1.28
1.21
1.23
1.23
1.24
1.37
1.37
1.48
1.42
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
" 18.96 '
18.96
19.02
19.02
19.28
19.28
19.28
19.28
16.36
16.36
"16.36
16.36
19.62
19.62
19.73
19.73
X
" EC ~ 	
27.13
21.23
12.72
14.59
24.81
""20.07
15.72
18.71
32.38
23.20
16.40
19.38
26.85
20.58
9.77
11.40
X
Ed ~ '
12.64
12.64
12.68
12.68" "
12.85
"12.85
12.85
12.85
10.91
10.91
"10.91
10.91
" 13.08
13.08
13.16
13.16

STE
0 . 60"
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60"
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60"
0.60
0 : 60"
0.60
0.60
"0.60


STRR ECyrEC+m
1.46
1.27
1.00
1.06
1.37
1122
1 .09
1 .18
1.79
1.45
1V20
1.31
1.42
1.23
0.90
0.95
0.59
0.53
0.40
0.43
0.56
"o.sr
0.45
0.49
0.66
0.59
'" 0.50 '•"
0.54
0.58 '
0.51
0.33
0.37
FTP
FOR
PASS
T.~2o
1.10
0.99
0;98"^
1.21
1.16
1 .08
1.05
1.10
0.95
1.07
1.05
1.27
1.10
0.90
- 0193 "
AVG
ST
"FAIL
1762
1.80
2.15
~2.08~
.47
-.56
.79
.76
.54
.78
.68
.68
1.'7
-------
                                                          TABLE 45
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— HC -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE- 70%

CIO
ALL
CIO <= 150
150 TO 260
CIO >= 260
NO. M
OF 0
%
CUT POINTS CORRECT
"WHlCLtS 0 ST^UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
E
300
95
54
151
1 .07
1.07
0.85
1.15
1.43 22.19
1.37 22.49
1.33 19.09
1.51 23.02
% %
EC EO STE
8.38 9.51 0.70
8.17 9.64 0.70
12.32 8.18 0.70
7.34 9.87 0.70

STRR Ei
0.96
0.95
1.15
0.92
:7rEc+FFr
0.27
0.27
0.39
' 0.24
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
PASS FAIL LATIQN
0.94 • 2.25 0.5830
1.02 2.00 0.5871
1.01 1.62 0.5092
0.84 2.52 0.6034
00
-------
                                                           TABLE 46
oo
SUMMARY
OF CONTINGENCY
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL 3-MODc -
FIXED SHORT TEST

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS
VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
D
N
H
L
D
N
35
41
88
78
41
47
90
71
30
45
97
76
34
37
85
82
.87
.29
.88
.45
.92
.1 1
.09
.53
.98
.32
.94
.39
.33
.30
.21
.27
.23
.26
.25
.26
.24
.22
.24
.17 .
.18
.20
.16
.33
.24
.32
.77 1.30
TABLE ANALYSIS —
HC -CONTINUED
CID
300 CAR FLEET
EFFECTIVENESS; STE- 70%
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
22. 12
22. 12
22. 19
22. 19
22.49
22.49
22.49
22.49
19.09
19.09
19.09
19.03
22.89
22.89
23.02
23.02
X
EC
34.36
27.99
18.03
20.31
31.87
26.67
21.64
25. 12
40. 16
30.43
22.60
26.10
33.98
27.21
14.32
16.38
%
EO
9.48
9.48
9.51
9.51
9.64
9.64
9.64
9.64
8. 18
8.18
8.18
8. 18
9.81
9.81
9.87
9.87

STE
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70


STRR EC/(EC+FF)
.79
.59
.27
.34
.69
.53
.37
.48
2.17
1 .82
1.53
1 .66
1.74
1.53
1.14
1.20
0.61
0.56
0.45
0.48
0.59
0.54
0.49
0.53
0.68
0.61
0.54
0.58
0.60
0.54
0.38
0.42
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.12
•1 .08
0.93
0.96
1.15
1.15
1 .01
1.05
1.13
0.94
1 .04
1.08
1.12
1 .10
0.85
0.68
AVG
ST
FAIL
.59
.75
.98
.96
.50
.52
.69
1.68
1.39
1.65
1.63
1.52
1.64
1.91
2.42
2.28
CORRE-
LATION
0. 1853
0.2704
0.4137
0.3790
0.2160
0.2868
0.3584
0.3084
0. 1340
0.2508
0.3516
0. 3053
0. 1848
0. 2774
0.4726
0.4384
-------
TABLE 47


SUMMARY OF
CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS—
HC -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY C1D
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= BOX

C1D
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >» 260
NO.
OF
""VEHICLES
300
95
54
151
M
0 CUT
D ST UNITS
E
0.86
0.88
0.68
O.93
POINTS
"FTP UNITS
1.26
1 .28
1.19
1.27
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
	 2 5": 36 	
25.71
21.81
26.31
%
EC
13.20
12.92
18.38
~rr;so —
%
EO
6734
6.43
5.45
6.58
FTP
FOR
STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
0.80 1.22 0.34 0.85
0.80 1.20 0.33 0.92
0.80 1.47 0.46 0.97
0.80 1 .16 0.31 0.77
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.03
1.86
1.55
2.32
CORRE-
"TATION 	
0.5800
0.5848
0.4971
— OT6039 	
-------
                                 TABLE 48
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—   HC  -CONTINUED


CID
ALL
CID < = 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260


NO.
OF
VEHICLES"
300
300
300
	 300 "
95
95 '
95
95
54
54
54 "
54
151
151
151
151

M
0
0
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
M
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL S-MODE -
FIXED SHORT TEST
CUT POINTS
St UNITS "FTP UNITS""
29.25 1.23
33.61 1.15
67.81 1.17
""" 59.31 1.18
33.86 .22
38.09 .18
68.04 .15
54.38 .19
25.06 .13
36.52 .12
77.13 .13
57.88 .10
28.34 .29
30.74 .12
65.20 .17
62.39 .20
CID 	 " 	
300 CAR FLEET
EFFECTIVENESS:
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
25.28
25.28
25.36
' 25.36
25.71
25.71"
25.71
25.71
21 .81
21 .81
21 .81"
21 .81
26. 16
26. 16
26.31
25:31"
%
__ £C ....
"42.77
36.38
25.32
" 27.97
40.27
"--34.9.4
29.46
33.29
48.89
39.34
30.82
34.72
42.25
35.46
20.82
23.31
STE= 80X
%
EO 	 '
6.32
6.32
6.34
6.34 '
6.43
'""" 6.43"
6.43
6.43
5.45
5.45
" 5.45
5.45
6.54
6.54
6.58
6.58


STE *
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80 '
0.80
"0.80 '"
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
' 0 . 80 "
0.80
"0.80"
0.80
0.80
~"0.80 '


STRR"
2."15
1 .95
1 .60
~ "1.68
2.05
1.89
1.72
1.84
2.59
2.24
1.93
2.07
2.09
1 .88
1.43
1.51


"EC7TECTFFT
0.63
0.59
0.50
0.52
0.61
0.58
0.53
0.56
0.69
0.64
0.59
0.61
0.62
0.58
0.44
0.47

FTP AVG
FOR ST
' PASS 	 FAIL
.1.11 .50
1.01 .62
0.93 .86
0.91 .82
0.99 .53
1.03 .56
1.01 .65
1.01 .57
1.17 .32
0.91 .58
1 .06 .50
0.90 .54

CORRE-
LATION 	
0.1742
0.2564
0.3995
0.3642
0.2037
0.2726
0.3436
0.2939
0. 1251
0.2368
0.3356
0.2898
1.16 .55 0.1738
1.10 .68 0.2635
0.85 2.30 0.4610
0.83 2.16
0.4253
-------
                                                             TABLE 49
                                  SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  CO
                                 "GROUPED BY       CID 	 	"  '
                                  FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
                                  FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO: STRR= 100*
                  NO.     M                           %        %       %                                    FTP AVG
                  OF     0       CUT POINTS       CORRECT                        	                      FOR ST 	CORRE-
              "VEHICT.E5—D~SnJNIT$	FTp"UNITS—FAILURES	EC	EOT	STE  ^~5TRR~~EC7TECTFFT  PTSSFAIT    LATIOfT
                         E
ALL
CID <= 150
300
95
5.17
8.90
13.23
14.98
44.07 •
33.47
9.75
11.23
9.75
11.23
0.82
0.75
1.00
1.00
0.18
0.25
9.89
10.42
33.26 0.6078
23.87 0.5456
 150  TO  260        54              4.47      14.42    46.63     8.91    8.91    0.84    1.00     0.16     10.64   32.79    0.6391

"CIO  >=  260	151	3775	T2761	48786	8729	8729	0785	TTOO	0*715	9.19   40746    OT66T6~
-------
                                                                TABLE 50
                                     SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS— .  co
UO
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL 3-MOD£ -
FIXED SHORT TEST

CIO
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF

300 '
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0
E
H
L
D
H
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
L
D
N
CID 	
300 CAR FLEET
REJECTION RATIO
CUT POINTS CORRECT
SfUNtTS""" FTP "UNITS' FAI LURES "
625.02
638.06
2197.93
1972.38
2016.58
1905.48
5907.01
5162.46
339.65
406.29
2446.02
2031.27
385.29
375.72
1 121 .24
1046.11
20.87
19.59
13.99
13.93
15.34
15.34
13.94
14.05
19.61
17.43
14.29
14.24
24.36
24.00
13.01
12.85
33.73
35.90
43.42
42.76
22.91
"25.57"
30.43
29.20
33.72
39.03
47.26
44.66
' "40.37
41 .88
50.00
49.91
EC
~ 2 1.32
19.20
12.41
13.1 9
21.80
19. 13
14.36
15.60
2.4.72
19.98
12.19
14.78
' "18.40
16.95
9.91
" 10.23
; STRR= 100X
%
EO
	 21.32
19.20
12.41
" 13.19
21.80
19.13"
14.36
15.60
24.72
19.98
12.19
14.78
18.40
16.95
9.91
10.23

"~STE"
XT. 61"
0.65
0.78
0.76
0.51
0.57
0.68
0.65
0.58
0.66
" 0.79
0.75
0.69
0.71
0.83
0.83


STRH" EC/fEC-t-FFV
t .00
1 .00
1 .00
"1.00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
"1 .00
1.00
1:00 "
1 .00
1 .00
\ TOO
0.39
0.35
0.22
0.24
0.49
0.43"
0.32
0.35
0.42
' 0.34
0.21
0.25
0.29
0.17
0.17
FTP
FOR
PASS
22.42
19.54
11.35
11 .86
14.35
13 . 58
11 .43
11 .97
23.91
19.31
1 1 .71
12.98
22794
22.88
10.92
If .03
AVG
ST
" FAIL" ""
"25.57
28.08
33.27
32.79
20.61
20.21
21.42
20.94
20.21
23.50
30.34
30.46
34.05
35.19
44.29
43.81
CORRE-
LATION
0.1384
0.2240
0.4966
0.4649
0. 1182
0. 2260
0.4191
0.3691
-0.0178
0. 1739
0.4944
0. 3868
0-2405
0.3001
0.5873
0.5733
-------
TABLE
51



SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — co
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300
EC/(EC+FF) = 10X AND 20X:

CID
ALL
CID <=• 150
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
95
54
151
M
O CUT
D ST UNITS
E
9.91
18.58
6.65
5.70
POINTS
FTP UNITS
18.35
20.69
16.45
14.88
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
34.44
17.56
39.79
43.98
CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF)= 10X
X
EC
3.83
1.95
4.42
4.89
X
EO
19.38
27.15
15.75
13.17
FTP
FOR
STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
0.64 0.71 0.10 10.76
0.39 0.44 0.10 13.46
0.72 0.80 0.10 11.07
0.77 0.85 0.10 9.91
AVG
ST
FAIL
40.77
33.21
33.18
43.88
CORRE-
LATION
0.5714
0.4485
0.6173
0.6489
-------
                                                             TABLE 52
                                    SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  co
ui
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF>= 10%

CID
ALL
CID < = 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
1 51
151
151
151
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS CORRECT
ST UNITS
12945.39
15615.30
79635.50
132754.13

10476.20
26790.04
12984.52
2936.66
2979.88
FTP UNITS FAILURES
***** PRACTICAL
***** PRACTICAL
22.45 24.59
25.89 20.80
***** PRACTICAL
***** PRACTICAL
38.39 6.11
60.99 2.93
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PRACTICAL
18.42 29.58
28.32 15.26
***** PRACTICAL
50.90 4.71
15.23 41.01
15.43 39.90
EC
sol u ti ON
SOLUTION
2.73
2.31
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.68
0.33
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
3.29
1.70
SOLUTION
0.52
4.56
4.43
EO
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
31 .24
35.14
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
38.69
41 .87
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
' 29.87
44. 19
"DOES '"NOT
54. 12
18.90
20.24


STE STRR EC/(EC+FF)
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
0.44 0
0.37 0
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
0.14 0
0.07 0
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
0.50 0
0.26 0
EXIST *****
0.08 0
0.68 0
0 . 66 0
.49
.41
. 15
.07

.55
.29
.09
.76
.74
0.10
0. 10
0. 10
0.10

0.10
0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
0.10
FTP
FOR
PASS
12.66
14.26
16.54
16.79

13.31
14.70
25.34
11.58
11.67
AVG
ST
FAIL
44.93
52.46
24.49
0.00

37.21
43.87
82.22
48.62
48.02
CORRE-
LATION
0.4219
0.3761
0.2453
0.1667

0.4354
0.2812
0.1488
0.5617
0.5443
-------
TABLE 53


SUMMARY OF
CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS-
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300
EC/(EC+FF) * 10X AND 20%:

CID
ALL
CID <- 150
150 TO 260
CID > = 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
95
54
151
M
0 CUT
D ST UNITS
E
4.51
11 .12
3.54
2.36
POINTS
FTP UNITS
12.52
16.29
13.56
11.00
CORRECT
FAILURES
45.67
28.97
49.66
52.75
CO -CONT
INUED




CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF)= 20X
X
EC
11 .42
7.24
12.41
13.19
X
EO
8.15
15.74
5.88
4.40

STE
0.85
0.65
0.89
0.92

STRR EC/(EC+FF)
1.06 0.20
0.81 0.20
1.12 0.20
1.15 0.20
FTP AVG
FOR ST
PASS
9.44
11.02
9.98
8.12
FAIL
32.41
26.68
29.19
39.14
CORRE-
LATION
0.6057
0.5348
0.6297
0.6424
-------
                                  TABLE 54
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  CO -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY cio
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(£C+FF)= 20%

C1D
ALL
CIO <* 150

150 TO 260

C1D >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POI
VEHICLES D ST UNITS 1
E
300
300
300
"" 300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
1 51
151
151
151
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
0
N
H
L
C
N
12470.65
2955.68
3249.72
21343.43
29910.23
13563.1 1
2609.79
4458.96
3926.22 ""
1763.00
702.62
693.10
[NTS
•ff UNITS
*****
41 .22
14.59
lb.05
*****
*****
19.06
23.15
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
PRACTICAL"
5 . 37
40.68
37.96
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL"
16.88
11 .60
***** PARAMETRIC
41.79 3.27
14.37
15.62
31 .b5
26.96
12.50
12.38
46.61
36.01
12. 4b
22.41
53.23
52.85
%
EC
SOLUTION'
1.34
10.17
"9.49
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
4.22
2.90
SOLUTION
0.82
11 .65
9.00
3. 11
5.60
13.31
13. 2T
%
- E0--
DOES NOT"
49.73
15.15
17.98
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
27.92
33.20
DOES NOT
55.74
" 12.84
23.43
"46.32
36.42
6.69
7.29

STE
EXIST
0. 10
0.73
"0.68
EXIST
EXIST
0.38
0.26
EXIST
0.06
0.78
0.61
0 . 21
0.38
0.89
• o : 88

STRR EC
*****
0.12
0.91
" 0.85
*** **
*****
0.47
0.32
*** + *
0.07
' 0.98
0.76
o.ie
0.48
1.11
1 .10
7TEC+FFT
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0720
0.20
0.20
0.20
FTP
FOR
""PASS "
21 .04
11 .45
12.03
13.33
13.99
18.22
f1 .71
13.81
24.02
22.54
10.29
10.38
AVG
ST
FAIL
68.88
34.67
35.79
30.61
36.17
81.16
30734
33.21
54.57
46.38
43.22
"4371 6
CORRE-
LATION 	
0. 1343
0.4951
0.4604
0.3661
0.2916
0.0881
0.4y4t>
0.3788
0. 1852
0. 2684
0.5779
0. 5659
-------




SUM.MARY
GROUPED
FEDERAL
METHOD

CIO
ALL
CIO <= 150
150 TO 260
CIO > = 260
NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES D
E
300
95
54
151


TABLE
55




OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CO
BY CIO
SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5%
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS FTP UNITS
8
13
6
5
.40
.10 a
.24
.61
16.71
17.45
16.07
1'4.77
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
"37714
25.36
40.99
44; 19
X
EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
"5.00
.%
EO STE
"16.68 0.69
19.35 0.57
14.55 0.74
" 12.96 0.77

STRR" E<
0.78
0.68
0.83
"0 786 	
:7fEC+m p-A
0.12 10
0.16 11
0.11 11
"0.10 9
FTP AVG
FOR ST
SS FAIL
.61 38.84
.95 28.37
.07 33.18
.91 43.88
CORRE-
LATION
0.5875
0.5156
0.6238
~~OTB499 	
00
-------
TABLE 56
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CO
GROUPED BY 'CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC=» 5%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS
E
H 5042.09
L 3919.22
D 7080.58
N 7 1 99 . 5 1
H 11087.38
L 7610.77
D 18382.12
N 18623.92
H 3934.06
L 2903.17
D 7063.25
N 9286.34
H 2438.55
L 1993.53
D 2654.98
N 2613.68
FTP UNITS
26.32
25.59
17.83
18.51
20.42
20.45
18.08
19.00
25.46
22.05
16.66
18.37
28.53
27.45
14.88
14.94
CORRECT
FAILURES
"10.63
14.37
31 .39
29.31
6.68
9.99
18.43
15.96
6.51
14.06
34.79"
27.09
17.38
20.90
42.07
41.32
X
S.OO" "
5.00
5.00
5.00 "
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
"" 5.00 "
5.00
5.~0o~ "
5.00
5.00
5.00
*
EO
44.42
40.73
24.44
26.64
38.03
34.71
26.37
28.84
51 .93
44.95
24.65
32.35
37.93
17.84
18.82

str
"6T19"
0.26
0.56
6.52
0.15
0.22
0.41
0.36
0.11
0.24
0.59
0.46
0 . 30
0.36
0.70
0.69

STRR E
"0 .28
0.35
0.65
0.61
0.26
"0.34
0.52
0.47
0.20
0.32
0.67
0.54
0.38
0.44
0.79
0.77


0.32
0.26
0. 14
0.43
0.33
0.21
0.24
0.43
0.26
6.13
6. 16
0.22
0.19
0.11
0.11
FTP
FOR
PASS ""
20.87
19.63
12.23
12.92
15.97
15.13
13.18
13.46
20.37
17.79
13.39
13.89
25.76
22.67
11.63
11.65
AVG
ST
FAIL
41.28
46.12
39.34
41.99
23.77
28.24
28.77
33.24
44.64
44.28
32.94
36.14
CORRE-
LATION
0.1121
0. 1881
0.4635
0. 4292
0.0913
0.1853
6.3767
6.3245
-0.0137
0. 1456
0.4635
0.3497
56.16 6.2061
47.77 0.2627
48.07 0.5676
47.56
0.5514
-------
TABLE 57
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS-- co
GROUPED BY CiD
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 60X

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >«= 260
NO.
OF
— VEHICLES"
300
95
54
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
-Q ST -UNITS FTP UNITS
E
11.25 19.79
12.27 .16.97
9.10 18.72
11. OB 21.13"
X
CORRECT
FAILURES"
32.29 '
26.82
33.32
	 34T29 	
X
EC" "
3.07
5.83
2.22
	 T76r~
X
EO "STt STRR EC/IEC-I-FFT
21.53 O.bO 0.66 0.09
17.88 0.60 0.73 0.18
22.22 0.60 0.64 0.06
22. Ub 0.60 0.63 0.05
FTP
FOR
PASS
	 11.50
11.43
11 .19
10.83
AVG
ST
"FAIL '
44.56
27.85
34.88
52; 87
CORRE-
—CATION 	
O.bbbS
0.5244
0-5711
— OT5786 	
-------
                         TABLE 58
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  CO
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL 3-MODE -
FIXED SHORT TEST

CID
ALL
CIO <= 150

150 TO 260

CIO >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
VEHICLES 0
E
300
300
300
300 ""
95
95 "
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
H
L
D
N
H
D
N
H
L
D
N
H "'
L
D
N
CUT POII
ST'UNITS F
" 663.68
810.79
5866.68
4910.83
1415.73
1714.87
8364.51
6498.07
306.56
539.60
6606.36
4590.61
5U6. 5 7
648.95
4642.10
'" 4192.26
NTS
TP UNITS
20.92"
19.90
16.88
16.51
15.01
1b.17
14.76
14.54
19.56
17.68
16.43
15.69
24.77
24.59
17.31
17.05
CID
300 CAR FLEET
EFFECTIVENESS; STE« 60%
CORRECT
FAILURES
33.03
33.06
33.50
" 33.57
26.82
26.82"
26.88
26.88
35.06
35.41
35 . 67
35.67
35.26'
35.30
35.95
36 . 08
*
" " EC
"20.73
16.83
5.92
" 6.93
26.62
20.61
10.84
13.17
25.67
17.33
b.34
8.82
14.66
12.25
2.88
3. 17
*
EO
22.02 "
22.04
22.33
" 22.38 "
17.88
17.88
17.92
17.92
23.38
23.61
23.78
23.78
23.51
23.53
23.96
24.06

'STE"
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0 .60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60 	
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60 ~

STRR 1
0.98
0.91
0.71
0.72
1 .20
1 .06
0.84
0.89
1 .04
0.89
0 : 69
0.75
0.81
0.65
0 . 65


0.39
0.34
0.15
0.17
0.50
0.43
0.29
0.33
0.42
0. 33
0. 13
0.20
0.29
0.26
0.07
o.oa
FTP
FOR
PASS
22.42
19.58
12.13
1 2 . 30 ""
15.69
13.79
11 .50
12.32
23.91
18.65
13.39
13.81
' 23.38"
21.56
11 .73
11 .86
AVG
ST
FA 117"
25.57
28.26
37.52
36.99
17.55
19.49"
22.66
21 .54
20.21
24.57
32.94
33.21
3T.78
41.50
50.02
50.43
CORRE-
" LATION
0. 1386
0.2240
0.4735
"0.4476
0-1181
"0. 2262
0.4140
0- 3669
-0.0177
0. 1746
0.4675
0.3780
0. 2406
0. 2982
0-5310
0. 5218
-------
TABLE 59


SUMMARY OF
CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS—
CO -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 70X

CIO
ALL
CIO <= 150
150 TO 260
CIO >» 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
95
54
151
M
0 CUT
D ST UNITS
E
8.12
9.95
6.96
7.59
POINTS
FTP UNITS
16.42
15.60
16.74
17.08
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
37.67
31.29
38.88
40.00
X
EC
5.27
9.10
4.02
3.19
X
EQ
16.15
13.41
16.66
f7Ti~4

STE STRR
0.70 0.80
0 '. 70 0 . 90
0.70 0.77
0.70 0.76

EC7?EC+FF)
0.12
0.23
0.09
0.07
FTP
FOR
PASS
10.47
10.50
11.07
10.43
AVG
ST
FAIL
38.21
24.72
33.18
48.80
CORRE-
LATION
0.5902
0.5425
0.6119
0.6250
-------
                                                                TABLE 60
                              SUMMARY  OF  CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  CO -CONTINUED
Ui
OJ
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS:

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
0
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS
406.39
503.41
3475.28
2885. S5
919.57
1 152.24
5369.10
41/19.70
191 .64
336.57
4106.67
2728.05
360.20
399.51
2689.73
2428.25
FTP UNITS
20.60
19.34
15.00
14.73
14.73
14.67
13.76
13.66
19.37
17.30
15. 14
14.64
24.31
24.05
14.93
14.70
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
38.54
38.57
39.08
39.16
31 .29
31 .29
31 .36
31 .36
40.91
41 .31
41 .61
41 .61
41 . 14
41 .18
41 .94
42. 10
%
EC
25.57
21.60
9.04
10.31
32.55
26.44
15.42
18. 18
29.74
21.75
8.22
12.47
19.02
16.40
4.94
5.34
STE* 70%
X
EO
16.52
16.53
16.75
16.78
13.41
13.41
13.44
13.44
17.53
17.70
17.83
17.83
17.63
17.65
17.97
18.04


STE
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70 ~
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
6.70
0.70
0.70
0.70


STRR
1.16
1 .09
0.86
0.88
.43
.29
.04
.11
.21
.07
0.84
0.91
1.02
0.98
0.78
0.79


EC7(EC+FF)
0.40
0.36
0.19
0.21
0.51
0.46
0.33
0.37
0.42
0.34
0. 16
0.23
0.32
0.28
0.11
0.11

FTP
FOR
PASS
22.80
19.61
11 .64
12.07
16.67
14.75
1 1 .44
1 1 .29
26.09
18.55
12.63
13.95
22.94
22.88
11 .63
11.65

AVG
ST
FAIL
24.78
27.96
35.09
34.99
16.83
17.82
20.85
20.62
20.04
23.73
31.51
32.19
34.05
35.19
48.07
47.56

CORRE-
LATION
0. 1359
0.2224
0.4922
0.4626
0. 1 151
0.2232
0.4192
0.3687
-0.0170
0. 1725
0.4883
0.3868
0.2401
0.3004
0.5664
0.5550
-------
TABLE


SUMMARY OF
CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS —
61
CO -CONT

INUED










GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE- 80X

CID
ALL
CID <=> 150
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
95
54
151
M
0 CUT
D ST UNITS
E
5.60
7.82
5.14
4.97
POINTS
FTP UNITS
13.69
14.34
15.05
14.03
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
43.05
35.77
44.43
45.72
X
EC
8.83
14.02
7.10
5.89
X
EO
1"6. 7 6
8.94
11.11
~T'1.4"3

STE
6.80"
0.80
0.80
0.80 '

STRR
OT96"
1.11
0.93
0.90

EC/JIC+FFT
0.17
0.28
0.14
0.11
FTP
FOR
PASS
9.94
10.07
11.07
9.90
AVG
ST
FAIL
34.15
22.84
33.18
42.39
CORRE-
LATION
0.6074
0.5434
0.6367
0.6562
-------
                                                               TABLE 62
                               SUMMARY OF  CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  CO -CONTINUED
(Ji
Ui
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE* 80%

CIO
ALL
CIO <= 150

150 TO 260

CIO >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
'95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0
D
£
H
L
0
N
H
L
0
N
H
L
0
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS
228.93
288.34
1897.70
1558.96
555.00
723.80
3205.88
2421 .95
110.59
193.77
2371 .71
1488.95
203.71
226.77
1442.91
1300.40
FTP UNITS
20.38
18.95
13.75
13.57
14.52
14.28
13.04
13.04
19.24
17.04
14.25
13.93
23.99
23.68
13.41
13.19
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
44. 04
44.08
44.66
44.76
35.77
35.77
35.84
35.84
46.75
47.21
47.56
47.56
47.01
47.06
47.93
48. 11
X
EC
30.94
27.23
13.60
15.12
39.02
33.33
21 .66
24.75
33.77
26.79
12.45
17.35
24.22
21 .60
8.27
8.79
'%
EO
11.01
11.02
11.17
11.19
8.94
8.94
8.96
8.96
1.69
1 .80
1 .69
1 .89
1.75
1.77
11.98
12.03

STE
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
'0.80
_0.80 _
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80

STRR
1.36
1 .29
1 .04
1.07
1 .67
.55
.28
.35
.38
.25
.01
.09
1.21
1.17
0.94
0.95

EC/(EC+FF)
0.41
0.38
0.23
0.25
0.52
0.48
0.38
0.41
0.42
0.36
0.21
0.27
0.34
0.31
0.15
0.15
FTP
FOR
PASS
24.37
20.59
10.92
11 .91
17.18
12.82
11 .21
11 .77
26.09
19. 13
11.71
12.99
23. 10
22.54
10.92
11.39
AVG
ST
FAIL
23.94
25.73
32.47
32.17
16.67
18.13
20.19
19.22
20.04
22.62
30.34
26.46
33.35
34.87
44.29
44.30
CORRE-
LATION
0. 1283
0.2128
0.4955
0.4626
0. 1079
0. 2122
0.4101
0.3578
-0.0156
0. 1641
0.4941
0.3828
0.2311
0.2922
0.5864
0.5729
-------





TABLE
63





SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR= icox

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
95
54
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS FTP
E
2.45
2.33
2.50
2.49

UNITS
2.98
2.99
2.94
-3.01
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
	 14.24
10.06
13.57
16.25
X
EC
6". 91 '
5.47
6.41
8.53
X
EO
6.91
5.47
6.41
8.53

STE STRR E(
' 0.67 1.00"
0.65 1.00
0.68 1.00
0.66 1.00
J7TEC+FFT
0.33
0.35
0.32
0.34
FTP
FOR
PASS
2.05
1 .86
2.16
2.18
AVG
ST
FAIL
3.45
3.57
3.27
3.45
CORRE-
LATION
0.5857
0.5829
0.5993
-0754 2 B 	
Ul
-------
                                                               TABLE 64
                                      SUMMARY  OF  CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  NOX
Ui
-J
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL 3-MODE -
FIXED SHORT TEST
NO.
OF
M
0
CID VEHICLES D
E
ALL 300
300
300
300
CID <= 150 95
95
95
95
150 TO 260 54
54
54 ""
54
CID >= 260 151
151
151
151
H
L
D
N
H
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POU
ST UNITS F1
1803.21
1136.19
184.70
98.30
2475.10
1434. S3
144.28
103.87
1572.43
1 154.58
257.44
126.41
1 589 . 1 8
985.05
183.40
85.26
ITS <
rp'UNlTS I
2.74
2.65
2.44
2.44
2.74
2.73
2.28
2.15
2.77
2.74
2.50
2.44
2.88
2.69
2.58
2.68
CID
300 CAR FLEET
REJECTION RATIO
%
:ORRECT
FAILURES
10.24
10. 10
7.51
"6i 59 *
7.96
6 ; 56
4.97
2.33
8.15
11 .36
"6.78
5.87
13.26
10.83
8.53
5.37
X
" EC
" 10:91
1 1 .05
13.64
14.56
7.58
7.66
10.57
11.89
11 .83
8.62
13.20
14.11
• 11.52
13.95
16.25
15.4T
; STRR= 100X
%
EO
10. gi-
ll .05
13.64
14.56
7.58
" 7.66
10.57
11.89
11.83
8.62
13.20
14. 1 1
"11 ;52
13.95
16.25
15.41

STE
0.48
0.48
0.36
•"o:qi"
0.51
0 . 46
0.32
0.16
0.41
0.57
0 . 34 '
0.29
0.54 "
0.44
0.34
0.38

STRR EC
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
T. 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
f .00"
:/rEc+FFT
0.52 	
0.52
0.64
0.69
0.49
"0 . 54
0.68
0.84
0.59
0.43
0.66
0.71
0.46 '
0.56
0.66
"0.62 ~
FTP
FOR
PASS
2.20
2.21
2.32
2 ".36
1.97
1.95
2.02
2.11
2.26
2.16
2.37
2.38
2.32
2.41
2.53
2.52
AVG
ST
FAIL
3.02
3.10
2.70
2.59
3.13
3.04
2.55
1.96
3.00
3.47
2.61
2.72
3.46~
3.00
2.75
2:ar~
CORRE-
LATION
0.3458
0.3373
0. 1821
0.1270
0.4226
0.3720
0.1948
0.0255
0.2599
0.4607
"0.1746
0.1175
0.3819
0.2518
0. 1281
~OT1732 	
-------
                                                                TABLE 65
                                     SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
                                    "GROUPED BYCID  ~	""   	
                                     FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
                                     EC/(EC+FF) => 10X  AND 20X: EC/(EC+FF)=  10%
                     NO.    M                           %
                     OF     0       CUT POINTS       CORRECT
                 -VEHICLES~0—ST~UNITS	FTP~UNITS~FAILURES

                            E
 X


"EC"
                             FTP  AVG
                             FOR  ST        CORRE-
~STE~	STRR~tC7TEC*FFT—PASS	FAH	1ATION"
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
300
95
54
Ibl
3.69
3.69
3.53
3.90
4.09
4.39
3.73
1 4.^5
	 5:64
3.54
5.74
b.Ou
' -0.63 15.52
0.39 11.99
0.64 14.24
O.b6 19.70
0.27
0.23
0.29
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.32
0.23
0.10
0.10
0.10
g. 1u
2.32
2.08
2.38
2. 48
4TB2
3.57
4.96
5.27
-0.43t>7
0.4162
0.4569
"0.3694
Ul
oo
-------
                        TABLE 66
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
EC/fEC+FF) = 10% AND 20X: EC/(EC+FF)=

CIO
ALL
CIO < = 150

150 TO 260

CIO >» 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L 3282.57
D
N
H
L
D
N
FTP UNITS
*****
* ****
*****
*****
* ****
*****
*****
*****
*****
4.65
*****
*****
*****
y ****
*****
*****
%
CORRECT
" FAILURES
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
1 .30
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL"
X
EC ~"
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0. 14
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
X
EO
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
18.
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
10X
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
68
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
""StE"
EXIST "
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
0.06
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST"
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR ECX(EC-t-FF) PASS FAIL LATION
*****
*** **
*****
*****
*** **
*****
*** * *
*** **
*****
. 0.07 0.10 2.43 0.00 0.2117
*** **
*** **
*****
*** * *
*****
*** **
-------
TABLE 67
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300
EC/fEC+FF) * 10% AND 20X:

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES D ST
E
300
95
54
151
CUT POINTS
tJNifS Ftp
3.00
2.97
2.96
3.15

UNITS
~3~.47
3.65
3.28
3-. 5 9
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
9.82
6.35
9.68
9.94
CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF)= 20%
%
EC
2745
1.59
2.42
2.48
%
EO
~Tf733
9. 19
10.30
~T4 . 84

STE
6T46
0.41
0.48
0.40

FTP
FOR
STRR EC7fEC+FFT PASS
0.58 0.20
0.51 0.20
0.61 0.20
0.50 0.20
2.24
2.06
2.28
2.38
AVG
ST
FAIL
3.79
3.18
3.44
4.26
CORRE-
LATION
0.5390
0.5224
0.5569
	 OT4ff17 	
-------
                                TABLE 68
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE  ANALYSIS—  NOX  -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL 3-MODE
EC/(EC+FF) = 1

CID
ALL
CID <- 150

150 TO 260

"CID >= 260

NO.
OF
"VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
	 T51 	
151
151
151
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
~H~
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
"ST UNITS FTP UNI
4378.55 4.
4027.00 . 4.
** *»*
** ***
5027.83 4.
2202.35 . 3.
** ***
*****
*****
2217.16 . 3.
t****
*****
3056.49 . 4.
»* ***
*****
** ***
TS
66
89
47
54
69
28

	 CID " - 	
- 300 CAR FLEET
OX AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF)=
%
CORRECT
"FAILURES
~ "0.77
0.64
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
1 .55
	 " Oi59
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
3.71
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
- -"2. 18
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL'
%
EC"
" ' 0.19
0.16
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.39
-"0.15
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.93
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.55
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
X
EO
	 20.
20.
DOES
DOES
13.
13.
DOES
DOES
DOES
16.
DOES'
DOES
..._. 22 .
DOES
DOES
DOES
20%

38 ""
51
NOT
NOT
99
63 "'
NOT
NOT
NOT
27
NOT'
NOT
60
NOT
NOT
NOT

"STE
- " 0 . 04
0.03
EXIST
EXIST
0. 10
"0.04
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
0. 19
EXIST
EXIST
~ o'.'og
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST"

STRR-" EC/TEC+FFT
0.05 0.20
. 0.04 0.20
*** **
*** **
0.12 0.20
. 0.05 0.20
*** **
*'* * * *
*****
. 0.23 0.20
*** **
*****
0.11 0.20
*** **
*****
*****
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
PASS FAIL LATION
2.39 0.00 0.1418
2.39 0.00 0.1290
2.09 0.00 0.2502
2.02 3.72 0.1627
2.34 3.89 0.3308

2.55 4.68 0.2142

-------
TABLE 69
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX - • - -
'"" GROUPED BY " cio
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC- 5X

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CIO >» 260 "
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300 ~
95
54
151
M
0 CUT
D ST UNITS
E
2.62
2.37
2.62
2.78
POINTS
%
CORRECT
FTf>~UNITS FAILURES
3.14
3.04
3.03
3.27
12.77
9.76
12.52
13.29
%
EC
'"" 5.00
5.00
5.00
	 5700—
%
EO
8.38 "
5.78
7.46
~1T749

STE
0.60 "
0.63
0.63
OT54
~5TRir~E(
0.84
0.95
0.88
0.74
FTP AVG
FOR ST
:/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
0.34 1.86 3.57
0.29 2.21 3.38
0.27 2.28 3. 68
CORRE-
LATION 	
0.5772
0.5811
0.5935
0.5246
-------
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID 5> = 260

NO.
OF
M
0
VEHICLES D
E
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
' 151
151
151
151
H
L
D
N
H
L"
0
N
H
L
N
L
D
	 N •"
CUT POU
ST UNITS Fl
2265.12
1562.55
292.49
142.82
2806.22
1546.06
190.62
119.90
1984.55
1395.98
395.72
182.23
1986.04
1515.60
328.09
. 126.85
ITS C
rp UNITS" F
3.08
2.98
2.54
2.53
2.97
2.85
2.44
2. 18
3.10
2.95
2.63
2.45
3.26
3.01
2.66
2 . 92 "
ORRECT
AILURES
"6.56""
6.38
3.54
~ 2.76" "
6.50
"5.23
2.90
1 .02
4.62
8.86
3.26
2.49
8.47 '
5.42
3.24
3.96 	
*
" EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
""5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5 . 00
5.00
5.00
5.00
%
~ EO
14.59
14.77
17.61
18.40
9.03
" 8.99"
12.63
13.19
15.36
11.12
" 16.72
17.49
"16.31
19.36
21.54
"20.82"



STE STRR EC/(EC+FF)
0.31
0.30
0.17
~ o : 1 3 "
0.42
0.37
. 0.19
0.07
0.23
0.44
"" "0.16
0.12
0.34
0.22
0.13
0.16
0.55
0.54
0.40
0.37
0.74
0.72
0.51
0.42
0.48
0.69
0.41
0.38
0.54
0.42
0.33
"0:36
0.43
0.44
0.59
0.64
0.43
0.49
0.63
0.83
0.52
0.36
0.61
0.67
"0737
0.48
0.61
0:55
FTP
FOR
PASS
2 : 29"
2.30
2.35
2.38
1 .99
1.97
2.06
2.09
2.34
2. 18
2.41
2.43
2.43
2.50
2.54
2.52
AVG
ST
FAIL
3.48
3.34
2.77
2.61"
3.25
3.25
2.56
2.13
3.97
3.64
2.66
2.35
3.62
3.27
2.87
3.31
CORRE-
LATION
0.3151
0.3062
0.1520
0. 1021
0.4081
0.3568
0. 1714
0.0201
0.2286
0.4409
0.1462
0.0946
0.3482
0.2151
0. 101 1
' 0. 1409
-------


TABLE
71

SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — NOX


CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >» 260

NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES D
E
300
95
54
151
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE
% %
CUT POINTS CORRECT
ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC
2.63 3.15 12.69 	 4.91
2.44 3.11 9.32 4.38
2.68 3.07 11.99 4.40
2.62 3.13 14.87 6.69
=» 60X
X
EO STE
8.46 0.60
6.21 0.60
7.99 0.60
9 . 9 f 0 . 6CT~

FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS ""FAIL LATlON
0.33 0.28 2.12 3.49 0.5766
0.88 0.32 1.88 3.61 0.5775
0.82 0.27 2.25 3.44 0.5888
0.87 0.31 2.21 3.50 0.5366
-------
                                                              TABLE 72
Ul
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — NOX
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE* 60%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID > = 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS FTP
1558.28
919.13
113.80
63.40
2200.43
1273.43
89.66
63.01
1255.43
1099.79
155.44
78.42
1475.86
740.06
108.22
61 .50
UNITS
2.57
2.48
2.37
2. 38
2.56
2.56
2.10
2.09
2.51
2.69
2.41
2.42
2.78'
2.55
2.55
2.54"
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
12.69
12.69
12.69
12.69
9.32
8.53
9.32
8.53
11 .99
11 .99
11199
11 .99
14.87
14.87
14.87
14.87
X
EC
16.51
17.07
29.28
34.41
10.76
13.15
27.60
47.79
22.61
9.79
30.00
35.53
14.55
23.38
33.54
29.68
%
EO
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
6.21
5.69
6.21
5.69
7.99
7.99
7.99
7.99
"9.91
9.91
9.91
9.91

STE
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60"
0.60
0.60 '
0.60
0.60
0.60


STRR EC/fEC + FFy
1.38
1.41
1.98
2.23
1 .29
"1.52
2.38
3.96
1.73
1 .09
" 2.16
2.38
f .19
1.54
1.95
1.80
0.57
0.57
0.70
0.73
0.54
0.61
0.75
0.85
0.65
0.45
0.71
0.75
0.49
0.61
0.69
b.~67
FTP
•FOR
PASS
2.15
2.13
2.26
2.28
1.88
1.93
1.97
1 .98
2.18
2.13
2.35
2.32
2.26
2.22
2.49
2.45
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.98
2.92
2.63
2.52
3.00
2.96
2.31
2.20
2.97
3.47
2.52
2.56
3739
3.03
2.67
2773
CORRE-
LATION
0.3509
0.3426
0. 1892
0. 1338
0.4274
0.3786
0.2051
0.0302
0.2668
0.4628
0.1824
0.1249
' 013851
0.2569
0. 1331
"0.1784
-------
                                                      TABLE 73
                     SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY_JABLE  ANALYSIS—  NOX  -CONTINUED
                            GROUPED BY	"""   CID
                            FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE -  300 CAR  FLEET
                            FIXED SHORT  TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE»   70%
CID
    NO.    M                           X
    OF     0	  CUT POINTS       CORRECT
"VTHiCLES~~ir~STTUNitS   FtP~UNlTS~~ FAlLURES"
                                                        %

                                                        "EC"
                            FTP AVG
   	               	   FOR ST 	CORRE-
STE    STRR "EC/reC+FFT  PASS    FAIL    LAtION
-------
                                  TABLE 74
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL 3-MODc -
FIXED SHORT TEST

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
CID
300 CAR FLEET
EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 70%
CUT POINTS CORRECT
VEHICLES 0 ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
E
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
1362.07
763.93
92.26
54.04
1908.09
1149.13
75.00
54.02
1107.76
935.37
126.64
66.65
1307.80 	
613.16
86.98
52.56
2.42
2.36
2.35
2.36
2.36
2.43
2.04
2.07
2.39
2.54
2.38
2.42
2.62
2.47
2.54
2.49
14.81
14.81
14.81
14.81
10.88
9.95
10.88
9.95
13.99
13.99
13.99
13.99
"17.34
17.34
17.34
1 7 : 34
EC
22.88
23.55
37.46
42.83
15.66
" 18.76
35.99
56.68
30.13
14.39
38.31
44.03
20.42
30.77
41 .59
37.61 "
EO
6.35
6.35
6.35
6.35
4.66
4.27
4.66
4.27
5.99
5.99
5.99"
5.99
7". 43"
7.43
7.43
7.43

" STE
" 0.70
0.70
0.70
~ 0 .70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
"0.70
0.70
0.70
0".70


StRR EC/fEC+FFy
1.78
1 .81
2.47
2 . 72
1.71
2.02
3.02
4.69
2.21
1 .42
" 2.62"
2.91
T.52
1 . 94
2.38
2.22
0.61
0.61
0. 72
0.74
0.59
0.65
0.77
0.85
0.68
0.51
0.73
0.76
0.54
0.64
0.71
"0".68
FTP AVG
FOR ST
PASS
" 2 . 04
• 2.03
2.22
2.16"
1 .77
1 .91
1.93
1 .99
2.14
2.07
2:26
2,22
2 . 1"9
2.20
2.34
2.21
FAIL
2.96
2.87
2.56
2.53
2.73
2.80
2.28
2.15
2.81
3.09
2". 5 7
2.58
3. ""09
2.97
2.72
2.82
CORRE-
LATION
0.3454
0.3370
0.1839
0.1296
0.4222
0.3715
0. 1988
0.0291
0.2605
0.4613
0. 1771
0.1209
0.3817
0.2514
0.1291
0.1736
-------
                                                                TABLE 75
                               SUMMARY  OF  CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS— NOX -CONTINUED
                                      GROUPED BY ~    " ClD  "	 	 "
                                      FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE -  300 CAR FLEET
                                      FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS;  STE-  80X
                      NO.    M                            XXX                                   FTP AVG
                      OF     0        CUT  POINTS       CORRECT 	            	                             FOR ST  	CORRE-
          "ClO	VEHiClES  D  STUNITSFTp~UNITS   FAILURES    EC    ~~EdS'TE    STRR  "£C7TE"C+FF1  PASS"   FAITLAT10N
                             E
     "AtC             300              2712       2769    16192    12132"    4.23    0780"    T.38     0".42     1.98    3.35   6.5779"

     CID <= 150       95              1.94       2.60    12.43    11.04    3.11    0.80    1.51     0.47     1.74    3.26   0.5721
     150 TO 260        54              2.22       2.72    15.98    11.26    4.00    0.80    1.36     0.41     2.10    3.21   0.5921

          rr"260      T5~T              27T3       2770    19". 82    f5T73"    4796    0780    T743     074 *     2709    3736   075330"
00
-------
                                  TABLE 76
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL S-MODE - soo CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 80%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
VEHICLES D
E
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
1 51
151
H
L
D
N
H
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS CORRECT
ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
1 1 64 . 1 2
615.61
72.17
44.84
1616.38
1004.22
60.87
43.49
957.01
774.95
99.66
55.10
1135.90
492.12
67.37
43.75
2.28
2.25
2.33
' 2.34 "
2.17
' " 2.27
2.00
2.05
2.26
2.39
2.36
2.42
2.45
2.40
2.53
2.44
16.92
16.92
16.92
16.92"
12.43
11:37
12.43
11 .37
15.98
15.98
1 5 . 98
15.98
19.82
19.82
19.82
19.82
EC
31 .44
32.23
47. 15
52.32
22.75
26.70
46.27
65.86
39.66
21 . 10
48. 14
53.67
28.41
39.93
50.60
46.83
£0
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.23
3.11
2.84
3.11
2.84
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
" 4.96
4.96
4.96
4.96
STE
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
" TO. 80"
0.80
0.80
0780
FTP
FOR
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
2.29
2.32
3.03
3.27
2.26
"2.68
3.78
5.43
2.78
1 .86
"3.21
3.49
1795" "
2.41
2.84
2.69
0.65
0.66
0.74
0.76
0.65
0.70
0.79
0.85
0.71
0.57
0.75
0.77
0.59
0.67
0.72
0.70
1.97
1.98
2.10
1 .95
1.72
1.78
1 .84
1 .65
2.03
2.03
2.29
2.21
2.11
2.09
2.34
2.02
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.80
2.79
2.55
2.50
2.62
2.75
2.27
2.18
2.72
3.01
2.54
2.51
3.00
2.93
2.66
2.73
CORRE-
LATION
6.3279
0.3196
0. 1720
0.1207
0.4025
0.3516
0.1856
0.0269
0.2450
0.4440
0.1654
0. 1125
0.3649
0.2370
0.1204
0.1625
-------
                                                             TABLE 77
                                  SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS--
                                 'GROUPED'BYCID  	     	    ~
                                  FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
                                  FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO;  STRR= 100%
                  NO.     M                            XXX                                   FTP AVQ
                  OF      0        CUT  POINTS       CORRECT                	   	               	   FOR ST 	CORRE-
     1TID	VEfllCtES—B~~St~ONITS	FTp~UNITS—FAILURES"" EC	EOSir    STRR  EC7TEC+FFJ  PASS    FATI"LATIOIT
                         E
                300~
CIO <=  150        95
 150 TO 260        54


"CID >= 260       1"5T"
-------
                          TABLE 78
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE  ANALYSIS—  CMP3
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO

CID
ALL

CID <" 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0 CUT POINTS
%
CORRECT
VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
E
300
300
300
' 300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
H
L
D
M
B ;
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
47.33
50.67
54.67
53.00
49.33
38.95 "
40.00
45.26
43.16
44.21
bO.OO
55.56
59.26
b1 . 8b
55.56
b4 . 97 £
56.29
' 57.62
58.28
56.95
X
"EC" "
'18.67
18.67
16.33
"15.67
10.33
' 21.05
25.26
15.79
' 21.05
9.47
24.07
18.52
14.81
11.11
9.26
15.89
15.89
13.25
12.58
6.62
; STRR = 100%
X
EO
	 18.00
14.67
10.67
"12.33"
16.00
"18.95
17.89
12.63
"14.74
13.68
18.52
12.96
9.26
16.67
12.96
13.91
12.58
11 .26
10.60
11.92

STE
"0.72
0.78
0.84
0.81
0.76
"0 . 6f
0.69
0.78
0.75 "
0.76
" 0". 73
0.81
0.86
0 . 76 ~
0.81
0 . 80
0.82
0.84
0.85
0.83

FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
"STRR " EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION
1.01
1 .06
1 .09
"1.05
0.91
.04
.13
.05
" .11
0.93
.08
.08
.08
0.92
0.95
" 1 . 03
1 .05
1 .03
r."03"
0.92
0.28
0.27
0.23
0.23
0.17
0.3b
0.39
0.26
0.33
0.18
0.32
0.25
0.20
0.18
0.14
0.22
0.22
0.19
O.lb
0. 10
0.1869
0.2447
0.3834
0.3686
0.4434
0. 1741
0.0943
0.4119
0.2528
0.5333
-0.0371
0.2359
0.4179
0.3884
0.5025
"0.2929
0.3169
0.4188
0.4503
0.5909
-------
                                  SUMMARY OF CpNTINGENCY_TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3
                                 "GROUPED BY       CID	
                                  FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
                                 _.EC/_(_EC+FF) ° IPX  AND 20%j EC/(EC+FFJa	10%_
                  NO.     M                           %
                  OF     o     __.CUT_POINTS_	   CORRECT
      CID       VEHICLES  0  ST UNITS   FTP UNITS  FAILURES
                         E
ALL


CID  <=  ISO
300


 95
 150  TO  260


~C~lD  >=  260"
 54
15T
                                                                                          FTP AVG
                                                                          	   	 FOR ST
                                                                     stRR  EC/TEC+FF!PASS
                FAIL
JCQ5RE-
 LATION"
                        0.5924"


                        0.4264
                        0.4936
0.08
 0.623C
-------
                                                              TABLE 80
                                    SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE ANALYSIS— CMPS
OJ


CIO
ALL

CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CIO > = 260


NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151

M
0
D
E
H
L
0
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
0
N
B
H
L
0
N
B
GROUPED BY
FEDERAL 3-MODc
EC/(EC+FF) = 1
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS FTP UNITS
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
** ***
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
CID
- 300 CAR FLEET
0% AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF)= 10%
% %
CORRECT
FAILURES EC
PRACTICAL 'SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PRACTICAL" SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL "SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
X
EO
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
SOLUTION
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
SOLUTION
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
SOLUTION
DOES NOT"
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT'
SOLUTION

STE
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
Exisr
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
-------
TABLE 81

SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3-CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF)= 20%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CIO >= 260 ^
NO. M
OF 0 CUT POINTS
VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
300
95
54
151
CORRECT
FAILURES EC EO
58.67 10.67 6.67
43.16 1.05 14.74
57.41 9.26 11.11
64.90 10.60 3.97

STE
0.90
0.75
0.84
0794~

STRR
1.06
0.76
0.97
1 .10
FTP AVG
FOR ST
EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
0.15
0.02
0. 14
0. 14
CORRE-
LATION
0.6092
0.7162
0.5357
0.6479
-------
                                TABLE'S 2
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3-CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
EC/(EC+FF) * 10X AND 20%; EC/ ( EC+FF )*

CIO
ALL

CIO <= 150

150 TO 260

CIO >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS
E
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
FTP UNITS
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
%
CORRECT
FAILURE
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
43.67
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
36.84
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
NO M
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
54.97
%
S EC '
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
7.00
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
6.32
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
EANINGFUL
"SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
7.28
%
EO
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
21.
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
21.
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
SOLUT
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
13.
20%

NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
67
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
05
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
ION
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
91

STE
EXIST"
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
0.67
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
0.64
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST"
0.80
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION
*****
*****
*****
*****
0.78 0.14 .0.4440
*****
*** **
*** **
*** * *
0.75 0.15 0.4848
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*** **
*** **
**** *
*****
0.90 0.12 0.5387
-------
TABLE 83
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3
GROUPED BY ClD
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC* 5X
NO. M XXX FTP
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT FOR
ClD VEHICLES D ST UNITS
E
ALL 300
CIO <=• 150 95
150 TO 260 54
CID >= 260 151
FTP UNITS FAILURES EC EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
53
44
55
62
.67 7.00 11.67 0.82 0.93 0.12
.21 1.05 13.68 0.76 0.78 0.02
.56 5.56 12.96 0.81 0.89 0.09
.25 7.95 6.62 0.90 1.02 0.11
AVG
ST CORRE-
FA1L LATION
0.6035
0.7327
0.6043
0.6565
-------
TABLE 84
*.'



CID
ALL

CIO <= 150

"150~ TO 260

CID > = 260



NO.
OF
SUMMA
GROUP
FEDEfi
METHC
iRY OF CONTINGENCY TAE
'ED BY 	 " CID
!AL 3-MODc - 300 CAR F
ID OF BOUNDED ERRORS C
M X
0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
VEHICLES 0 SnJNITS
E
306
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
54 	
151
151
1 51
151
H
L
0
N
B
L
0
N
B
H
L
0
N
B
H
L
0
N
B
FTP UNITS FAILURES
22.
28.
46.
39.
40.
18.
21 .
30.
22.
32.
12.
33.
44.
33.
37.
30.
35.
49.
bO.
49.
67
33
00
00
33
95'
05
53
11
63
96"
33
44
33
04
46
10
67
99
67
)LE ANALYSIS — CMP3
;LEET
)F COMMISSION: EC
X
EC
3.33
6.33
6.33
4.67
3.67
'6; 32
8.42
6.32
"5.26 "
6.32
1.85
3.70
5.56
3.70 "
1.85
1.99 "
2.65
5.96
5:30 "
3.31
X
EO
42.67
37.00
19.33
26.33
25.00
"38.95
36.84
27.37
35.79"
25.26
55.56
35. 19
24.07
35. 19
31 .48
38.41
33.77
19.21
"17.88"
19.21
5X




FTP
FOR
STE STRR EC/tEC+FF) PASS
0.35~
0.43
0.70
0.60
0.62
0.33
0.36
0.53
"0.38
0.56
0719
0.49
0.65
0.49
0.54
0.44
0.51
0.72
0.74
0.72
0.40
0.53
0.80
0.67
0.67
"" 0.44 ~ 	
0.51
0.64
0.47
0.67
0.22
0.54
0.73
0.54"
0.57
0.47"
0.55
0.81
0.82
0.77
0.13
0. 18
0.12
0.11
O.OB
0.2b
0.29
0.17
0.19
0. 16
0.13
0. 10
0.11
0. 10
0.05
O.Ob
0.07
0.11
0.09
0.06

AVG
ST Ci
FAIL L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

ORRE-
ATION 	
.2721
.2510
.4968
.4436
. 4905
.2014
. 1772
.3862
.2844
.4188
.1704
.3547
.4386
.3547 	 	
.4589
.3743
.4055
.4936
.5322
.5703
-------
TABLE 85
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE* 60X
NO. M % % % FTP AVG
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT FOR ST
CID VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC 	 EO ' STE 	 "STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
E
ALL 300 49.67 4.00 15.67 0.76 0.82 0.07
CID <= 150 95 45.26 1.05 12.63 0.78 0.80 0.02
150 TO 260 54 53.70 3.70 14.81 0.78 0.84 0.06
CIO 5>= 260 151 b7.62 5.96 11.26 O.B4 0.92 0.09


' CORRE-
	 LATION 	
0.6154
0.7494
0.6257
0.6^06

-J
do 	 , , . 	 ,
-------
                                                                 TABLE 86"
                                      SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMPS
sD
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 60%

CID
ALL

UID <= 15CT

T50-TO 266

CID > = 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54 -
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
D S~T UNITS Ftp UNI1
E
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
e-
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
%
CORRECT
tS "FAILURE
51
53
54
56
41
45
45
45
51
40
55
55
57
59
42
53
57
60
58
43
.00
.67
.00
.00
.33
.26
.26
.26
.58
.00
.56
.56
.41
.26
.59
164
.62
.26
.28
.71
X
S "' EC "
21 .67
21 .33
19.00
24.00
9.33
30.53
25.26
24.21
	 34.74
16.84
24.07
16.67
20.37
~ "16.67
11.11
13.25
16.56
18.54
19.21
1.32
%
EO
" 14.33
1 1 .67
11.33
9.33
24.00
12.63
12.63
12.63
6.32
17.89
""12.96
12.96
11.11
"9.26
25.93
15.23
11.26
8.61
10.60
25. 17

"STE "'
0".78
0.82
0.83
0.86
0.63
0.78
0.78
0.78
"0.89
0.69
0.81
0.81
0.84
0.86
0.62
0778"
0.84
0.88
0.85
0.63

STRR EC
1.11
1 .15
1.12
1 .22
0.78
1.31
1.22
1 .20
"1.49" "
0.98
1.16 "
1.05
1.14
1.11
0.78
0.97
1.08
1.14
1.13"
0.65
:/(E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FTP AVG
FOR ST
C+FF) PASS FAIL
.30
.28
.26
.30
.18
.40
.36
.35
.40
.30
.30
.23
.26
.22
.21
.20
.22
.24
.2b
.03
CORRE-
LATION
0. 1662
0.2265
0.2985
0.1961
0. 3459
0.0655
0. 1969
Q.22^7
0.0947
0.2900
0.0532
0.2918
0.2131
'" 0.3644
0. 2503
0.3476
0.3222
0.3164
0.2540
0.5510
-------
TABLE 87
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3-CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE* 70%
NO. M %
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
CID VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
E
ALL 300 b7.00
CID <= 150 95 47.37
150 TO 260 54 59.26
CIO >= 260 151 bO.93
X X FTP AVG
FOR ST
EC EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIT"
"9.00 8.33 0.87 1.01 0.14
11.58 10.53 0.82 1.02 0.20
11.11 9.26 0.86 1.03 0.16
-8.61 	 7.95 0.88 1.01 0.12
CORRE-
	 CATION 	
0.6157
0.5452
0.5207
0.6117

00
-------
                                                                         88
                               SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3-CONTINUED
00
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL 3-MODc - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 70%
C I D
ALL

CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID > = 260

NO.
OF
"VEHICLES
300
300
300
300
95
95
95
95
54
54
54
'54 	
151
151
151
151
M
0 CUT PI
r D ST UNITS
E
H
L
D
N
B
" H
L
D
- N
B
H
L
D
N
B
' ' H
L
D
N
B
%
DINTS CORRECT
FTP" UNITS~FAI LURES
b5.67
56.33
59.00
t>9.33
49.33
S2.63
47.37
49.47
b2.63
46.32
b9.26
61.11
64.81
61 .11
46.30
59.60
61 .59
63.58
62.91
49.67
%
f EC' 	
25.33
23.33
26.00
28.33 "
11 .33
34.74
32.63
31 .58
" 38.95
25.26
29.63
24.07
24.07
"22.22
11.11
21 .85 "
19.87
24.50
22.52
4.64
%
EO " "
" 9.67
9.00
6.33
6.00
16.00
5.26
10.53
8.42
5.26 "
1 1 .58
9.26"
7.41
3.70
7.41
22.22
" "9.27
7.28
5.30
5.96
19.21

STE
0.85
0.86
0.90
0.91
0.76
"0.91
0.82
0.85
0.91"
0.80
" 0.86
0.89
0.95
0.89
0.68
0.87
0.89
0.92
0.91 "
0.72

FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR ~EC/fEC+FF] PASS"
1 .24
1 .22
1.30
1 .34
0.93
1 .51 "
1.38
1 .40
1.58
1.24
1 .30
1.24
1 .30
1 .22
0.84
i : i a
1.18
1 .28
1I24~
0.79
0.31
0.29
0.31
0.32
0. 19
0.40
0.41
0.39
0.43
0.35
0.33
0.28
0.27
0.27
0. 19
0.27
0.24
0.28
0.26
0.09
FAIL LATION
0.1471
0.2237
0. 2040
0.1315 '"•
0.4172
0-. 1250 	
0.0533
0. 1317
-0.0283
0.2189
-0.1128 "
0. 1663
0.2678
0.231B '
0. 3031
0. 1945 '"
0.3049
0. 1941
0.2494
0.5319
-------
TABLE 89
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3-CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 300 CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE* 80%
NO. M %
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
CIO VEHICLES 	 D ST" UNITS FTP UNITS" FAILURES
E
ALL 300 60.33
CIO < = 150 95 51 .58
150 TO 260 54 59.26
CIO >= 260 151 64.90
% % FTP AVG
FOR ST
"EC ' EO STE STRR EC/(ECiFF) PASS FAIL
14.33 5.00 0.92 1.14 0.19
16.84 6.32 0.89 1.18 0.25
12.96 9.26 0.86 1.05 0.18
13.25 3.97 0.94 1.13 0.17
CORRE-
	 t AT ION 	
0.5581
0.5214
0.4698
0.5790

00
-------
                                                             TABLE 90
                              SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  CMPS-CONTINUED
00
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL S-MODE - soo CAR FLEET
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= BOX

CID
ALL

CID <= 150'

150 TO 260

CID > = 260

NO.
OF
"VEHICLES
300
300
300
" 300
95
95
95
95 '
54
54
54
54
151
151
151
151
M
0 CUT POINTS
CORRECT
i D ST UNITS "FTP UNITS FAILURES
E
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
60.00
61 .67
62.33
62.67
57.67
54.74 '
51 .58
52.63
53.68
49.47
62.96 "
64.81
66.67
66.67
57.41
64.24
64.90
66.23
66.23
60.26
% % FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
EC
" 29.67""
27.67
29.33
32.00
18.00
34.74
35.79
36.84
"40.00 "
32.63
" 31.48
27.78
25.93
29.63 "
12.96
23.18 "
21 .85
26.49
27.15"
9.27
EO
""5.33
3.67
3.00
" 2.67"
7.67
3. 16"
6.32
5.26
"4.21
8.42
~ 5.56
3. 70
1.85
1.85
11.11
4.64
3.97
2.65
" 2.65
8.61
STE
"0.92
0.94
0.95
" 0 . 96 "
0.88
0.95
0.89
0.91
0 . 93
0.85
0.92
0.95
0.97
0.97
0.84
"0793
0.94
0.96
0".96
0.88
STRR EC/fEC+FFJ PASS
1 .37
1.37
1 .40
" 1 .45
1.16
1 . 55 	
1.51
1.55
1.62
1.42
" 1V38
1 .35
1.35
1 ."41
1 .03
1 . 27 ""
1.26
1.35
1.36 "
1 .01
0.33
0.31
0.32
0.34
0.24
0.39
0.41
0.41
0.43
0.40
0.33
0.30
0.28
0.31
0. 18
0.27
0.25
0.29
0.29
0. 13
FAIL LAT10N
0.0979"
0.2248
0. 1858
0.0765
0.4031
0.1938
0. 0608
0.0548
-0.0461
0.1025
-0.1644
0. 1 128
0.2650
0.0782
0.4334
0.2625
0.3281
0.1968
0. Ibbl
0.5806
-------
              TABLE 91
      FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
CUT-POINTS FOR  THE 300 CAR FLEET
ST Cut-Point
Selection Technique
STRR =1.0
EC/(EC+FF) = 10%
= 20%
EC= 5%
STE = 0. 60
= 0.70
= 0. 80
ST Cut-Point in Grams/Mile
HC
1. 04
2, 06
1. 37
1.32
1.29
1. 07
.86
CO
5. 17
9.91
4. 51
8.4
11.25
8. 12
5. 60
NOx
, 2. 45
3. 69
3. 00
2. 62
2. 63
2. 38
2. 12
                  84
-------
           TABLE 92
     FEDERAL THREE-MODE
CUT-POINTS FOR 300 CAR FLEET
ST Cut-Point
Selection Technique
STRR =1.0
EC/(EC+FF) = 10%
= 20%
EC= 5%
STE= 0.60
= 0.70
= 0. 80
ST Cut-Points in PPM
HC
Idle in Dr.
112
573
298
183
112
89
68
CO
Idle in Dr.
2198
12945
2956
7081
5867
3475
1898
NOx
High Speed
1803
4379
2265
1558
1362
1164
              85
-------
                   TABLE 93
            FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
TECHNIQUE RANKS FOR THE 300 CAR FLEET
ST Cut -Point
Selection Technique
STRR =1.0
EC/(EC+FF) = 10%
= 20%
EC = 5%
STE = 0.60
= 0.70
= 0. 80
Technique Ranks
HC
6
1
2
3
4
5
7
CO
6
2
7
3
1
4
5
NOx
5
1
2
4
3
6
7
                       86
-------
                   TABLE 94
            FEDERAL THREE-MODE
TECHNIQUE RANKS FOR THE 300 CAR FLEET
ST Cut-Point
Selection Technique
STRR =1.0
EC/(EC+FF) = 10%
= 20%
EC= 5%
STE = 0. 60
= 0.70
= 0. 80
Technique Ranks
HC
Idle in Dr.
4
r-
1
2
3
4
6
7
CO
Idle in Dr.
6
1
5
2
3
4
7
NOx
High Speed
4
2
3
5
6
. 7
                       87
-------
TABLE 95
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — HC
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR= 100%
NO. M % %
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
CID VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC
E
ALL 117 0.86 1.66 59.35 8.70
CID <= 150 33 0.76 1.86 65.69 7.53
150 TO 260 18 0.79 1.67 40.62 13.43
CID >= 260 66 0.94 1.54 61.95 7.53
% FTP AVG
FOR ST
EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
8.70 0.87 1.00 0.13 1.25 2.74
7.53 0.90 1.00 0.10 1.12 2.54
13.43 0.75 1.00 0.25 1.25 2.26
7.53 0.89 1.00 0.11 1.29 2.97
CORRE-
LATION
0.5996
0.6158
0.4594
0.6447

00
m 	 	 	 	 — 	 	 	 .- 	 . .... -. . — 	 - 	 	 	 	
-------
                                                                TABLE 96
00
                                      SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE ANALYSIS—  HC
GROUPED BY' " ' CID
« FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR Fl PET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO: STRR= 100%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

C1L) >= 2t>0

NO.
OF
"VEHICCEJ
1 17
1 17
1 17
117 —
33
33
33
33
18
18
It)
18
bb
66
66
66
M
0 CUT POINTS
r— D sr UNITS — FTP-UNITS'-
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
U.
N
H
L
D
N
4b.04
52.58
74.67
63.24
48.43
fab. 94
62.06
49.66
57.58
60.56
103. 1 4
97.49
46.30
50.29
73.01
bi .7 /
1.78
1.78
2.09
2.09
2.08
2.16
2.16
1.74
1 .60
1.82 '
1 .81
1 . 7l
1.78
1.64
1 . OS
CORRECT
'FAILURES'
53 . 78
55.14
53.97
"54. 90
61 .08
63. 14 -
58.42
59.06
44.00
41 .95
3b.69
35.77
57 . 85
57.50
58.57
59.98
*
tc
' 14.40 '
13.04
14.20
13.28
15.77
13.71
15.36
14.72
19.70
12. 10
— 18.35—
18.27
""" 1 1 . 64 '
11 .99
10.91
9.50
*
to
'"14.40
13.04
14.20
13.28
15.77
13.71
15.36
14.72
19.70
12.10
18.35 ""
18.27
1 1 . 64
11.99
10.91
a. bu

S1E
0.79
0.81
0.79
0 .81
0.79
o; 82
0.79
0.80
0.69
0.78
1 0:66 "
0.66
— 0-.83 —
0.83
0.84
0.86

STKN tl
1 .Ou
1.00
1.00
1 1 .00'
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00"
1.00
1 .00
1 .Ou

J/fEC+FF)
D. 21
0.19
0.21
0.19
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.20
0.31
0.22
0. 34
0.34
U. 17
0.17
0. 16
u. 14
FTP
FOR
-PASS 	
... 1j67---
1 .40
1.53
' 1 .47 "
1.93
""• 1 . 54
1.78
1.70
1.67
1.31
"" l.bO
1.26
1 . b8 '""
1 .44
1.52
i . 4b
AVG
ST
~FA 11. 	
— 2V6 r~
2.81
2.70
2.79
2.37
2.bO
2.38
2.47
1.95
2.43
2.06
2.16
— 2792—
3.12
3.06
J. 1 1>
CORRE-
— LATTON 	
~ ' DT3365 	
0.3991
0.3454
0.3tfbO
0. 1136
0.2058
0.2390
0. 1480
0.5130
—0.2 61 1 	
0.2643
— O.~4512 	
0.4345
0.4853
' 0. 551 U
-------
                                                                 TABLE 97
                                      SUMMARY OF  CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS--  HC_
                                     "GROUPED BY	  CID  ""	"  :	    ."
                                      FEDERAL SHORT  CYCLE -  117  CAR FLEET (DENVER)
                                      EC/(EC+FF)  = 10%   AND  20%:  EC/(EC+FF)=  10%
                      NO.    M                           %         %       %
                      OF     0       CUT  POINTS        CORRECT
                  ""VEHICLESb~Sf~~UNITSFTP'UNITS'" FAILURES     EC       Ed
                             E
~STE
ALL
CID < =
150 TO
CID > =

150
260
260
117
33
IB
66
0
0
1
0
.98
.77
.78
.98
1.76
1.87
2.02
1.58"
55.40
65.31
17.79
60793
6.
7.
1 .
"6.
16
26
98
77
- 12.66
7.91
36.25
8". 55
0.81
0.89
0.33
0788
0
0
0
0
    FTP  AVG
    FOR  ST
"PASS	FAIT
                                                                                                             T729"
                                   2.33

                                  "2757"
 CORRE-
LATION"
                                                                                                                     2781	0715955—

                                                                                                                     2.54    0.6162
                 0.3581

                "OT6450"
sO
o
-------
	XABLE..98			
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — HC
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET '(DENVER)
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%; EC/ ( EC + FF )= 10%

CID
ALL
CIQ <= 150

150 TO 260

CIO ><= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
117
1 17
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
0
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS CORRECT
ST UNITS
117.65
102.41
237.59
165.02
225.72
149.33
570.16
330.64
115.11

71 .03
80.55
111.12
79.86
FTP UNITS FAILURES
2.64 22.27
2.30 32.49
2.31 23.79
2.23 30.76
2.69 1.28
2.46 25.33
2.35 10.70
2.27 17.49
***** PRACTICAL
1.92 24.21
***** PRACTICAL
***** PRACTICAL
2.15 42.87
2.22 40.64
1.93 47.07
1.82 53.90
EC
2.47
3.61
2.64
3.42
0. 14
2.81
1.19
1 .94
SOLUTION
2.69
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
4.76
4.52
5.23
5.99
EO
45.90
35.68
44. 39
" 37.42 ""
75.57
" 51.52 "
63.09
56.29
DOES NOT
29.83
DOES NOT"
DOES NOT
" 26.61"
28.84
22.42
15.58
STE
0.33
0.48
0.35
""0.45
0.02
"' 0.33
0. 14
0.24
EXIST
0.45
EXIST
EXIST
"6.62
0.58
0.68
0.78
STRR
0.36
0.53
0.39
0.50
0.02
0.37
0. 16
0.26
*** * *
0.50
*** **
*** **
0.69
0.65
0.75
0.86
EC/(EC+FF)
0. 10
0.10
0.10
0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
0.10
0.10
0.10

0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
0.10
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.96
1.71
1.84
1 .71
2.24
2.05
2.20
2.20
1 .56

1.55
1.63
1.51
1 .48
AVG
ST
FAIL
3.04
2.95
3.24
3.23
0.00
2.92
2.58
2.58
2.30

3.22
3.40
3.35
3.23
CORRE-
LATION
0. 2687
0.3522
0.2808
0.3376
0.0374
0. 1951
0. 1354
0. 181 1
0.4378

0.4249
0.4043
0.4664
0.5444
-------
TABLE 99


SUMMARY OF
CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS —
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117
ECX(EC-t-FF) = 10% AND 20%:

CID
ALL
CID < = 150
150 TO 260
CID '>'- 260 """
r NO.
OF
VEHICLES
117
33
18
66
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS
E
0.61
0.45
1.01
0.63
FTP UNITS"
1.46
1 .73
1.75
1.21
CORRECT
"FAILURES '
' 6S.42
72.47
34.23
68717"
HC -CONTINUED
CAR FLEET (DENVER)
EC/(EC+FF)= 20%
*
"."EC"
"16.36 ""
18.12
8.56
17 ".04
%

EO STE
2.63 0
0.76 0
19.82 0
"1.31 "0
.96
.99
.63
.98

STRR EC
1.20
1.24
0.79
1 .23
7fEC+FFT
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.08
0.95
1.27
1 .03
AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATlON
2.57 " 0.5426
2.41 0.4745
2.49 0.4504
"2.68 0.5481 '
-------
                                 TABLE 100
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  HC -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF)= 20%
NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS CORRECT
CID VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
E
ALL 117
1 17
1 17
1 17
CID <= 150 33
33
33
33
150 TO 260 18
18
18
18
NO
CIO >= 260 66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
49.
49.
81 .
60.
59.
37.
74.
49.
164.
67.
523.
440.
37.
42.
53.
40.
54
38
52
04
23
27
50
14
56
76
30
35
73
12
40
01
1.84
1.75
2.10
2.09
2.12
1.77
2.16
2.16
2.14
1.65
	 1.80 •"'•
1.81
1.56
1.66
1 .49
1.53
51.19
56.73
52.11
" 55 . 88
56.87
70.56
54.95
59.24
4.87
39.24
8.80
9-22
"62:63
61 .80
64.11
66 ".28
EC
12.80
14.18
13.03
13.97 "
14.22
17.64
13.74
14.81
1.22
9.81
2.20
2.31
"1 5 : 66
15.45
16.03
16.57
EO
16.99
1 1 .44
16.07
12.29
19.98
6.29
18.84
14.54
58.84
14.81
45.24
44.82
6.8S"
7.69
5.38
3."2i
STE
~ 0~".75~"
0.83
0.76
"6.82 "
0.74
0 . 92 "
0.74
0.80
0.08
0.73
6.16
0.17
0 .90"
0.89
0.92
-------
TABLE 101
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— HC
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5X

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
33
18
66
M
0 CUT
D ST UNITS
E
1.06
0.89
1 .28
1 .07
POINtS
Ftp UNlltS
1.82
1.92
1.84
1.68
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
52.96
61.34
27.29
57.91
%
EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
5700~
X
EO STE
15.10 0.78
11.88 0.84
26.75 0.50
11.58 0.83

FTP
FOR
STRR ECT(EC>FFT PASS
0.85 0.09
0.91 0.08
0.60 0.15
0.91 0.08
1.29
1.22
1.45
1.33
AVG
ST

'FAIL
2
2
2
3
.82
.56
.38
.02
CORRE-
LATION
0.5671
0.6100
0.4223
— OT6383 	
-------
                         -JTABJLE-L02	.._
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS--  HC
GROUPED BY cio
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS

ClD
ALL
CIO < = 150

150 TO 260

CID > = 260 '

NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS CORRECT
"VEHICLES 0 ST UNITS" FTP UNITS FAILURES
E
	 H7
117
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66 	 '
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
86.78
89.33
167.58
132.89
123.35
' 126.66
221 .02
168.41
123.70
91 .68
322.89
281 .85
69.69
77.38
113.53
87.08
2.27
2.17
2.22
2.19
2.34
2.32
2.22
2.20
1.98
1.79
1 .81
1.81
2.12
2.17
1.95
1.87 "
32.59
37.63
33.30
36.72 "
25.77
"36.23
29.30
32. 12
15.54
30.88
15.61
15.78
43.65
42.30
46.38
51. "48
CAR FLEET (DENVER)
OF COMMISSION; EC= 5%
*
" EC
"5 . 00
5.00
5.00
"5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
""5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
*
~" EO "
	 35.58 -
30.55
34.87
31.45
51.08
40.62"
44.48
41.66
48. 17
23.16
" 38.43
38.26
""25.84
27. 19
23.11
18.00

STE
" 0". 48
0.55
0.49
0.54 '
0.34
0.47
0.40
0.44
0.24
0.57
0. 29
0.29
0.63
0.61
0.67
0:74^

STRfi"
0 . 55"
0.63
0.56
0.61
0.40
0 . 54""
0.46
0.50
0.32
0.66
" "0.38
0.38
"0".70
0.68
0.74
0.81"
EC/CEC+FFT
0
0
0
- - o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.12
.13
.12
.16
1"12
.15
. 13
.24
. 14
. 24 	
.24
. 10
. 1 1
.10
.09
FTP
FOR
PASS"
1 .83
1.59
1 .72
1".73
2.15
1.90 "
2.07
2.04
1.84
1.41
1 . 75 '
1.75
1.55
1 .63
1 .51
1.48
AVG
ST
FAIL
"2 ."85
2.94
2.96
" 3.01
2.40
2.63
2.49
2.58
1.64
2.44
" 2 .3 1
2.31
3722
3.34
3.35
3.27
CORRE-
LATION
0.3086
0.3719
0.3175
013605
0. 1091
012189"
0. 1913
0. 2227
0. 1263
0.4807
0.2219
0.2250
0.4277
0.4103
0.4639
0.5360
-------
		_.._ TABLE..103	
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS^- HC
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 60%


CID
ALL
CID < =
150 TO
CID > =
150
260
260
NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES D
" E
1 17
33
18
66
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS FTP UNITS
1 .43
1.35
1.07
1.57
2.11
2. 12
1.77
2.21
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
40.84
43.94
32.43
41.69
%
EC
1.72
1 .00
7.49
6.98
%
~EO"
27.22
29.29
21 .62
27.79

STE
0:66"
0.60
0.60
6.60


StRR EC7fEC+FFT
0.63
0.61
0.74
0.61
0.04
0.02
0. 19
0.02
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.49
1.52
1.27
1 .49
AVG
ST
FAIL
3.17
2.91
2.49
3.64
CORRE-
LATION
0.5150
0.5008
0.4447
•0.5287
-------
                          TABLE 104
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE ANALYSIS—  HC
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= eo%
NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS
CID VEHICLES 0 ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
ALL 117
1 17
1 17
1 17
CID <= ISO 33
33
33
33
150 TO 260 18
18
18
18
CID > = 260 66
66
66
66
H
L
0
N
H
L"
D
N '
H
L
D
N
H
L
D .
N
68.47
81 .77
127.60
114.02
82.62
106.75
120.21
101 .53
71 .14
86.94
129.50
116-75
73.11
78.53
1.30-. 68
118.79
2.06
2.09
2.16
2.16 "
2.20
2.20
2.18
2.18
1.79
1 .76
1 .82
1.81
2.18
2.19
2.08
2.10
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
40190
40.90
40.90
' 40.90"
46. 1 1
"46.11"
44.27
44.27
38.22
32.43
"32.43
32.43
41 .69
41 .69
4TV69
41 ."69
%
EC " "
"7.85 "
6.06
7.58
6.37 ""
10.63
7.54 "
9.51
8.57
16. 15
5.70
' 15.57 "
15.42
""4.42"
4.82
3.65
2.34
%
EO
~27.27
27.27
27.27
27.27" "
30.74
30.74 "
29.51
29.51
25.48
21 .62
21 .62
21.62
27.79
27.7_9
27.79
27.79

STE
0.60"
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0 . 60
Q.-6Q
0.60
o:eo


STRR EC7TEC+FFT
0.72
0.69
0.71
0.69
0.74
0.70
0.73
0.72
0.85
0.71
0.89
0.89
" 0.66
0.67
0.65
0.63
0. 16
0.13
0. 16
0.13
0. 19
0.14
0.18
0. 16
0.30
0.15
0.32
0.32
0. 10
0. 10
0.08
O.Ob
FTP
FOR
"PASS
1.64
1.57
1.68
1.69 	
1.98
1.73
2.02
1 .87
1.67
1 .41
1 .67
1.67
1.55
1.63
1 .51
1.51
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.83
2.93
2.88
2.95
2.48
2.56
2.42
2.58
1.95
2.44
" T796
1.96
3:22
3.34
3.35
3.48
CORRE-
LATION
0.3293
0.3822
0.3371
0.3731
0. 1 198
0.2319
0.2093
0.2405
0.1496
0.4885
0. 2606
0.2638
0.4204
0.4081
0.4443
0.4854
-------
                                                          TABLE 105


SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS —
HC -CONTINUED


GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 70%

CIO
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
"ClD >= 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
117
33
18
66
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
1.22 1.94
1.15 2.03
0.89 1.70
1.35 1.98
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
47.64
51.26
37.83
48.64
%
' EC *
3717
2.02
11 .06
2:02
%
FTP AVQ
FOR ST
" EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
20.42 0.70 0.75 0.06
21.97 0.70 0.73 0.04
16.21 0.70 0.90 0.23
20.85 0.70 0.73 0.04
1.41 2.96
1.26 2.60
1.27 2.49
1.42 3.33
CORRE-
LATION
0.5601
0.5544
0.4579
•"075836 	
00
-------
                                                              TABLE  106
                              SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—   HC  -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 70%

CIO
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
X
CUT POINTS CORRECT
X
VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC
E
117
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
55.66
67.36
98.34
87.55
66.36
90.18
87.24
73.08
56.1 1
71 .56
95.48
86.73
61 .33
65.84
105.71
95.78
1.91
1.94
2.12
2.13
2.15
2.10
2.17
2.17
1.73
1.67
1.82
1 .82
1.97
2.00
1 .89
1.93
47.72
47.72
47.72
47.72
53.80
53.80
51 .65
51 .65
44.59
37.83
37.83
37.83
48.64
48.64
48.64
"48.64
10.91
8.83
10.61
9. 19
13.14
9.98
12.32
11 .33
20.08
8.79
20.35
20. 13
6.77
7.26
5.79
4.04
%
EO
20.45
20.45
20.45
""" 20.45
23.06
23.06
22.14
22. 14
19. 1 1
16.21
16.21
16.21
"~" 20.85
20.85
20.85
20.85

StE S
6.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
" 0.70
0.70
" 0".70" "
0.70
0.70
0.70
TRR r~ EC/TEC+FF) p/
0.86
0.83
0.86
0.83
0.87
0.83
0.87
0.85
1 .02
0.86
1 .08"
1 .07
0.80"
0.80
0.78
0.76
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 19 1
. 16
. 18
. 16
.20
. 16
. 19
. 18
.31
.19
FTP
FOR
tss
.64
.54
.58
.54
.82
.74
.91
.73
.67
.31
.35 1.26
.35 1.26
.12 1.52
.13 1 .61
.11 1.51
.08 1.52
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.73
2.85
2.82
2.86
2.51
2.52
2.38
2.52
1 .95
2.43
2716
2.16
" 3.15
3.20
3.35
3:34
CORRE-
LATION
0.3379
0.3972
0.3465
0.3869
0. 1 186
0. 2359
0. 2108
0.2439
0. 1476
0.5082
0.2599
0.2632
0.4430
0.4284
0.4718
0. 5235
••O  -? f K—'s
-------
                                                     TABLE 107
o
o
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— HC -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 80%
NO. M % % %
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
CID VEHICLES D Sf UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC EO
E
ALL 117 1.01 1.78 54.45 5.67 13.61
CID < = 150 33 0.96 1.95 58.58 3.90 14.65
150 TO 260 18 0.71 1.64 43.23 16.10 10.81
CIO >= 266 66 1.14 1.76 55.59 3.99 13.90
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STE STRR EC/(EC-»-FF) PASS FAIL LATION
0.80 0.88 0.09 1.26 2.81 0.5926
0.80 0.85 0.06 1.22 2.56 0.5985
0.80 1.10 0.27 1.17 2.22 0.4562
0.80 0.86 0.07 1.40 3.10 0.6280


-------
                              _IABLEL1.QB.._
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  HC -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 80%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS CC
VEHICLES D St UNITS FTP UNITS FA
E
117
1 17
1 17
117
33
' 33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
43.72
53.78
72.61
64.40
47.33
70.82
59.97
49.77
38.53
57.15
66.87
61 .28
50.05
53.69
82.79
74.88
1.77
1 .80
2.09
2.09
2.08
1 .98
2.15
2.16
1.67
1 .58
1.82
1 .82
1.78
1 .83
1.72
1.78
RRECT
ILliRES
54.54
54.54
54.54
54 . 54 "
61 .48
61 .48 ""
59.03
59.03
50.96
43.23
43.23
43.23
55. '59'
55.59
55.59
55:59
*
..._ Ec .....
14.90
12.63
14.58
13.04"
15.92
" 12.97
15.66
14.70
24.48
13.37
26. 14
25.98
"10.18
10.76
9.01
6.79
*
EO
13.63
13.63
13.63
" 13.63
15.37
	 15.37 ~
14. 76
14.76
12.74
10.81
10.81
10.81
~ "13.90 "
13.90
13.90
13.90

STE
0.80 "
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
"0.80 •""
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80"
0.80
0.80"
0.80
0.80
0.80

STRR EC
"1 .02"
0.99
1 .01
0.99
1.01
"0.97
1.01
1 .00
1.18
1 .05
"1 .28
1 .28
0.95
0.95
0.93
0.90

/(EC+FFT
0.21"
0. 19
0.21
0.19
0.21
0.17
0.21
0.20
0.32
0.24
0.38
0.38
0.15
0. 16
0.14
' 0.11
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.60
.1 .40
1.53
1.93
".54
.73
.70
.29
.13
T.Of
1.07
1T57
1 .44
1.50
1.48
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.61
2.81
2.70
"2.79
2.37
2.50 "
2.37
2.47
2.07
2.49
2.18
2.18
2799
3.12
3.21
3.23
CORRE-
LATION
0.3354 	
0.3998
0.3446
0.3884
0.1131
0.2320
0.2050
0.2391
0. 1403
0.5119
0.2500
0.2533
0.4526
0.4360
0.4861
0.5488
-------
TABLE 109
SUMMARY OF CONT
INGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CO
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION

CID
ALL
CID <= ISO
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
33
18
66
M
0 CUT POINTS
D S't UNITS
E
4.06
5.62
2.98
3.70
FTP UNITS
23.03
22.20
25.49
25. 10
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
86.83
82.99
79.70
91.11
CAR FLEET (DENVER)
RATIO; STRR= 100%
V ¥

FTP
FOR
"EC 	 EO STE STRR ~EC/(EC+FF) PASS
3.94 3.94 0.96 1.00
5.47 5.47 0.94 1.00
6.48 6.48 0.92 1.00
	 2.61 2.61 0.97 1.00
0.04 20.13
0.06 18.53
0.08 10.09
0.03 13.26

AVG
ST
FAIL
52 . 20
39.74
37.82
~~B373(B

CORRE-
LATION
0.5294 "
0.4644
0.4557
0.5560 ."
-------
                          TABLE 110
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE ANALYSIS—  CO
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO! STRR= 100X

CIO
ALL
CIO <= 150

150 TO 260

CIO >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS
- 1465.23
924.17
605.19
481 .52
2061 .76
1254.70
1932.73
1374.98
965.50
480.73
498.00
421 .06
1810.47
677.07
311 .03
255.23
FTP UNITS
25.63
27.89
27.74
27.27
28.99
25.39
22.44
25.11
29.81
28.50
24.63
22.76
27.24
29.72
32.47
28.84
CORRECT
FAILURES
84':"9V
85.09
84.77
85.06
73.62
75.08
82.03
82.00
73.63
78.55
78.50"
78.74
' ' 76.47 "
89.73
89.52
•'89.87 "
*
EC
5.86
5.68
6.00
5.72
10.89
9.43
6.43
6.46
11 .27
7.63
7.68
7.44
7.32
3.99
4.20
3"." 85
*
EO
5.86
5.68
6.00
5.72
10.89
9. 43
6.43
6.46
11 .27
7.63
" 7.68
7.44
7.32
3.99
4.20
3.85

STE
0.94
0.93
0.94
0.87
6". 69
0.93
0.93
0.87
0.91
— 0.91 —
0.91
— o~;9T~-
0.96
0.96


STRR EC/(EC+FF)
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
T~ 00'
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
— rroo —
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.06
0. 13
0.11
0. 07
0.07
0. 13
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.04
FTP
FOR
PASS
25.55
25.67
29.96
28.61
18.54
18.54
18.90
18.47
29.44
20.74
16.91
20.74
26 770
27.63
32.84
1 5750
AVG
ST
FAIL
52.56
53.96
54.79
51 .36
37.62
37.62
38.91
39.75
35.80
38.73
38.30
38.73
66.68
66.45
60.04
CORRE-
LATION
0.3007
0.3223
0.2837
0.3177
0. 1684
0.2800
0.3699
0.3673
0. 1212
0.3590
0.3547
0.3749
0.4614
0.3225
0.2869
59.47 0.3450
-------
..TABLiE-Ul —
. SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — co
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF)= 10%
NO. M
OF .. 0
ClD VEHICLES D
E
ALL 117
150 TO 260 18
CID > = 260 66
%
CUT POINTS CORRECT
Sf UNITS ~ 	 FTP UNITS "FAILURES
***** PARAMETRIC
2.68 19.97 88.00
1.95 24.67 83.86
***** PARAMETRIC
%
' EC ~~
SOLUTION
9.78
9.32
SOLUTION
% FTP AVG
FOR ST
	 EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
DOES NOT EXIST *****
0.46 0.99 1.11 0.10 41.31 35.71
2.32 0.97 1.08 0.10 6.42 36.40
DOES NOT EXIST *****
CORRE-
LATION
0.3196
0.4087

-------
                          .TABLE_1JL2.	
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  CO
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%; EC/ ( EC+FF) = 10%

ClD
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

ClD" >= 266

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
117
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT
S'f UNITS

15241 .08
4916.14
622.08
430.91
21386.07
311 .92
308.93
227.87


POINTS CORRECT
FTP QUITS FAILURES
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
34.53 52.12
27.80 70.46
21.79 87.40
24.68 87.38
35.42 39.88
28.42 81.46
24.59 81 .31
22.67 81 .97
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
X
~ 	 EC 	 "
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
5.79
"7.83
9.71
9.71
4.43
9.05
9.03
9.11
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
*
Eb
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
32.39
14.05
1 .06
1.08
45.02
4.72
4.87
4.21
DOES'NOT"
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT"

" STE
EXIST"
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
0.62
0.83
0.99
0.99
0.47
0.95
"0.94
0.95
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST



STRR EC/(EC-«-FF)
*** **
*** **
*** **
*****
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
*** **
*** **
*** * *
*** **

.69
.93"
.10
• 10
.52
.05
:os~
.06



0. 10
"0.10 '
0.10
0. 10
0. 10
0. 10
0.10
0. 10


FTP
FOR
PASS

26.01
21720
15.34
11 .34
35.01
16.91
16.91
10.06


AVG
ST
FAIL

46.37
41.39
37.21
36.65
34.02
38.30
38.30
37.82


CORRE-
LATION

0. 1780
0.2881
0.2797
0.2784
0. 1271
0.3415
0.3383
0.3533


-------
	TABLE .113...
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS —
CO -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVERl
EC/IEC+FF) - 10% AND 20%: EC/( EC+FF)= 20*

CID
ALL
CID <- 150
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
117
33
18
66
M %
0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
E
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
***** PARAMETRIC
%
EC
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
*
EO
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
FTP AVG
FOR ST
STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
EXIST *****
CORRE-
LATION



-------
TABLE 114
          CO -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
Ec/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF)= 20%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0 CUT POINTS
%
CORRECT
X
VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC
E
1 17
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N .
H
L
D
N
*+ ***
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PARAMETRIC
PARAMETRIC
PARAMETRIC
PARAMETRIC
PARAMETRIC
PARAMETRIC
PARAMETRIC
PARAMETRIC
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
"SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
"SOLUTION
%

EO
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES "NOT

STE
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
FTP AVG
FOR ST ' CORRE-
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION
*****
*****
*****
*****
*** **
*****
*****
*****
*** **
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*** **
*****
-------
                                                               TABLE 115
                                      SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—_ co	
                                     ~GROUPED~BY"~.   ClD	   	"	"	"  ""  .
                                      FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
                                      METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC=  . 5X
                      NO.     M                           %        %
                      OF     0       CUT POINTS       CORRECT
                  "VEHICLES—D~ST~TJNITS~	FTP'UNITS "FAILURES'	EC"
                             E
                                                     %

                                                    "Ed
STRR"EC7TECTFF1
    FTP  AVG
    FOR  ST
-pass    PAH
 CORRE-
LATION—
ALL
CIO <= 150
117
33
3.28
6.01
22.28
22.50
88.52
81 .94
"5.00"
5.00
2:25
6.52
0.98"
0.93
" 1.'03
0.98
-0.05
0.06
2T773 50.88
18.53 39.74
0.5095
0.4676
     150  TO  260

    "CIO  >=  260~
 18

-S6T
                  28.76   35.93
                   9T66"
                 0.4597

                "074038"
o
00
-------
                                                         TABLE 116
o
vO
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CO
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION: EC= 5X

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CIO >* 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS
1978.06
1191.10
984.23
674.82
17373.87
1 1520.56
2910.54
2114.90
19583.11
1049.13
9772.40
1940.52
7556.57
6753.17
11836.14
104.14
FTP UNITS
26.25
28.21
28.03
27.44
35.42
32. 16
22.92
25.45
34.92
28.75
29.03
23.49
36.36
39.03
43.49
28.65
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
81 .94
82.91
81 .10
82.71
47.70
59.06
77.79
77.65
43.43
70.39
64.75
73.85
70.83
69.05
65.66
92.49
%
EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
X
EO
8.83
7. '86
9.67
8.06
36.81
25.45
10.67
10.81
41 .47
15.79
20.15
11.05
12.95
14.74
18.13
1.23
FTP AVG
FOR ST
STE
0.90
0.91
0.89
0.91
0.56
0.70
0.88
0.88
0.51
0.82
0.76
0.87
0.85
0.82
0.78
0.99
STRR
0.96
0.97
0.95
0.97
0.62
0.76
0.94
0.93
0.57
0.87
0.82
0.93
0.91
0.88
0.84
1.04
EC/(EC+FF)
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.06
0. 10
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.05
PASS
25.60
25.17
29.70
28.27
26.26
22.00
17.19
17.07
32.88
20.79
21 .80
21.80
34.40
32.11
33.74
0.00
FAIL
52.83
54.38
55.47
55.98
48.94
47.45
40.04
40.95
37.65
41 .71
42.97
42.97
67.96
69.60
77.28
58.81
CORRE-
LATION
0.3100
0.3299
0.2942
0.3256
0. 1751
0.2836
0.3776
0.3751
0. 1293
0.3644
0.3364
0.4724
0.4625
0.4337
0.3848
0.2960
-------
TABLE 117
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CO
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER!
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 60%

CID
ALL
CIO <= 150
150 TO 260
~erb >= 260
NO.
OF
—VEHICLES
117
33
18
66
M
0 CUT POINTS
D St UNITS
E
15.98
15.39
8.75
18.90
FTP UNITS
34.62
29.64
30.14
39.96
CORRECT
'FAILURES '
54;~46
53.08
51 .71
56.23
% %
FTP
FOR
EC EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
0.16 36.31 0.60 0.60
0.62 35.38 0.60 0.61
0.99 34.47 0.60 0.61
0.03 37.49 0.60 0.60
0.00 25.67
0.01 19.50
0.02 25.58
0.00 29.57
AVG
ST
FAIL
62.48
45.25
42.06
73.42
CORRE-
LATION
0.3387
0.3503
0.3649
0.2914
-------
                          TABLE 118
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE ANALYSIS—  co
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 60%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

ClD >= 260

NO.
OF
M
0
VEHICLES D
E
117
117
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
H
0
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POI
ST UNITS F
8371 .97
6328.50
6443.25
5330.07
15931 .16
15493.72
1 1285.51
8447.16
15730.05
3334.63
"19821 .45
23859.86
20897.30
18709.38
26019.34
4455.76
%
NTS CORRECT
TP UNITS'" FAILURES
34.04
34.40
32.31
31.60
34.82
34.78 '"
27.08
28.36
33.87
29.77
33.75
34.03
57.52"
57.34
57.04
34115
54.46
54.46
54.46
"54.46 "
50.71
50.71
53.08
53.08
50.94
51 .71
50.94
50.94
"50.27
50.27
50.27
"56.23
X
" " EC "
1.35 "~
1. 17
1.50
— 1.21
5.53
• - "3.53 "
1.30
1.32
6.30
1.94
2.62 ""
1.07
"""1733"
1.63
2.22
0.45
%
EO
36.31
36.31
36.31
36.31
33.80
33.80
35.38
35.38
33.96
34.47
33.96
33.96
33.51
33.51
33.51
37.49

" STE 	
""0.60"
0.60
0.60
"0.60
0.60
	 0.60 "
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60 "
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
o:eo

STRR EC
" 0.61
0.61
0.62
-0.61
0.67
"0.64
0.61
0.61
0.67
0.62
0.63
0.61
" 0.62"
0.62
0.63
"o:6b ~
:/(EC+FFT
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.02"
0.10
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.11
0.04
0.05""
0.02
' 0703
0.03
0.04
0.01
FTP
FOR
PASS
30.76
26.65
29.38
28.52
26.01
23.12
20.91
25.50
29.08
22.72
"23.16 "
24.58
38.22
42.62
40.76
33.20
AVG
ST
FAIL
55.96
60.50
58.27
59.49
46.37
47.89
42.39
41 .82
41 .80
42.38
43.99
47.43
85.07
85.36
84.87
74: 42
CORRE-
LATION
0.2646
0.2755
0.2553
0.2733
0. 1772
" 0.2701
0.3126
0.3113
0. 1324
0.3179
0. 3064
0.3791
"0.3820
0.3683
0.3416
"0.2584
-------
TABLE 119
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS —
CO -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= vox
NO. M
OF 0 CUT POINTS

CID
"VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
%
CORRECT
FAILURES '
X
"EC
%
- EO ~

STE


FTP
FOR
"STRR EC7TEC+FFJ — PASS
E
-Air
CID
150
CID
<= 150
TO 260
>= 260
117
33
16
66
12.19
12.35
6.79
14.11
30.92
27.32
28.56
3i>-27
63.54
61 .92
60.33
65." 60" -
0.39
1.18
1.78
0.09 "
27.23
26.54
25.86
28.12
0 .70
0.70
0.70
0.70 "
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.70

0.01
0.02
0.03
0.00

122 . 58
18.97
25.20
22.40
AVG
ST
FAIL

CORRE-
LATION

60.69~~ 0.3962
44.34 0.3960
39.50
69.51
0.4062
0.3b04
-------
                                 TABLE  120
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—   CO -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 70%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
117
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18 '--
18
66 '
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
L
D
N~
CUT P
ST'UNITS 	
5734.24
4184.62
3839.64
' "3175.22
1 1647.52
' 11473.08
7526.21
5564.66
1 1075.85
2052.30
"1" 3905. 70
16907.75
16088.78
13877.16
18748.35
2607.10
OINTS
"FTP UNITS"
30.83
31 .82
30.27
29.68
33.02
32.13 "
25.21
27.03
32.59
29.20
30.97
30.69
49. B9 	
49.94
50.09
31.81
CORRECT
FAILURES"
'63.54 " '
63.54
63.54
' 63.54 ~ "
59.16
""- 59.16
61 .92
61 .92
59.43
60.33
59.43
59.43
""• 58. 6b
58.65
58.65
65.60
%
EC '
2.10 ~
1 .87
2.28
1 . 92
7.20
5.02 "
2.13
2.16
7.95
3.04
3.92
1 .93
2.31 --•
2.72
3.49
o.ai r ~
*
"Ed"""
27.23
27.23
27.23
27.23
25.35
25.35
26.54
26.54
25.47
25.86
25.47
25.47
25.14 "
25.14
25.14
28.12

"STE
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70 ""
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70 '

"STRR El
0.72"
0.72
0.73
" 0.72
0.79
0.76
0.72
0.72
0.79
0.74
0.75
0.72
0.73"
0.73
0.74
0:71


0.03"
0.03
0.03
0.03 ""
0.11
"0.08
0.03
0.03
0. 12
0.05
~ 0.06
0.03
0.04 —
0.04
0.06
0.01"
FTP
FOR
PASS
29.37
26.64
28. 16
28 . 44
25.82
22.00 "
20.89
20.76
29.41
22.72
23: 16"
23. 16
38.11
38.72
35.58
33.93
AVG
ST
"FAIL
55.28
56.92
58. 1 1
57.98
41 .63
47.45
41 .51
41.55
37.40
42.38
43.99
43.99
82:17
75.55
79.38
72: 11
CORRE-
LATION
0.2882
0.3024
0.2765
0.2994 "
0. 1802
0.2837
0.3433
0. 3416
0. 1328
0.3439
0.3272
0-4210
0.421 1
0.4028
0.3685
0.2930
-------
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  CO -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 80%
NO.
OF
ciD VEHICLES
ALL 117
CID < = 150 33
150 TO 260 18
CID >= 260 66
M
0
D ST
E



CUT
UNITS"
8.95
9.59
5.07
10 . T4
POINTS
" FTP UNITS
' 27.78
25.23
27.18
31.39
CORRECT
FAILURES
" 72.62 '
70.77
68.95
74.98
*
"EC "
0.92
2.18
3.11
0.29
*
EO
18.T5
17.69
17.24
18.74 ""

STE
O.'BO"
0.80
0.80
0.80

STRR
0.81"
0.82
0.84
0.80
EC/TEC+FFT
0.01 	
0.03
0.04
0.00
FTP
FOR
PSSS
18.98
17.06
26.73
17.31
AVG
ST
FAIL
"57.97
42.94
37.02
65.03
CORRE-
LATION 	
0.4592
0.4393
0.4422
—074241 	
-------
                             TABLE 122
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  CO -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= eo%

CIO
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

~eiD~*= 260

NO.
OF
"VEHICLES
117 	
1 17
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0
0
E
H"
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D "
N
H"
L
D
N
CUT POIN
Sf~ UNITS " FT
"3694:65"
2589.96
2103.25
1740.87
6639.99
6789.14
4710.30
3433.21
5631 .47
1 169.33
7034:37
8934.88
10565.02
8308.30
10330.87
1402.83
ITS CO
P UNITS ~ FA
"28.34* "
29.90
26.91
28.40
30.91
29.04
23.82
26.05
31.09
28.81
27.75 "
26.85
4 1 ; 1 3
41.41
42.05
30.29
%
RRECT
ILURES
72.62
72.62
72.62
72 . 62 ""
67.61
67:61
70.77
70.77
67.92
68.95
67.92 ""
67.92
67.03"
67.03
67.03
74.93 '
%
EC ~ '
" "3.20
2.94
3.40
2.99
9.19
7.00
3.41
3.45
9.83
4.65
" 5.77
3.36
•"3.92
4.44
5.36
- "1 ; 43
%
" " EO
	 18. 15
18. 15
18. 15
	 ~ 18.15
16.90
"16.90
17.69
17.69
16.98
17.24
16.98
16.98
"16.76
16.76
16.76
18.74

" STE"
' " "0.80 '
0.80
0.80
— ~ 0.80 "
0.80
0.80"
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
" "0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80' '


"STRR EC/CEC+FFr
0.84
0.83
0.84
0.83
0.91
0.88
0.84
0.84
0.92
0.85
' 0.87
0.84
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.82
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0. 12
0.09 "
0.05
0.05
0. 13
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0. 02
FTP
FOR
PASS '"
26.21"
25.12
28.63
28.99 "
25. 10
" 20.36
19.52
17.07
27.37
20.79
"2i:so"
21 .80
36:44
33.00
33.82
"33.93"
AVG
ST
"FAIL
"54.13
55.36
56.83
57.37
40.57
"44.75
40.29
40.95
36.84
41.71
42.97
42.97
72:45
71.71
76.10
"72. 1f
CORRE-
LATION
0.3067
0.3244
0. 2923
0.3206
0. 1772
0.2893
0.3683
0.3662
0. 1286
0.3626
0. 3398
0,4569
0. 4b31
0.4294
0.3869
0.3272
-------
                                                           TABLE 123
                                  SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY JABLE ANALYSIS— NOX _
                                  GROUPED BY	 CID  	"
                                  FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
                                  FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR= 100%
                  NO.     M                           %        %       %                                    FTP  AVG
        	   OF      0       ?UT_POINTS_     _ CORRECT  		               PO?_JT	CORRE^
     CIO       VEHICLES   D  ST  UNITS   FTP UNITS  FAILURES"   EC "     E0"~     SfE~"STRR   EC/'fEC-fFF'J   PASS "   FAIL    LATION
                         E
"ALC              n'7


CID <=  150        33
 150 TO  260        18
        260        66~
-------
                         TABLE 124
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - .117 CAR FLEET- (-DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR= 100% . '

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS FTP
E
H 2441.75
L 1773.78
D 267.51
N 109.24
H 3089.33
L 1348.03
D 105.62
N 102.80
H 2134.78
L 1616.55
D 387.02
N 113.60
H 2167.86'
L 1707.18
D 317.56
N 109.59
(
UNITS 1
2.94
3.18
2.04
2.20
2.81
2.63
1 .86
1.81
2.81
2.71
2.37
2.49
3759
3.31
2.00
2.27
:ORRECT
:AILURES~
1.97 '
1 .98
0.87
0.83 '"
2.82
OT97~
0.20
0.85
6.12
3.17
4.83
2.15
1 .17
0.97 -
0.31
0.35
— "EC" 	
•3.69
3.68
4.79
4.83
2.89
1 .90
2.67
4.86
5.52
4.48
"' 6.81 ~
5.50
2.87 ""
- 3.07
3.73
3.68
*
EO
3/69
3.68
4.79
4.83
2.89
1 . 90
2.67
4.86
5.52
4.48
6.8f
5.50
2.87
3.07
3.73
3.68 "'

STE
0.35
0.35
0.15
0.15"
0.49
— 0734 —
0.07
0.15
0.53
0.41
— 574 f —
0.28
0.29 ~
0.24
0.08
" 0.09


STRR EC/IEC+FF)
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
"i.oo 	
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
0.65
0.65
0.85
0.85
0.51
0 . 66 	
0.93
0.85
0.47
0.59
0.59
0.72
0.71
0.76
0.92
0.91
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.62
•1 .60
1 .66
1.64
1.57
1.50
1.58
1 .60
1 .80
1 .90
1 .80
1 .90
1.60
1 .54
1.69
1.63
AVG
ST
FAIL
	 3T3T~
4.19
2.12
2.72
0.00
2". 7 2
1 .48
1.13
2.85
2.18
2.48
2.16
CORRE-
LATION
0.3090
0.3112
0. 1034
0.0951
0.4632
0.3168
0.0406
0.0977
0.4637
0.3663
0.3376
0.2214
4.46 0.2592
4.86 0.2085
1.83 0.0371
3.58
0.0492
-------
                                                          TABLE 125
SUMMARY-Of- CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER!
EC/(EC+FFl = 10% AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF)= 10%




ALL
CID
150
CID


CID

<= 150
TO 260
>= 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES

1 17
33
18
66
M
0 CUT P
D ST UNITS
E
4.65
3.48
3.37


oiNrs"
FTP UNITS

4.44
3.87
3.16
*****
%
CORRECT
FAILURES

0.82
1 .49
5.54
PRACTICAL
%

EC

0.09
0.17
0.62
SOLUTION
%

EO

4.84
4.22
2.11
DOES NOT


STE

0.15
0.26
0.72
EXIST


STRR

0.16
0.29
0.80
*****


EC/(EC+FF)

0. 10
0.10
0. 10

FTP
FOR
PASS

1.65
1.49
1.72

AVG
ST
FAIL

6.37
4.10
3.47


CORRE-
LATION

0.3508
0.4718
0.7935

00
-------
                          TABLE 126
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  NOX
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%; EC/( EC-t-FF )= 10%

CID
ALL
CIO < = 150

150 TO 260
~CID™y^~260~

NO.
OF
VEHICLES""
117
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
D
N
H
L
D
N
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS'" FTP UNITS
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
6543.09 6.35
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
CORRECT
' FAILURES
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
0.59
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL"
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL'
%
EC ~
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.07
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
	 EO
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
1 1 .
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES

NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
05
N6T
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT

STE
EXIST"
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST"
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXI ST
0.05
-EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST -
EXIST
EXIST
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION
* + * **
*** **
*** t *
*** **
* + + * *
*** »*
*** **
****"#
0.06 0.10 1.91 0.00 0.1991
** * **
*****
*****
*****
*** **
*****
EXIST *****
-------
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/ (EC+FF )= '20%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID > = 260
NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES D
E
1 17
33
18
66
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS FTP
3.89
3.02
3.23
4.63
UNITS
3.80
3.40
3.04
4.40
CORRECT
FAILURES
1 .60
2.44
6.54
0.53
*
EC
0.40
0.61
1.63
0.13
%
EO
4.07
3.27-
1.11
3.51

STE
0.28
-0.43
0.85
0.13

STRR
0.35
0.-53
1.07
0.16

EC/(EC+FF)
0.20
Ov20
0.20
0.20
FTP
FOR
PASS
1.61
1 . 49
1.72
1.62
AVG
ST
FA_IL_
4.86
4.10
3.47
6.37
CORRE-
LATION
0.4588
0.5679
0.8119
0.3141
-------
                              TABLE 128
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY cio
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
Ec/(EC-«-FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(EC+FF)=> 20%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
o ctn POINTS
~0 ST UNITS '
E
H
L
D
N
H 5358.43
D
N
H 4448.92
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
FTP UNITS
*****
*****
*****
4.36
*****
*****
*****
4.67
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
CORRECT
FAILURES
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
0.70
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
1 .67
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL-
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL
PRACTICAL"
X
	 EC' ^
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0. 18
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
0.42
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
SOLUTION
*
EO
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
5.
DOES
DOES
DOES
9.
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES

NOT.
NOT
NOT
NOT
01
NOT
NOT
NOT
97
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT"
NOT
NOT
NOT

EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST"
0.12
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
0. 14
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST '
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST-
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR EC/(£C+FFJ PASS FAIL LATION
*****
*** **
*** **
*** **
0.15 0.20 1.57 0.00 0.3012
*****
*** **
*****
0.18 0.20 1.91 0.00 0.3113
*** * *
*****
*** **
*****
*** **
*** **
*****
-------
TABLE 129
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — NOX
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5%

CID
ALL
CID <= 150
150 TO 260
CID > = 260
NO. M
	 OF 0
VEHiCTES~~b
E
1 17
33
18
66
% % %
CUT POINTS CORRECT
FTP
FOR
ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
2.54
2.19
2.99
2.52
2.66
2.56
2.85
2.67 	
4.19 5.00 1.48 0.74 1.62 0.54
4.69 5.00 1.03 0.82 1.70 0.52
7.42 5.00 0.23 0.97 1.62 0.40
2.78 5.00 '1.26 0.69 ' 1.93 0.64 "
1.52
1 .49
1.72
1.52
AVG
ST CORRE-
PAIL LATIOM
3.52 0.5490
4.10 0.6022
3.47 0.7380
3.76 0.4673
-------
                                                            TABLE 130
                                      SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
to
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS

CIO
ALL '
CIO <= 150

150 TO 260

"CIO >='260

NO.
OF
M
0
VEHICLES D
E
1 17
1 17
1 17
117 "•
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
0
N"
H
T '
D
N
H
L
D
N
	 H "
L
D
N
CUT POU
ST UNITS 	 F1
2226.67
1567.75
262.73
108.25
2674.86
1198.68
97.86
102.08
2211 .37
1589.43
447.11
120.14
1863.41
1399.00
281 .31
101.04
ITS
•p' UNITS 	
2:75
2.93
2.03
2.19
2.53
2.42 ~
1 .82
1.81
2.87
2.69
2.51
2.51
3.15
2.90
1.95
2.19
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
"2.32
2.34
0.90
~ "0.85"
3.52
"1 .54"
0.33
0.87
5.87
3.35
4.07
2.02
1 .59
1 .31
0.40
0.46
CAR FLEET (DENVER)
OF COMMISSION: EC=
%
"EC •""
"5.00 "
5.00
5.00
~"5 .00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
b.OO
5.00
^.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
%
EO
3.34
3T33"
4.76
"4 .81
2.20
"1.33 '"
2.54
4.84
5.77
4.30
7.57 "
5.63
"2.45 "
2.73
3.64
"3.58
5%

" STE :L
"0.41 ~
"0". 4 1
0.16
0.15
0.62
0.54 "
0.12
0.15
0.50
0.44
0.35
0.26
0:39
0.32
0.10
0.11 -




_STRR EC/TEC+FF7
1 .29
1.30
1 .04
1 .03
1 .49
2.28
1 .86
1.03
0.93
1 .09
0.78
0.92
1 .63
1.56
1.34
-1.35
0.68
0.68
0.85
0.85
0.59
0.76
0.94
0.85
0.46
0.60
0.55
0.71
0. 76
0.79
0.93
0.92


FTP AVG
FOR ST
""PASS""
""1 . 60
1 .60
1 .66
1.64
1 .55
1 .50
1.60
1.60
1 .80
1 .90
1.80 "
1 .90
1 .54
1.54
1.69
1.63
FAIL
2.92
4.19
2.01
2.72
1 .99
2.31
1.30
1.13
2.85
2.18
2.85
2.16
4.86
3.56
1.60
3T58

CORRE-
LATION
" 0.3164
0.3187
0.1043
0.0958
0.4676
0.3273
0.0475
0.0983
0.461 1
0.3692
0.3271
0.2186
0.2715
0.2202
0.0401
0.0b30
-------
                                                         TABLE  131
                                  SUMMARY  OF  CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  NOX
                                  GROUPED  BY        CID	"~"~ '         ~" "	
                                  FEDERAL  SHORT  CYCLE -  117 CAR FLEET  (DENVER)
                                  FIXED SHORT TEST  EFFECTIVENESS:  STE=  eo%
                 NO.    M                           %         %        %                                    FTP AVG
                 OF     0        CUT  POINTS        CORRECT                                          . _   FOR ST  _ CORRE-
              ~VEHICLES~~0 — STTJNITS    FTP~UNITS "FAILURE?    EC       EO   ~~STE  "STRR  EC/fEC+FFT   PASS    FAIL    LATION
                        E
'ALC --- T17              2.90        2V96     3140      2.61     2.27   "0760    1 706~  ~OT43     1~I55    3796   OT5566"

CID <=  150        33              2".65        3702     3.43      1.63     2.29    0.60   -0.89     0.32     1.49    4.10   0.6173
 150 TO 260        18              3.49       3.26     4.59      0.23     3.06    0.60    0.63     0.05     1.72    3.47   0.7417

~CID~>~260~	66	2775	2786	2T42	3739~"1762	0760	T744	0758	"1753	47T7   07475 r
-------
                                                     	TABLE. 132
fo
un
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — NOX


CIO
ALL
CIO <= 150

150 TO 260

CIO >= 260


NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
13
66
66
66
66

M
0
0
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
0
N
H
D
N
H
L
P
N
GROUI
FEDEI
FIXEI
CUT PI
ST UNITS
1693.49
1097.22
91 .92
53.94
2725.12
1151 .56
59.21
54.20
1895.12
1406.79
261 . 18
93.17
1418.26
793.40
73.89
44.93
PED BY CID
RAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET
D. SHORT-TEST EFFECTIVENESS; ST
% %
DINTS CORRECT
FTP UNITS
2.29
2.34
1 .68
1 .71
2.56
2.35
1 .60
1.59
2.61
2.51
2.09
2. 19
2.51
2.08
1 .66
1.67
FAILURES
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.43
1 .72
1 .72
3.43
6.98
4.59
6.98
4.59
2.42
2.42
2.42
2.42
EC
~\ 1 . 00~"
10.87
32.48
33.92
4.68
6.53
40.94
33.53
7.55
9.81
14. 14
20.14
1 1 .70
15.68
44.48
41.11
(DENVER)
E= 60%
%
EO
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.29
1.15
1.15
2.29
4.66
3.06
4.66
3.06
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.62

STE
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60

STRR
2.54
2.52
6.33
6.59
1 .42
2.88
14.87
6.47
1 .25
1 .88
1.81
3.23
3.50
4.48
11 .61
10.78

EC/(EC+FF)
0.76
0.76
0.91
0.91
0.58
0.79
0.96
0.91
0.52
0.68
0.67
0.81
0.83
0.87
0.95
0.94
FTP
FOR
PASS
1 .52
1.50
1.61
1.51
1 .55
1.50
1 .48
1.50
1.69
1 .80
1.71
1.79
1.52
1.50
1.55
1.53
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.85
2.70
1.88
1 .98
1.99
2.31
1.74
1.71
3.04
2.85
2.44
2.55
3.34
2.89
1.84
1.86
CORRE-
LATION
0. 3183
0.3204
0. 1232
0. 1149
0.4681
0.3233
0.0602
0. 1175
0.4681
0.3739
0.3457
0.2353
0.2703
0.2232
0.0538
0.0681
-------
                                                               TABLE  133


SUMMARY OF
CONTINGENCY
TABLE ANALYSIS — NOX -CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 70%

J CID
..ALL
CID < = 150
150 TO 260
CID > = 260
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
33
18
66
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS
E
2.64
2.45
3.39
2.49
FTP UrtlTS
2.75
2.82
3.18
2.64
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
3.96
4.00
5.36
2.83 '
X
"EC" '
4117 "
2.70
0.51
5.28
%
EO
1.70
1.71
2.30
1.21

STE
" 6 . 70
0.70
0.70
0.70

STRR EC/TEC* FFF
1.44 0.51
1.17 0.40
0.77 0.09
2.01 0.65
FTP AVG
FOR ST
PASS FAIL
1.53 3.60
1.49 4.10
1.72 3.47
1.52 3.76
CORRE-
LATION
6.5546
0.6234
0.7854
' 0'.4653
tSJ
-------
                                                             TABLE 134
                               SUMMARY OF  CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX -CONTINUED
to
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 70%
NO.
OF
CID VEHICLES
ALL 117
1 17
1 17
1 17
CID <= 150 33
33
33
33
150 TO 260 18
18
18
13
"CID >=' 260 66
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT
1ST UNITS
1452.81
895.66
73.22
46.59
2403.86
"1073.25
51 .99
47.39
1597.66
1286. 18
208.28
84.92
'1231:17
639.21
58.45
38.67
POINTS
"FTP" UNITS'
2.09
2.09
1.64
1.65
2.34
2.23
1.56
1.55
2.38
2.39
1 .97
2.09
i!.25
1.87
1.64
1.61
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
~ 3 . 96 "
3.96
3.96
3.96 "
4.00
2. Of
2.01
4.00
8. 15
5.36
" 8.15
5.36
2 . 83 "
2.83
2.83
2.83
X
" EC -"
" 15.96
15.78
41 .99
"43.57
7.18
9.81
51 .25
43. 14
1 1 .33
14.35
~ 20.04
27.60
"•""• 16.91
22.12
54.73
51.31
%
_ EQ...._
	 1~.70™
1.70
1.70
	 1:70
1.71
0.86 ""
0.86
1.71
3.49
2.30
" 3.49"
2.30
VI21' "
1 .21
1 .21
" 1.21"

"STE
I
"0.70
0.70
0.70
"0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
"0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
o:7cr

~ STRR -
"3.52
3.49
8.11
8.39
1.96
4.12
18.56
8.25
1 .67
2.58
2.42
4.31
4.89
6.18
14.25
~ 13.41


"EC/(EC+FF7~
0
0
0
0
0
— 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.80
.80
.91
.92
.64
.83 ~
.96
.92
.58
.73
.71
.84
.86
.89
.95
.95
FTP
FOR
-p"ASS"~
1746
1.46
1.51
1 .52
1.51
1 .44
.40
.54
.70
.77
.71
1 .72
T.51
1 .46
1.46
1 .55
AVG
ST
"FAIL '
2.74
2.58
1.91
"1190
2.22
2.33
1.76
1 .63
2.66
2.40
"" 2.44
2.41
3.19
2.53
1.82
1.76
CORRE-
LATION'
073072'
0.3093
0. 1182
0. 1 102
0.4594
"" 0.3098
0.0577
0. 1 127
0.4631
0.3639
0.3373
0.2268
0.2b91
0.2136
0.0516
0. 06b3
-------
                                                              TABLE  135
          CIO
                               -SUMMARY  OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX -CONTINUED
                                      'GROUPED BY     "  CID	""	"""
                                       FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
                                       FIXED SHORT TEST  EFFECTIVENESS; STE=   80%
    NO.    M                           %
    OF	0	CUT _P_qiNTS_     _CORRECT
""VEHICLES  "b  ST UNITS   "FTP  UNITS   FAILURES"
                                                                   X


                                                                  ~EC~
 X


"Ed
STRR  EC/rEC+FF]
   FTP AVG
   FOR_ST	
PASS   "FAIL
 CORRE-_
~LATION
ALL
CIO <= 150
150 TO 260
CID >= 260
1 17
33
18
66
2.38
2.24
3.29
2.22
2.52
2.60
3.09
2.42
4.53
4.57
6.12
3.23
6.70
4.48
1 .08
8731
1.13
1.14
1.53
0.81
                                                                                   ~6T8o~

                                                                                    0.80
                                                                         "1 .98


                                                                          1 .58
                          0.60


                          0.50
                                                                                    0.80
                                                                         0.94
                          0.15
                                                                                   "0.80"
                                                                         -2V86"
                          0.72
                   1.51


                   1 .49
         3.40


         4.10
                   1.72


                   TT52"
         3.47


        •"3T4T
~6."5"336


 0.6086
 0.8104


"OT4395"
IN)
00
-------
                                                               TABLE 136
                               SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX -CONTINUED
ts)
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 80%
NO.
OF
CID VEHICLES
ALL 117
117
1 17
1 17
CID <= 150 33
33
33
33
150 TO 260 18
18
18
18
CID > = 260 66
66
66
66
M
0
D
E
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
H
L
D
N
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS FTP UNITS
1214.83
706.76
56.11
39.25
2078.13
981 .93
43.55
40.51
1310.25
1 145.60
159.93
75.27
1043.65
496.54
44.42
32.44
1 .88
1.85
1.61
1.58
2.12
2. 10
1.51
1.52
2.15
2.25
1 .86
1.. 98
1.98
1.68
1.62
1.56
X
CORRECT
FAILURES
4.53
4.53
4.53
4.53
4.57
2.30
2.30
4.57
9-31
6. 12
9.31
6.12
3.23
3.23
3.23
3-23
%
EC
23.24
23.01
53.51
55.11
11.14
14.91
63.02
54.67
17.03
21 .08
28.34
37.60
24.54
31 .20
66.07
62.89
%
EO
1.13
1 .13
1.13
1.13
1.14
0.57
0.57
1.14
2.33
1.53
2.33
1.53
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81

STE
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.60
o.eo
0.80

FTP
FOR
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
4.90
4.86
10.25
10.53
2.75
5.99
22.76
10.37
2.26
3.56
3.23
5.71
6.88
8.53
17.16
16.38
0.84 1.44
0.84 -1.43
0.92 1.41
0.92 1.47
0.71 1.43
0.87
0.96
0.92
0.65
0.78
0.75
0.86
0.88
0.91
0.95
.40
.29
.36
.62
.71
.53
.49
.47
.45
I .47
0.95 1.58
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.43
2.39
1.B7
1.80
2.22
2.35
1.73
1.71
2.68
2.44
2.52
2.45
2745
2.20
1.77
1.73
CORRE-
LATION
0.2858
0.2878
0. 1090
0. 1017
0.4349
0.2860
0.0530
0. 1040
0.4422
0.3415
0.3172
0.2105
0.2392
0. 1968
0.0476
0.0601
-------
                                                    TABLE 137
OJ
o
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER1
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR= 100%
NO. M % % % FTP AVG
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT FOR ST
CID VEHICLES D ST UNITS" "FTp'UNITS FAILURES" EC 	 EQ 	 ~~ STE STRR "EC/fEC+FF)' PASS FAIL
E
ALL 117 87.18 4.27 4.27 0.95 1.00 0.05
CID <= 150 33 84.85 0.00 9.09 0.90 0.90 0.00
150 TO 260 18 83.33 5.56 0.00 1.00 1.07 0.06
CIO >= 260 66 90.91 3.03 1 52 0.98 1.02 0.03





CORRE-
LATION
0.4533
0.6011
0.7906
0. 6472



-------
                       TABLE 138
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS— CMP3
URUUHtU BY C1D
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO! STRR= 100%
NO.
OF
M %
0 CUT POINTS CORR
U1U VtMiCLbS U 5T UN1I5
E
ALL 1 1 7
1 17
1 17
i i 7
CID <= 150 33
33
33
33
'ISO TO 260 18
18
18
i 8
66
66
bo
M
L
D
N
B
M
L
D
N
B
h
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
1- i p UNI i 5 rm L
83
82
76
83
82
Su
90
84
81
84
It
72
83
77
77
63
83
87
9u
83
ECT
URES—
. 47
.05
.07
;47 —
.91
;9t —
.91
.85
.82 	
.85
. 78 '
.22
.33
. 78
.78
r33 	
.33
.88
791 	
.33
*
EC
3.42
3.42
3.42
5.13
3.42
0. 00
0.00
0.00
	 5.03 -
0.00
5. 56
5.56
11.11
5. 56
5.56
	 4-. 55—
3.03
7.58
7.5b
4.55
*
60
5.98
9.40
15.38
'" 5.98 "
8.55
3. 03 '
3.03
9.09
— t2; 1 2 —
9.09
— 5 .56 —
11.11
0.00
— 5; 56—
5.56
	 9709—
9.09
4.55
	 T752 —
9.09
— STE—
0 .93
0.90
0.83
0 .93
0.91
" ' 0 .97
0.97
0.90
0 . 87
0.90
— 0-93 —
0.87
1 .00
0.93
0 .90 '
0.90
0.95
— 0-;98 —
0.90

STRH EC/
0.97
0.93
0.87
o.gy
0.94
1 0.97
0.97
0.90
0 . 90
0.90
1 .00
0.93
1 .13
	 1 ••; 00 	
1 .00
0.9b
0.93
1 .03
	 1-707 	
0.95


(EC + l-f j PA5
0.
0.
0.
"0.
0.
U.
0.
0.
-o;
0.
U.
0.
0.
-tJ.
0.
0 •
0.
0.
-or
0.
u*t
04
04
06
04
00
00
00
04
00
07
07
12
07
07
05
04
08
08
05
FTP AVG
FOR ST ci
5 FAIL L
u
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
DRRE-
ATION 	
;4756 	
.3945
.2990
.4122
.8032 	
.8032
.601 1
. 2469
.601 1
. 6000 '"
.4781
.5423
.6000 	
.6000
0. m^ti
0.3868
-0.0625
"0. 0355
0.2446
-------
                                                         TABLE 139
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER^
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(EC + FFU 10%

CIO
ALL
CIO <= 150
150 TO 260
CIO >= 260
NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES 0
E
117
33
18
66
%
CUT POINTS CORRECT
ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
***** PARAMETRIC
90.91
83.33
***** PRACTICAL
%
EC
SOLUTION
6.06
11.11
SOLUTION
%
EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF)
DOES NOT EXIST *****
3/03 0.97 1.03 0.06
0.00 1.00 1.13 0.12
DOES NOT EXIST *****
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
PASS FAIL LATION
-0.0449
0.5423

to
-------
                                                             TABLE 140
00
UJ
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
EC/(EC+FF) = 10% AND 20%: EC/(£C+FF)= 10%
NO.
OF •
M
0 CUT POINTS
CID VEHICLES 	 D "STTJNIT'S "' FTP UNITS
E
ALL 117
1"17
1 17
1 17
CID <= "150 33
33
33
33
150 TO 260 18
18
18
18
CID >= "260 66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
"H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
CORRECT
*
"FAILURES " EC"
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PRACTICAL~SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL" SOLUTION
	 EC
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
SOLU1
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
SOLU1
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
SOLU1
DOES
DOES
DOES
DOES
)-"
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
riON
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
riON
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
riON
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT

"STE
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION
*** **
*****
*****
*** **
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*** **
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*** **
*****
*****
                                             *****
-------
                                                          TABLE 141
                         JSUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3-CONTINUED
                          "	GROUPED BY   ""   CID ""	
                                 FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
                                 EC/= 260       66                     ***** PARAMETRIC SOLUTION DOES NOT EXIST *****
-------
                                                               TABLE  142
                                SUMMARY  OF  CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS— CMP3-CONTINUED
UO
(J\
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
EC/(EC-t-FF) = 10% AND 20%; EC/(EC + FF)= 20%

CID
ALL

CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 17
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
M
0 CUT POINTS
0 ST UNITS
E
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
X %
CORRECT
FTP UNITS FAILURES EC
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
** ***
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
"PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PARAMETRIC SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
PRACTICAL SOLUTION
"PRACTICAL SOLUTION
NO MEANINGFUL
%
EO
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
SOLUTION
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
SOLUTION
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
SOLUTION
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
SOLUTION

STE
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXlSf
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
"EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
EXIST
FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION
* * * * *
*** **
*** **
*** **
*****
*** **
* + * **
*** **
*****
*** * *
*** **
*****
**** *
*** **
*****
*** **
*** **
*** **
*****
*** **
-------
                                      SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3
GROUPED BY CID " :
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC = 5%

CID
CID < = 150
150 TO 260
CID >* 260
NO. M
OF 0 CUT
VEHICLES D ST UNITS
E
117
33
18
66
%
POINTS CORRECT
FTP" UNITS FAILURES"
88.89
84.85
77.78
92.42
*
EC
"5.98
0.00
5.56
6.06
*
Ed
"" 2.56
9.09
5.56
" a; oo
FTP AVG
FOR ST
"STE" STRR EC/(EC+FF1 PASS FAIL
0 . 97 1 . 04 0 . 06
0.90 0.90 0.00
0.93 1.00 0.07
-~i;oo 1.07 o.oe
CORRE-
LATION '
0.3447
0.601 1
0.6000
0.4332
00
-------
                                            			TABLE. 144
00
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
METHOD OF BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC=

CID
ALL

CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
5%


M % X %
0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
VEHICLES D ST UNITS
E
117
1 17
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
8
FTP UNITS FAILURES
85
82
76
74
81
63
66
81
78
75
50
61
55
61
50
80
77
60
92
83
.47
.05
.07
.36
.20
.64
.67
.82
.79
.76
;bo" "
. 11
.56
. 11
.00
.30
.27
.61
.42
.33
EC
0.85
0.85
3.42
1 .71
0.85
0.00
0.00
3.03
3.03
0.00
0.00
5.56
11.11
5.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 .52
7.58
0.00
EO
5.98
9.40
15.38
17.09
10.26
30.30
27.27
12.12
15.15
18.18
33.33
22.22
27.78
22.22
33.33
12.12
15.15
31.82
0.00
9.09
STE
0.93
0.90
0.83
0.81
0.89
0.68
0.71
0.87
0.84
0.81
0.60
0.73
0.67
0.73
0.60
0.87
0.84
0.66
1 .00
0.90

FTP
FOR
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
0.94
0.91
0.87
0.83
0.90
0.68
0.71
0.90
0.87
0.81
0.60
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.87
0.84
0.67
1 .08
0.90
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
01
01
04
02
01
00
00
04
04
00
00
08
17
08
00
00
00
02
08
00

AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATION
0.6791
0.5920
0.2990
0.4017
0.5740
0.3360
0.3592
0.2469
0.2095
0.4490
0.4472
0.3162
0.0000
0.3162
0.4472
0.5781
0.5279
0.2486
INDEF
0.6402
-------
                                                        TABLE 145
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 60%
NO. M
OF 0 CUT POINTS
CID VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
ALL 117
CID <= 150 33
150 TO 260 18
CID >= 260 66
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
76.09
69.70
55.56
72.73
%
"EC 	 "
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
% FTP AVG
FOR ST
EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL
21.37 0.77 0.77 0.00
24.24 . 0.74 0.74 0.00
27.78 0.67 0.67 0.00
19.70' 0.79 0.79 0.00
CORRE-
LATION
0.4679
0.3852
0.5000
0.467S
00
-------
TABLE 146
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3

GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS: STE= 60%

CID
ALL

CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID > = 260

NO.
OF
M % % %
0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
VEHICLES D ST UNITS
E
1 17
1 17
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
FTP UNITS FAILURES
78
76
81
76
63
69
69
84
75
75
61
61
66
55
55
63
62
77
84
56
.63
.92
.20
.07
.25
.70
.70
.85
.76
.76
. 1 1
. 11
.67
.56
.56
.64
.12
.27
.85
.06
EC
0.85
0.00
5.98
4.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.03
3.03
0.00
5.56
5.56
11.11
5.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.55
4.55
0.00
EO
12.82
14.53
10.26
15.38 ~"
28.21
24.24
24.24
9.09
18.18
18.18
22.22
22.22
16.67
27.78
27.78
28.79
30.. 30
15.15
7.58
36.36
STE
0.86
0.84
0.89
0.83
0.69
~ 0.74
0.74
0.90
0.81
0.81
0.73
0.73
0.80
0.67
0.67
0.69
0.67
0.84
0.92
0.61
FTP
FOR
STRR EC/{EC+FF) PASS
0.87
0.84
0.95
0.88
0.69
0.74
0.74
0.94
0.84
0.81
0.80
0.80
0.93
0.73
0.67
0.69
0.67
0.89
0.97
0.61
0.01
0.00
0.07
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.08
0.08
0.14
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.05
0.00
AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATION
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
5261
5581
1571
2334
4010
3852
3852
2948
1789
4490
3162
3162
1195
2548
5000
3787
3666
1620
2733
3234
-------
                                                          TABLE 147
                           SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3-CONTINUEp_
                                  GROUPED BY  ~   	cio 	"""	   """
                                  FEDERAL SHORT  CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
                                  FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS;  STE=  70%
                  NO.     M                           %        %       %                                   FTP AVG
                  OF      0       CUT POINTS       CORRECT                 	   	               	   FOR ST  	CORRE-
	CT6	^VEHICLES   D~~ST~TJNITS   FTP'UNITSFAILURES    EC      Ed      STE~~STRR  EC/fEC+FFT  p'ASS    FA1I    LATlONr
                         E

THTL	TT7	'	73.50	0.00	17:95    "0.80"    0.80     0.00                    075092"

CIO <=  150        33                                 75.76     0.00   18.18    0.81    0.81     0.00                    0.4490
 150  TO  260        18                                66.67     0.00   16.67    0.80    0.80     0.00                    0.6325

•CIO"T^~260	66	80.30	OTOO   12712	(T87    0787     OTOO                    OT578T
-------
                             -_TAJBLE 1
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS— CMP3^-CONTINUEO
GROUPED BY CID
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= 70%

CID
ALL

CIO <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >= 260

NO.
OF
M X
0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
VEHICLES D ST UNITS
E
117
1 17
1 17
1 17
33
33
33
33
18
18
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D.
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
FTP UNITS FAILURES
79.
80.
84.
82.
71.
81 .
72.
84.
78.
75.
72.
66.
66.
61.
66.
65.
71 .
84.
89.
66.
49
34
62
05
79
82
73
85
79
76
22
67
67
11
67
15
21
85
39
67
X
EC
2.56
1.71
5.98
5.13 ""
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.03
3.03
0.00
"S: 56" '
5.56
11.11
11.11
0.00
1.52
3.03
6.06
7.58
1.52
%
EO
11.97
11.11
6.84
9.40
19.66
12.12
21 .21
9.09
15.15
18.18
if. fi-
le. 67
16.67
22.22
16.67
27.27
21 .21
7.58
3.03"
25.76

STE
0.87
0.88
0.93
0.90
0.79
0.87
0.77
0.90
0.84
0.81
" 0.87"
0.80
0.80
" 6.73
0.80
0.70
0.77
0.92
0.97
0.72

STRR
0.90
0.90
0.99
0.95
0.79
0.87
0.77
0.94
0.87
0.81
0.93
0.87
0.93
0.87
0.80
"0.72"
0.80
0.98
-1:05"
0.74

FTP
FOR
EC7(EC+FFJ PASS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.03
.02
.07
.06
.00
.00
.00
.03
.04
.00
.07
.08
. 14
.15
.00
.02
.04
.07
.08
.02
AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATION
0.4146
0.4943
0.2158
0.2485
0.4877
0.5388
0.4148
0.2948
0.2095
0-4490
0.4781
0.3883
0.1195
0.0555
0.6325
0.2834
0.2242
0. 1086
-0.0506
0.2962
-------
                                                          TABLE 149
SUMMARY
OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3-CONTINUED
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS ; STE* 80%
NO. M % %
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
CID VEHICLES" b ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC
E
ALL 117
CID <= 150 33
150 TO 260 18
CIO >= 260 66
82.05 1.71
81.82 0.00
72.22 5.56
84.85 1.52
%
EO
" 9V40 '
12.12
11.11
7758

STE
0.90""
0.87
0.87
" OT92
FTP
FOR
STRR EC/(EC+FH PASS
0.92 0.02
0.87 0.00
0.93 0.07
0.93 0.02
AVG
ST CO
FAIL LA
0.
0.
0.
0.
RRE-
TION 	
5285~r~
5388
4781
5537 	
rv
-------
                                                                -TABLE .1.50	
                               SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS—  CMP3-CONTINUED
00
GROUPED BY CIO
FEDERAL THREE-MODE - 117 CAR FLEET (DENVER)
FIXED SHORT TEST EFFECTIVENESS; STE= BO%

CID
ALL

CID <= 150

150 TO 260

CID >> 260

NO.
OF
M
0
%
CUT POINTS CORRECT
%
VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC
E
117
1 17
1 17
117
33
33
33
33
18
13
18
18
66
66
66
66
H
L
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
8
H
C
D
N
B
H
L
D
N
B
86.32
83.76
86.32
87. 18
77.78
84.85
75.76
84.85
84.85
81 .82
83.33
72.22
66.67
66.67
63.67
78.79
80.30
87.88
90.91
72.73
3.42
2.56
6.84
7.69
1.71
0.00
0.00
3.03
3.03"
0.00
5.56
5.56
11.11
11.11
5.56
4.55
4.55
7.58
7.58
3.03
%
" EO
5.13
7.69
5.13
4.27
13.68
9.09
18.18
9.09
9.09
12.12
0.00
11.11
16.67
16.67
16.67
""13.64
12.12
4.55
1.52
19.70

"ST6
" "0.94
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.85
" " 0.90 "
0.81
0.90
0.90
0.87
1 .00 '
0.87
0.80
o.ao
0.80
"" 0.85
0.87
0.95
0.98
0.79
STRR EC/
0.98"
0.94
1 .02
1 .04
0.87
0.90
0.81
0.94
0.94
0.87
1.07
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.87
0.90
0.92
1.03
1:07
0.82
TE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FTP
FOR
C + FF) PASS
.04
.03
.07
.08
.02
.00
.00
.03
.03
.00
.06
.07
. 14
.14
.08
.05
.05
.08
.08
.04
AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATION
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-o.
-o.
0.
5012
5012
1594
0675
4504
6011
4490
2948
2948
5388
7906
4781
1195
1195
3883
1 793
1984
0625
0355
2389
-------
              TABLE 151
       FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
CUT-POINTS FOR THE 117 CAR FLEET
ST Cut -Point
Selection Technique
STRR = 1. 0
EC/(EC+FF) = 10%
= 20%
EC= 5%
STE = 0. 60
= 0.70
= 0. 80
ST Cut-Point in Grams/Mile
HC
0. 86
0, 98
0. 61
1. 06
1. 43
1.22
1.01
CO
4. 06
—
3.28
15. 98
12. 18
8.95
NOx
2.95
4. 65
3. 89
2. 54
2. 90
2.64
2. 38
                  144
-------
            TABLE 152
     FEDERAL THREE-MODE
CUT-POINTS FOR 117 CAR FLEET
ST Cut-Point
Selection Technique
STRR = 1.0
EC/(EOfFF) = 10%
= 20%
EC= 5%
STE = 0. 60
= 0.70
= 0. 80
ST Cut-Points in PPM
HC
Idle in Dr.
75
238
82
168
128
98
73
CO
Idle in Dr.
605
--
--
984
6443
3840
2103
NOX
High Speed
2442
--

2227
1693
1453
1215
               145
-------
                    TABLE 153
            .FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
TECHNIQUE  RANKS FOR THE  117 CAR FLEET
ST Cut -Point
Selection Technique
STRR= 1.0
EC/ (E OFF) = 10%
= 20%
EC= 5%
STE = 0. 60
= 0.70
= 0. 80
Technique Ranks
HC
6
5
7
3
1
2
4
CO
4
-
5
1
2
3
NOx
3
1
2
6
4
5
7
                        146
-------
                  TABLE 154
            FEDERAL THREE-MODE
TECHNIQUE RANKS FOR THE 117 CAR FLEET
ST Cut-Point
Selection Technique
STRR = 1.0.
EC/(EC+FF) = 10%
= 20%
EC= 5%
STE= 0.60
= 0.70
= 0. 80
Technique Ranks
HC
Idle in Dr.
6
1
5
2
3
4
7
CO
Idle in Dr.
5
-
4
1
2
3
NOx
High Speed
1
-
2
3
4
5
                       147
-------
                               TABLE 155
       INITIAL, SIMULATED FLEET STATISTICSV ';  300 CARS
                                                    (a).
CID(b)
Less than 150
151 to 259
Greater than 26,0
No. of
Vehicles
951
540
1509
Average Emissions
Grams/Mile
HC
Mean
1. 89
1. 88
1.97
SE
. 837
.796
. 950
CO
Mean
23.2
29. 8
34.7
SE
11.21
19. 46
28. 13
NOX
Mean .
2. 12
2. 42
2. 56
SE
1. 051
. 902
1. 051
(a)




(b)




(c)
After initial correction to 17, 500 miles




CID = cubic inch displacement
    SE = standard error
                                    148
-------
                                TABLE 156
           207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
              FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STRR=1.0; 300 CARS
CID(a)
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Points in Grams/Mile
HC
1.03
0.96
1. 07
CO
8.9
4. 47
3.75
NOX
2.33
2. 50
2. 49
(a)CID -  Cubic Inch Displacement
                                TABLE 157
          FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST  CUT-POINTS;
              FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STRR= 1. 0; 300 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams /Mile
HC
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
CO
15. 0
15. 0
15. 0
NOX
3. 10
3. 10
3. 10
                                     149
-------
                              TABLE 158
          207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
           FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a); STRR= 1. 0; 300 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut -.Point in PPM
HC
124
138
97
CO
5907
2446
1121
NOX
2475
1155
1589
(b)
    ST was defined from the Federal Three-Mode with HC and CO
idle in drive,  and NOx in high speed (low speed NOx was used for
151 to 259 CID group)
CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                              TABLE 159
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;
             FEDERAL THREE-MODE; STRR=1. 0; 300 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
. Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
1 T. 50
1.50
1. 50
I
CO
•15. 0
15. 0
15. 0
NOX
3. 10 .
3. 10
3. 10
                                   150
-------
                               TABLE 160
              207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
       FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE;  300 CAR FLEET; STRR=1. 0
Maintenance
Version
1
2
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
Iw
Iw
1
3(a)
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3
-------
                                TABLE  161
               207 (b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
        FEDERAL, THREE-MODE; 300 CAR FLEET; STRR=1. 0
Maintenance
Version
1
2
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3
-------
                               TABLE 162
           207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
               FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; EC=5%; 300 CARS
CID(a)
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Points in Grams/Mile
HC
1.28
1.27
1.35
CO
13. 1
6.24
5. 61
NOX
2. 37
2. 62
2.78
(a)CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                               TABLE 163
          FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;
               FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; EO5%; 300 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams /Mile
HC
1. 50
1. 67
1.71
CO
17. 45
16. 07
15. 0
NOV
J\.
3. 100
3. 100
3.27
                                     153
-------
                             TABLE 164

          207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY-
           FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a); EO5%; 300 CARS
CID
-------
                              TABLE  166
              207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
        FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; 300 CAR FLEET; EC = 5%
Maintenance
Version
1
2
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tipn
1
3
-------
                                TABLE  167
                207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
          FEDERAL THREE-MODE; 300 CAR FLEET; EC = 5%
Maintenance
Version
1
2
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3
-------
                             TABLE 168
           207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
             FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STE=0. 60; 300  CARS
CID(a'
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut -Points in Grams/Mile
HC
1.27
1. 04
1.4
CO
12.27
9. 10
11. 08
NOX
2. 44
2.68
2. 62
(a)CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                              TABLE 169
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;
             FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE;  STE=0. 6; 300 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
1. 50
1. 50
1.77
CO
16. 97
18.72
21. 13
NOX
3. 11
3. 10
3. 13
                                   157
-------
                              TABLE 170
          207 (b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
           FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a); STE=0. 6; 300 CARS
CID
-------
                                TABLE 172
                207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
         FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; 300 CAR FLEET; STE=0.6
Maintenance
Version
1
2
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3
-------
                               TABLE 173
               207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
        FEDERAL, THREE-MODE; 300 CAR FLEET; STE=0. 6
Maintenance
Version
1
2
!
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
So
1
3
-------
                             TABLE 174
           207 (b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
             FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STE=0.7; 300  CARS
CID(a)
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Points in Grams/Mile
HC
1. 07
. 85
1. 15
CO
9.95
6. 96
7. 59
NOX
2.20
2. 46
2. 38
(a)CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                             TABLE 175
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) S.T CUT-POINTS;
             FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STE=0. 7; 300 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams /Mile
HC
1. 50
1. 50
1. 51
CO
15. 60
16.74
17. 08
NOV
J^
3. 10
3. 10
3. 10
                                    161
-------
                             TABLE 176
           207 (b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
              FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STE=0. 8; 300 CARS
CID(a>
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Points in Grams/Mile
HC
. 88
.68
.93
CO
7. 82
5. 14
4. 97
NOX
1. 94
2.22
2. 13
(a)CID -  Cubic Inch Displacement
                             TABLE 177
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;
             FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STE=0. 8;  300 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams /Mile
HC
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
CO
'15.00
15. 00
15. 00
NOX
3. 10
3. 10
3. 10
                                   162
-------
                               TABLE 178
          207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
            FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a); STE=0. 7; 300 CARS
cm(b)
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Point in PPM
HC
90
98
85
CO
5369
4107
2690
NOX
1909
935
1308
(b)
    ST was defined from the Federal Three-Mode with HC and CO
idle in drive,  and NOx in high speed (low speed NOx was used for
151 to 259 CID group)
CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                               TABLE 179
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;
             FEDERAL THREE-MODE; STE=0.7; 300 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
1. 50
1. 50
1. 50
CO
15. 00
15. 14
15. 00
NOV
J^
3. 10
3. 10
3. 10
                                   163
-------
                              TABLE 180

         207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;

            FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a); STE=0. 8; 300 CARS
CID
-------
                              TABLE  182
        207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR 300 CAR FLEET;
VERSION 3; 12 MONTH PERIOD OF MAINTENANCE EFFECTIVENESS
Short
Test
Federal.
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Cut -Point
Selection
Technique
STE=0.6
STE=0. 7
STE=0. 8
STE=0.6
STE=0. 7
STE=0. 8
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3 (a)
1
2
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
Estimated Cumulative P rogram
Efficiencies in Percent
Over Fleet Life .
HC
14.84
26.01
29. 13
16.83
28.71
31.92
17.75
30. 15
33.34
15.64
27.08
30.31
16.79
28.80
32.02
17.72
30.21
33.41
CO
17. 19
26. 89
29.98
19.68
30. 10
33.35
21.52
32.47
35.81
18.52
28.56
31.81
20.48
31. 10
34.45
21.49
32.50
35.84
NOx
.98
1. 15
1.32
.76
.86
1.03
.37
.34
.49
.54
.60
.74
.36
.33
.48
.06
-.04
.11
Over Program Life
HC
24. 05
33.53
36.46
27.28
37.01
39.95
28.77
38.88
41.73
25.35
34.91
37.93
27.21
37. 14
40.08
28.73
38.96
41.82
CO
28.28
35.29
38. 18
32. 37
39.50
42.48
35.40
42.62
45.61
30.47
37.48
40.51
33.70
40.82
43.88
35.35
42.66
45.64
NOx
2.02
1.83
2.03
1..58
1.36
1.57
.77
.55
.76
1. 12
.95
1. 13
.74
.52
.73
. 13
-.06
. 17
(a)
  Not a full year. Program ended at 50, 000 miles.
                                   165
-------
                    TABLE 183
I/M ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH SELECTION TECHNIQUE
        FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; 300 CARS
Cut -Point
Selection Technique
STRR=1. 0
EO5%
STE=0. 6
Cut-Points in Grams/Mile
HC
1.04
1.32
1.29
CO
5. 17
8.40
11.25
NOX
2.43
2.62
2.63
                    TABLE 184
FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO I/M ST CUT-POINTS;
        FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; 300 CARS
Cut -Point
Selection Technique
STRR= 1. 0
EC=5%
STE=0. 6
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
1. 50
1.64
1.62
CO
15.00
16.71
19.97
NOX
3. 10
3. 14
3. 15
                         166
-------
                          TABLE 185
      I/M ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH SELECTION TECHNIQUE
             FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a);  300 CARS
Cut -Point
Selection Technique
STRR= 1. 0
EC=5%
STE=0. 6
Cut-Point in PPM
HC
112
184
112
CO
2198
7081
5867
NOX
1803
2265
1558
    ST was defined from the Federal Three-Mode with HC and CO
idle in drive, and NOx in high speed
                           TABLE 186

       FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO I/M ST CUT-POINTS;
              FEDERAL THREE-MODE;  300 CARS
Gut -Point
Selection Technique
STRR= 1. 0
EC=5%
STE=0. 6
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams /Mile
HC
1.50
1.69
1. 50
CO
15.00
17. 83
16. 88
NOX
3. 10
3. 10
3. 10
                                167
-------
                               TABLE 187
        I/M PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR 300 CAR FLEET;
VERSION 3; 12 MONTH PERIOD OF MAINTENANCE EFFECTIVENESS
Short
Test
Federal.
Short
Cycle
Federal
Three-
Mode
Cut -Point
Selection
Technique
•«
STRR = 1.0
EC=5%
STE=0.6
STRR=1.0
EC=5%
STE=0.6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3(a)
1
3 (a)
1
3
-------
             TABLE 188






           (DELETED)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK,
                 169
-------
                              TABLE 189
       INITIAL SIMULATED FLEET STATISTICS1  '; 117 CARS
                                                   (a).
CID(b)
Less than 150
151 to 259
Greater than 26,0
No. of
Vehicles
951
540
1509
Average Emissions
Grams /Mile
HC
Mean
2. 76
2. 48
2. 95
SE
1. 11
1. 08
1.35
CO
Mean
42. 5
44. 1
63. 5
SE
22.40
25. 43
38. 19
NOX
Mean
1.59
1.91
1. 69
SE
. 804
. 970
.743
(a)
(b)
(c),
After initial correction to 17,500 miles
CID = cubic inch displacement
  SE = standard error
                                   170
-------
                               TABLE 190
          207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
             FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STRR= 1. 0; 117  CARS
CID(a>
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Points in Grams/Mile
HC
0.76
0.79
0. 94
CO
5.62
2. 98
3.70
NOX
2. 56
3.26
3. 04
(a)CID -  Cubic Inch Displacement
                               TABLE 191
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;
             FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STRR= 1. 0; 117 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
1. 86
1.67
1.54
CO
'22.2
25.4
25. 1
NOX
3. 10
3. 10
3. 10
                                    171
-------
                              TABLE 192

          207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;

            FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a); STRR= 1. 0;  117 CARS
CID(b)
150 and Less
, 151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Point in PPM
HC
62
182
73
CO
1933
498
311
NOX
3089
1617
2168
(b)
    ST was defined from the Federal Three-Mode with HC and CO
idle in drive,  and NOx in high speed (low speed NOx was used for
151 to 259 CID group)

CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                               TABLE 193
        FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207 (b) ST CUT-POINTS;

            FEDERAL THREE-MODE; STRR= 1. 0;  117  CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
2. 16
1. 82
1. 64
CO
22.44
24.68
32. 47
NOX
3. 10
3. 10
3.59
                                   172
-------
                                TABLE 194
               207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
       FEDERAL SHORT CYC LE; 117 CAR I SLEET; STRR= 1. 0
Maintenance
Version
1
! 2
i
3
t
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3
-------
                                TABLE  195
                207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
        FEDERAL THREE-MODE; 117 CAR FLEET; STRR=1.0
Maintenance
Version
1
2
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3 (a)
1
2
3 (a)
1
3
-------
                             TABLE 196
           207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
              FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; EC=5%; 117 CARS
CID(a)
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Points in Grams/Mile
HC
0. 89
1. 28
1. 07
CO
6. 01
3.70
1.73
NOX
2. 19
2.99
2. 52
(a)CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                             TABLE 197
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207 (b) ST CUT-POINTS;
              FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; EO5%;  117 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams /Mile
HC
1.92
1. 84
1. 68
CO
'22. 5
26. 1
23.2
NOX
3. 10
3. 10
3. 10 •
                                   175
-------
                              TABLE  198
         207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;

            FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a*; EC=5%; 117 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut-Point in PPM
HC
221
323
114
CO
2911
9772
11836
NOX
2675
1589
1863
(b)
    ST was defined from the Federal Three-Mode with HC and CO
idle in drive,  and NOx in high speed (low speed NOx was used for
151 to 259 CID group)

CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                               TABLE 199
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;

              FEDERAL THREE-MODE; EC=5%;  117 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams /Mile
HC
2.22
1,81
1.95
CO
22. 92
29. 03
43. 49
NOX
3. 10
3. 10
3. 15
                                   176
-------
                               TABLE 200
                207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
         FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE;  117 CAR FLEET; EC = 5%
Maintenance
Version
1
2
i
3
!
i
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3 (a)
1
. 3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3 (a)
1
3
-------
                                TABLE 201
                207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
           FEDERAL, THREE-MODE; 117 CAR FLEET;  EC = 5%
Maintenance
Version
1
2
1
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3 (a)
1
2
3 (a)
1
3
-------
                             TABLE 202
           207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
              FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STE=0. 6;  117 CARS
CID(a>
l30 and Less
15!l to 259
1
26|0 and Greater
Cut-Points in Grams/Mile
HC
1.35
1. 07
1. 57
CO
15.39
8.75
18.90
NOX
x
2.65
3. 49
2.75
(a)CIEJ> -  Cubic Inch Displacement
                              TABLE 203
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;
              FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE; STE=0. 6;  117 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
2. 12
1.77
2.21
CO
•29.6
30. 1
40. 0
NOX
3. 10
3.26
3. 10
                                   179
-------
                              TABLE 204
          207(b) ST CUT-POINTS FOR EACH ENGINE FAMILY;
           FEDERAL THREE-MODE(a); STE=0. 6; 117 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Cut -Point in PPM
HC
120
182
131
CO
11286
19821
26019
NOX
2725
1407
1418
(b)
    ST was defined from the Federal Three-Mode with HC and CO
idle in drive,  and NOx in high speed (low speed NOx was used for
151 to 259 CID group)
CID - Cubic Inch Displacement
                               TABLE 205
         FTP VALUES EQUIVALENT TO 207(b) ST CUT-POINTS;
             FEDERAL THREE-MODE; STE=0. 6; 117 CARS
CID
150 and Less
151 to 259
260 and Greater
Equivalent ST Cut-Points - Grams/Mile
HC
2. 18
1. 82
2.08
CO
27.08
33.75
57. 04
NOX
3. 10
3. 10
3. 10
                                    180
-------
                               TABLE 206
               207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
        FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE;  177 CAR FLEET; STE=0. 6
Maintenance
Version
1
!
2
I
i
3
i
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1st Inspec-
tion
1
3)
1
3
-------
                               TABLE 207
               207(b) PROGRAM EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
        FEDERAL THREE-MODE; 117 CAR FLEET; STE=0. 6
Maintenance
Ve rsion
1
2
s
3
Period of
Effec-
tiveness
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Number of
Years Since
1 st. Inspec-
tion
1
3
-------
                TABLE 208
207(b) FIRST YEAR EFFICIENCIES FOR THE
 FEDERAL THREE-MODE USING VERSION 3
Fleet
300 Cars








117 Cars








Selection
Technique
STRR= 1. 0


EO5%


STE=. 6


STRR=1. 0


EC=5%


STE=. 6


Period of
Effective
Maintenance
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
12
9
6
Estimated Efficiency at
One Year After the First
Inspection in Percent
HC
27. 30
23. 61
17. 66
20. 84
18. 15
13. 68
25.35
21. 87
16. 35
31. 68
26. 85
19. 95
25.21
21. 38
15. 90
22. 81
19.36
14. 41
CO
33. 95
27. 89
20. 12
28. 32
23. 18
16. 70
30. 47
25. 07
18. 12
32. 56
' 26.37
18. 88
25.27
20. 51
14.71
19. 91
16. 36
11. 85
NOx
.89
-.01
-.90
1. 50
.79
. 08
1. 12
.26
-.60
. 86
. 58
.31
1. 11
. 82
. 52
1. 08
.77
.46
                     183
-------
Table 209.  Assumed FTP Levels for CEV Fleet

Level

I
II
III
IV
Emission Levels, gm/mi
HC

0.41
0.60
0.75
0.90
CO

3.4
5.0
7.0
9.0
NO
X
3.1
3.1
3.1
3. 1
                     184
-------
                                                               TABLE 210
                                    SUHMAHY  OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—   HC

                                    FEDERAL  TEST PROCEDURE -- 1974 CEV FLEET
                                    FIXED SHORT TEST PEJECTION RATIO; STRH= 100*
   HC          NJ.    n                            %        %
STANDARD      Or     3        CUT  POINTS        CORRECT
(GM/M1)      VEHICLES  D  ST  UNITS    FTP  UNITS  FAILURES    EC
                       R
                          EO
                                                                                                             FTP AVG
                                                                                                             FOR ST       C3RHE-
                                                                                 STE     STRR   EC/(EC*FF)   PASS    FAIL    LATION
      . 41
                    26
                                O.U2
                                              0.44    64.46
5.74    5.74    0.92    1.00
                                                    0.08
                                                                                                        0.36    0.81   0.7256
00
un
      .60
      .75
                    2b
                                0.59        0.62    39.52
                                0.72        0.75    26. 1«
6.59    6.59    0.86    1.00     0.14
5.93    5.93    0.82    1.00      0.18
                                                             6.t»4    1.42   0.7349
                                                             0.45    1.55   0.7278
      .90
                    26
                                0.85
0.88    17.26
4.91    4.91    0.78    1.00
                                                                                                  0.22
                                           0.50     1.83   0.7152
-------
                                                         TABLE 211
00
    STANDARD
    (GM/MI)
.60


.75


.90
                                     SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS--  HC

                                     FEDERAL TEST PfOCEDURE -- 1974 CEV FLEET
                                     BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC=   5%
   NO •     n                            %
   OF     0       CUT POINTS       CORRECT
VEHICLES  D  ST UNITS   FTP UNITS  FAILURES
          E
2b


2o


26


26
0.44


0.62


0.74


0.85
                                               0.46    63.49
                                               0.65    37.73
3!       %                                   FTP AV6
                                            FOR ST       C3RRE-
EC      EO      STE    STRR  EC/(EC»FF)  PASS    FAIL    LATION
5.00    6.71    0.90    0.98     0.07
5.00    8.38    0.82    0.93
                                               0.77    25.27      5.00     6.80     0.79     0.94


                                               0.88    17.33      5.00     4.85     0.78     1.01
                                                                                 0.12


                                                                                 0.17


                                                                                 0.22
0.40    0.84   0.7253


0.44    1.42   0.7310


0.45    1.55   0.7257


0.50    1.83   0.7153
-------
                                                               TABLE 212
00
                                    SUMMARY  OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  CO

                                    FEDERAL  TEST PROCEDURE -- 197H CEV FLEET
                                    FIXED  SHORT TEST  REJECTION HATIO;  STBR= 100X
CO NJ. „
\NDARD OF 0
IM/MI) VEHICLES D
E
3=4 2o
5. 0 2o
7.0 26
9.0 26
' X * * FTP AVG
CUT POINTS COFRECT FOH ST CDRHE-
ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES EC EO STE STRR EC/(EC»PF) PASS FAIL LATION
3.35 3.28 18.37 5.39 5.39 0.77 1.00 0.23 2.10 U.2U 0.7023
14.81 <4.59 «.f>1 2.28 2.28 0.67 1.00 0.33 2.U2 5.70 0.64U3
6.59 6.19 0.90 0.66 0.66 0.58 1.00 0.142 2.67 0.00 0.5695
8.3<4 7.76 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.51 1.00 0.<49 2.67 0.00 0.5069
-------
                                                                     TABLE 213
                                   SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE  ANALYSIS—   CO

                                   FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE --  1974  CEV  FLEET
                                   BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION;  EC=    5X
00
00
      CO          NO.     M                            X
   STANDARD      Of      0        CUT POINTS       CORRECT
    (GM/MI)     VEHICLES   D   ST UNITS   FTP UNITS  FAILURES
                          E
      3.4


      5.0


      7.0
2fa


26


2t>
3.39
3.32    18.CS
                                             *

                                             EC


                                             5.00
                                      EO
                                                                          FTP AVG
                                                                          FOR ST
                                                                                        C3RHE-
        STE    STHB  EC/(EC+FF)   PASS     FAIL    LATION


5.71    0.76    0.97     0.22      2.09     4.60   0.7014.
U.30       14.1U      5.65      5.00     1.21    0.82    1.5U     0.47      2.35     5.15    0.6290


".89       4.66      1.46      5.00    "~6YfO    0.9U    U. 15     0.77      2.U2     5.70    0.4463
     9.0
                   26
                                  5.10
                           U.85      0.39      5.00    0.00    0.99   13.67      0.93      2.U2     5.70   0.2600
-------
00
SO
                                                                        TABLE 214
   NOx
STANDARD
 (GM/MI)
       3. 1
                                     SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE  ANALYSIS--  NOX

                                     FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE --  197U  CEV  FLEET
                                     FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION  RATIO; STRR=  100X
   NO.    n                            %
   U?     D       CUT  POINTS        CORRECT
VEHICLES  D  ST UNITS    FTP  UNITS  FAILURES
          E"
                     26
                                    2.99
                                            2.97
                                      11.37
                                                                  EC
8.37
                                                                          BO
8.37
                                                                                  STE
0.58
                                             FTP  AVG
                                             FOR  ST        CDRRE-
                       STR8  EC/(EC»FP)   PASS     FAIL     LATI3N
1.00
O.U2
2.«3
4.31   O.U715
-------
                                                                   TABLE 215
   NOx
STANDARD
 (GM /MI)
   3. 1
   NO.
   Of
VEHICLES
                 2o
M
0
D
E
                                 SUMMARY OP CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS-- NOX

                                 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDWE — 197« CEV FLEET
                                 BOUNDED EKBORS OF COMHISSION; EC=   5*
     CUT POINTS       CORRECT
ST UNITS   FTP UNITS  FAILURES
X

EC
X

EO
                  3.1U
                   3.10
                         9.0'i
5.00   10.70
        STB    STRB  EC/(EC*FF)


        0.<46    0.71     0.36
   FTP AVG
   FOB ST
PASS    FAIL
 2.1*3
       CORRE-
       LATION
U.31   O.H532
-------
                                                                    TABLE 216
   CO
STANDARD
 (GM/MI)


   3.4
                                  SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE  ANALYSIS— CHP3

                                  FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE --  1971 CEV FLEET
                                  FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION  RATIO;  STBR= 100X
NJ.
OF
CUT POINTS
                     X
                  CORRECT
VEHICLES  D  ST UNITS
          E
FTP UNITS  FAILURES


             61. 5
-------
                                                                       TABLE 217
N)
   CO
STANDARD
 (GM/MI)


   3.4
                                     SUNHARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CNP3

                                     FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE -- 1974 CEV FLEET
                                     BOUNDED ERRORS OF COHKISSION; EC=   5*
   HO.    H
   OF     0
VEHICLES  D
          -E

   26
     CUT POINTS       CORRECT
ST UNITS   FTP UNITS  FAILURES
                                                                 EC
                                  57.69     15.38
EO


7.69
                                                                                 STE
                                                                                         FTP AVG
                                                                                         FOR 5T
                                                                    STHR  EC/(EC*FF)  PASS    FAIL
                                                                                 0.88     1.12
                                                                              0.21
                                                                                                                           C3RHE-'
                                                                                                                           LATIOS
                                                                                                                           O.U697
      5.0
      7.0
      9.0
2o
                     2o
                                                    30.77      3.85     7.69    0.80    0.90     0.11
                                                       30.77     0.00    0.00     1.00     1.00      0.00
                                                       19.23      3.85     7.69     0.71     0.86     0.17
                                                                                                          0.75U2


                                                                                                          1.0000


                                                                                                          0.6966
-------
                                                        TABLE 218
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — HC
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
/ FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR= 100%


INERTIA "Wf

"ALL " " 	
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM 4501
NO. M
OF 0
"VEHICLES -'O'—l
E
1 44
391-
... 4g ..


CUT POINTS
>T"UNITS

2.52
2.67
2.25
2.74
FTP UNITS "

"2.99'
3.00
	 3 ..08.
"2.29"
%
CORRECT
FAILURES

•'"• 24.00"
8.06
75.58
	 0.20
%

tC

	 6. "33 	
3.72
5.68
" 	 "0.92 "
%

EO 	 """

-6.38"" "
3.72
5.68
"0.92 " -


rSTE'""

0:79 "
0.68
0.93
0. Iff "




FTP
FOR
— "STRR"EC/TEC+FF1 PASS

t.OO
1 .00
1 .00
- r.oo

0. 21~
0.32
0.07
orsz

1.84
1 .70
2.78
1.77
AVG
ST
... FA1L ...

4.40
3.92
4.49
2.15

CORRE-
LATION

0.6985
0.6420. ___
0.6270
0.1672 	
OJ
-------
                                                           TABLE 219
                                 SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  HC
 INERTIA WT
   NO.
   OF
VEHICLES"
M
P
D
E
ST UNITS
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT •
FEDERAL THREE-MODE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION

:UT POINTS
ITS FTP UNITS
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
RATIO: STRR= 100%
% %

EC EO STE

FTP AVG .
FOR ST
STRR EC/(£C+FF) PASS FAIL


' CORHE-.
LATION
ALL
                1 44
                1 44
                1 44
2501  TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM 4501
   46
   46
  "46"

   49
  "49"
   49

  "49~
   49
   49
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
44.07
61W-3
48.94
89.61
130.07
132.92
26.68
39.65
24.10
104.36
144.90
123.76
2.79
2.74
2.63
2.57
2.82
2.49
3.90
4.01
3.56
2.12
1.75
1.63
16.85
17.50 	
18.69
3.60
4.49
5.38
67.30
67.29
70.25
0.03
0.02
0. OT 	
16.14
14.60
14.22
7.78
7.29
6.95
13.96
13.97
11 .01
1 .86
1.32
1 .80
16.14
14.60
14.22
7.78
7.29
6.95
13.96
13.97
11.01
1 .86
1 .32
1.80
0.51
0.55
0.57
0.32
0.38
b':44"
0.83
0 . 83
0.86
0.02
0.01
0.01
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
0.49
0.45
0.43
0.68
0.62
0.56
0.17
"6. 17
0. 14
0.98
0.99
0.99.
2.19
2.13
2.11
1 .8.1
1 .70
1 .70
4.1.1
3.50
3.19
1.79
T.79
1.79
3.39
3.82
3.74
2.78
3.88
3.88
4.29
4.35
4.39
0.00
0.00
1.70
0.2701
0.3302
0.3560
0.2283
0.2984
•'673573
0.0833
0.0830
0.2771
-Q_. 0028
-0.0015
-0.0110
-------
                                                       TABLE 220
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — HC
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION: EC= 5%
NO. M %
OF 0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
INERTIA WT
ALL
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM 4501
VEHICLES D ST UNITS
E
144 2.62
46 2.57
49 2.31
49 224
FTP UNITS FAILURES
3.11
2.88
3.13
2.09
22.71
8.75 	
74.48
0.51
%
EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
%
EO
7.67
3.03
6.78
0.61
"~STE"~
0.75
0.74
0.92
0.46
' STRR '
0.91
1.17
0.98
4.94
"EC7
-------
                      TABLE 221
SUMMARY OF. CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYST S—_ _HC
"          "              '""'   	
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT .,
FEDERAL THREE-MODE — 144" CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5%
NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS
INERTIA WT VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS
E
ALL 144
144
1 44
2501 TO 3500 46
46
46
3501 TO 4501 49
49
49
FROM 4501 49
49
49
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
92.93
131 .75
105.67
107.66
156.58
1 63 . 1 2
63.70
- 1 02 .-85
49.20
64.20
74.01
72.62
3.92
3.84
3.35
2.84
3.17
" 2.73
4.28
"4.27 "
3.84
1.97
1.77
1.70
CORRECT
%
FAILURES EC
7.79
9.29
10.37
2.68
3.59
" ' 4.51
30.20
""30. 17
50.01
0.08
0.06
0.04
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
X
EO
25.20
22.82
22.53
• 8.70
8. 19
7.82
51 .05
51.09
31 .24
1 .80
1 .28
1 .77

-"StE""
0.24
0.29
0.32
0.24
0.30
" "6 . 37 ~"
0.37
0.37
0.62
0.05
0.02


FTP
FOR
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
0.39
0.44
0.47
0.68
0.73
"0.77
0.43
0.43
0.63
2.69
3.78
2.79
0.39
0.35
0.33
0.65
0.58
0.53
0.14
0.14
0.09
0.98
0.99
0.99
2.46
2.41
2:39
1.82
1 .77
1 .77
4.05
4.01
3.74
1 .79
1 .79
1.79
AVG
ST
FAIL
4.61
4.60
4.65
3.46
3.67
3.67
4.47
4.61
4.59
0.00
0.00
1.70
CORRE-
LATION
0.2275 '
0.2876
OT3136--
0.2138
0. 2854
0.3460
0.0857
0.0854
0.2735
-0.0040
-0.0024
-0.0167
-------
TABLE 222
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CO
GROUPED BY INtfcriA WT
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR= 100%


INERTIA'WT"

ALL 	 " • -
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM "4501"
NO. M
OF 0
"VEHICLES" D '
E
1 44 — -
46
49
49

CUT
ST'UNITS

18.08
17.29
16.57
21 .05

POINTS
' FTP UNITS "

"28.74"
29.92
30.22
28.96
%
CORRECT
FAILURES

	 66 . 99 "
70.90
89.03
	 38. 02"'
%

EC ""

.... .... r>4g
6.13
2.22
15.24
%

EQ.._ ...

" 	 "T. 49""
6.13
2.22
T5. 24 '


"STE" "

~o;9a'"
0.92
0.98
0.7t '


STRR~

1 . 00
1.00
1 .00
TTOO"


EC/TEC-t-FFT

0.10
0.03
0.02
0.29
FTP
FOR
PASS

24rgr
26.02
24.11
"25. 00
AVG
ST
1 FAIL

54.66
42.76
78.32
35. 16

CORRE-
LATION"

0.6062
0.6533
0.7225
0.3U76
-------
                                                      TABLE 223
00
(1)
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CO . '
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
FEDERAL THREE-MODE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974) •
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO: STRR= 100%

INERTIA WT
ALL
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501 .

FROM 4501
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 44
1 44
144
46
46
46
49
49
49
49
49
49
M
0
D
E
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS
0.1 1
0.19
0.20
0.12
0.34
0.19
0.06
0.1 1
0.24
0.17
0.18
0.17
FTP UNITS
40.45
39.11
39.05
35.97
32.81
34.60
57.58
51.37
56.55
31 .14
29.93
29.43
%
CORRECT
FAILURES"
56.43
59.43
64.27
61 .82
62.93
64.73
83.50
84.61
86.32
23.99
30.53
34.36
.',. %
EC
17.87
15.09
10.41
15.27
14.10
"T2:30
7.46
6.35
4.92
29.28
23.01
18.91
%
EO
17.87
15.09
10.41
15.27
14.10
12.30
7.46
6.35
4.92
29.28
23.01
18.91

STE
0 . 76
0.80
0.86
0.80
0.82
"0.84 '
0.92
6 . 93
0.95
0.45
0.57
0.65

STRR
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
1.00

EC/(EC+FF)
0.24
0.20
0.14
0.20
0. 18
0.16
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.55
0.43
0.35
"FTP
FOR
PASS
46.81
36.64
28.52
31.48
33.51
32.96
74.24
58.59
27.09
34.37
29.08'
28.17
AVG
ST
FAIL
48.00
51.57
55.24
41.04
39.54
39.98
72.59
74.77
79.17
28.13
32.21
34.04
CORRE-
• LATION
0.0644
0.2050
0.4498
0.1351
0.2028
0.3046
0.0929
0.2278
0.3840 '
-0. 1761
' 0.0748 ".
0.2404
(1)
              ST units are in percent.
-------
                                                                 .TABLE 224	__	_..
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CO
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION: EC= 5%


INERTIA WT

ALL
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM 4501
NO.
OF
VEHICLES

144
46
49
49
M


0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS FTP
E
20
17
12
34

.81
.99
.50
.05
UNITS

31.50
30.61
25.77
32.43
%
CORRECT
FAILURES

62.63
69.14
90.97
22 . 1 4
%

EC

5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
-x

EO

11.85
7.90
0.28
31 . 13


STE

0.84
0.90
1 .00
0.42


STRR

0.91
0.96
1 .05
' "0751


EC/(EC+FF)

0.07
0.07
0.05
0. 18
FTP
FOR
PASS

26.75
26.57
21 .06
26.80
AVG
ST
FAIL

57.12
43.06
77.39
43:16

CORRE-
LATION

0.6009
0.6530
0.6120
0.3463
vO
-------
                                                            TABLE 225
                                   SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS—  CO
                                                                            (1)
to
O
o
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
FEDERAL THREE-MODE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC- 5% .

IMERfiA Wf
ALL
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501

FROM 4501
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 44
144
144
46
46
46
49
49
49
4$
49
49
M
0
D ST
E
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
CUT POINTS
.UNITS FTP
0.37
0.51
0.40
0.34
0.78
0.56
0.12
0.15
0.24
0.51
0.49
0.39
UNITS
"50.81
46.95
40.66
38.83
38.15
"35.85
61.16
"53.42
56.51
29.29
33.50
32.91
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
18.61
30.30
51 .69
28.03
34.09
"43.48
66.07
78.65"
86.53
2.42
7.86
14.20
%
EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
' " 5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
%
' EO ' '
55748"
44.23
22.99
49.07
42.95
" 33.56 "
24.89
12.31
4.72
50.85 "
45.69
39.07

STE"
0";25"
0.41
0.69
0.36
0.44
0".56
0.73
•0.86"
0.95
~0"."05
0.15
0.27


STRR EC/(EC+FF)
0.32
0.47
0.76
0.43
0.51
0.63
0.78
" 0 . 92
1 ..00
0. 14
0.24
0.36
0.21
0.14
0.09
0.15
0.13
"0" .10.
0.07
0.06
0.05
0767
0.39
0.26
FTP
FOR"
PASS
43.80
40.42
30.37
36.47
35.93
34.40
67.29
53 . 49
27.09
29".9i
30.16
28.77
AVG
ST
FAIL
60.02
60.01
60.32
43.49
44'. 59
"46.19
75.72
76.01
79.17
40.86
33.33
36.44
CORRE-
LATION
0. 0602
0. 1917
0.4342
0. 1298
0. 1937
0. 2918
0. 1096
0.2416
0.3828
-0.1173
0.0583
0.2021
(1)
               ST cut-point units are percent.
-------
TABLE 226
SUMMARY OF CONT
INGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— NOX
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE — 144
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION

INERTIA WT
ALL" " "'
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM 4501
NO .
OF
VEHICLES
144
46
49
49
W
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS
E
2.67
3.98
3.14
1 .75
FTP UNITS
2.40
1 .49
3.00
-2-. 94
CORRECT
FAILURES
8.61
0.41
19.59
' 11:03 "
CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
RATIO; STRR= 100%
X
""•"EC •"•
8.64
1.78
9.17
-9. 15"
%
EO
8.64
1.78
-9. 17
9.15

~ SfE STRR EC
" "0".SO" 1TOO"
0.19 1.00
0". 6TJ 1". 00
0.55 1.00

FTP
FOR
:/(EC+FF) PASS
0.50 2
0.81 1
6T32 2
0.45 2
.01
.45
.38
.31
AVG
ST
FAIL
3.13
0.81
3.29
4.05
CORRE-
LATION
0.3946
0.1679
0.5524
0.4322
-------
                                                       TABLE 227
o
ro
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — NOX
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
FEDERAL THREE-MODE — 144
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION

INERTIA WT
ALL
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501

FROM 4501
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
1 44
1 44
1 44
46
46
46
49
49
49
49
49
49
M
0
D
E
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
H
L
I
CUT POINTS
ST UNITS
1497.89
1345.51
258.88
2066.64
1572.92
386.09
1978.61
2035.04
362.90
816.84
341 .38
128.55
FTP UNITS
2.54
2.5C
2.47
2.67
2.41
2.65
2.87
2.94
2.81
2.88
2.85
2.92
%
CORRECT
FAILURES
7.59
6.67
7.15
0.60
0.66
0.54
14.60
17.37
12.78
••-•$-&
12.11
10.63
CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
RATIO: STRR= 100* .
%
. EC
9.65
10.57
10.10
1 .59
1.52
1 .64
14.17
1 1 . 40
15.98
10.51
8.07
9.55
%
EO
9.65
10.57
10.10
1 .59
1.52
~~T.64
14.17
1 1 .40
15.98
10.51
8.07
.9.55

STE
0.44
0.39
0.41
0.27
0.30
	 0.25
0.51
0.60
0.44
0.48
0.60
0.53


STRR EC/fEC+FF)
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
' 1.66
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1 .00
1.00
0.56
0.61
0.59
0.73
0.70
0.75
0.49
0.40
0.56
6. 52
0.40
0.47
FTP
FOR
PASS
2.03
1.97
2.06
1 .42
1 .41
U44
2.39
2.41
2.53
2.36
2.32
2.28
AVG
ST
FAIL
2.95
2.78
2.85
2.47
2.77
0.00
3.49
3.28
2.99
3.99
4.02
3.49
CORRE-
LATION
0.3235
0.2590
0.2925
0.2576
0.2882
0.2313
0 . 3087
0.4438
0.2199
D.3475
0.4988
0.4070
-------
                          TABLE 228
 SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSi_l-j^NrDx_:_
"GROUPED BY ' "INERTIA WT        -  -   .  -	

 FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE — 144 CAR FLEET  (MY  1974)
 BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION: EC=   -5%-

INERTIA WT
ALL
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM 4501
NO.
OF
VEHICLES
144
46
49
49
M
0 CUT POINTS
D ST UNITS
E
3.08
3.07
3.39
1.91
FTP UNITS
1.47
3.16
3.14
CORRECT
FAILURES
6.49
0.76
15.70
' 8 '."24"
%
EC
5.00
5.00
5.00
' ""S'.OO" "
%
»EO--
"10.75
1.42
13.07
11 ".9 4
-Sfe— -
"0".38'
0.35
0.55
"074 T~~
sfRR "EC/TEC+FF
0.67
2.64
0.72
0.66
0.44
0.87
0.24
073S -
FTP AVG
FOR ST
5 PASS
2.10
1.45
2.42
2.32
FAIL
3.13
0.81
_3,.6.0
4.31
CORRE-
LATION
0.3743
0. 1871
0.5313
"6V4094
-------
                        TABLE 229
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS--  NOX
GROUPED" BY   INERTIA WT 	'  	
FEDERAL THREE-MODE — 144  CAR FLEET  (MY  1974)
BOUNDED-ERRORS OF COMMISSION-;-EC— - 5%

INERTIA WT
ALL
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501

PROM 4501
NO.
OF
M
0
CUT POINTS CORRECT
VEHICLES" 	 D"~ST"UNITS 	 FTP UNITS 	 FAILURES
E
".-•144"-
1 44
144
46
46
46
49
49
49
49
49
49
H
L
I
H
L
r "
H
L
I
• H
L
I
1793.72
1954.19
325.52
1627.59
1 154.33
' 294.70
2382.64
2263.15
465.54
905.76
370.90
141.96
2.75
2.85
2.68
2.23
2.02
"2.20
3.10
3.16
3.01
3. 1 1
2.99
3.13
5.16
4.09
4.63
1 .08
1.19
•"""0 . 99 """
7.69
11 .76
5.57
' 6 .' 34~
9.90
7.65
. EC "
5.00"""
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
"5.00 """
5.00
""5.00
5.00
"5 . 00 ""
5.00
5.00
"EO
12.08
13.16
12.62
1.10
1 .00
"1719"
21 .08
"17.00
23.20
13.84
10.27
12.53
STE
" "07 30
0.24
0.27
0.50
0.54
0.45"
0.27
" 0141
0.19
0.31
0.49
0.38

"STRR E
"0759
0.53
0.56
2.79
2.83
2.74
0.44
0".58
0.37
"0756
0.74
0.63
C/fEC+FFT
0.49
0.55
0.52
0.82
0.81
"0.83
0.39
"0730
0.47
0.44
0.34
0.40
FTP AVG
FOR ST
PASS
2.10
.2.09
2.13
1 .42
1 .40
1 .44'"
2.63
" 2.47" "
2.62
2.39
2.32
2.30
FAIL
37 3 T
3.16
2.81
2.47
1 .86
1721
3.18
3.64
2.82
47 00"
4.02
4.14
CORRE-
LATION
0.2986
0.2322 -
0.2664
0.2719
0.2988
0.2479
0. 2681
0.4104'
0.1817
0.3184
0.4825
0.3820
-------
TABLE 230
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMPS
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE ~ 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO; STRR = 100%

INERTIA WT
"ALL ~ 	
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM 4501
NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES D ST
E
144
46
49
49
%
CUT POINTS CORRECT
UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES
68.75
71 .74
91 .84
	 42.86
%
" EC 	
11. ii
4.35
4.08
' 22.45 "~
% FTP AVG
FOR ST CORRE-
EO STE STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS FAIL LATION
11.11 0.86 1.00 0.14 0.3091
8.70 0.89 0.95 0.06 0.6228
4.08 0.96 1.00 0.04 -0.0426
20.41 0.68 1.03 0.34 0/0672
-------
TABLE 231
SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS — CMP3 ' ...
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT . ,
FEDERAL THREE-MODE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
FIXED SHORT TEST REJECTION RATIO: STRR= 100%

NO.
OF
0 CUT POINTS CORRECT
iNERtlA Wt VEHICLES D ST UNITS FTP UNITS FAILURES"
E
ALL
2501 TO 3500

3501 TO 4501

FROM 4501 	 "'

144
144
144
46
46
46
49
49
49
49
49
49

H
L
I
B
H
L
I
B
H
L
B
H
L
I
B
62.50
68.06
65.28
66..67_
60.87
71 . 74
69.57
67.39
87.76
93.88
91.84
91 .84
38.78
40.82
46.94
40.82
EC
15.97
12.50
11.11
._... 10.42
15.22
" 15.22
• 13.04
10.87
4.08
4.08
' '4.08
2.04
~ 24.49
18.37
16.33
"18.37 "
E°
17.36
11.81
14.58
13. 19-
19.57
8.70
10.87
13.04
8.16
2.04
4.08
4.08
24.49
22.45
16.33
"2 2" .'4 5
STE
6". 78
0.85
0.82
""6-83-
0.76
6.89
0.86
0.84
0.91
0.93
" " 0 . 96
0.96
0.61
- -0.65
0.74
6.65


FTP
FOR
STRR EC/(EC+FF) PASS
0.98
1 .01
0.96
0.97
0.95
1 .08
1.03
0.97
0.96
1 .02
1.00
0.98
1 .66
0.9.4
1 .00
6". 94
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
D.
0.
0.
0.-
0.
0.
0.
0;
0.
20
16
15
14
20
17
16
14
04
04- -
04
02
39 . _
31
26
31
AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATION
-D.
0.
. 0.
0.
-o.
0.
D.
0.
-0.
-0.
-D.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
0.
0102
2346
2509
3030
0195
1344
2074
2715
0615
^598
0426
3775
6539
1424
2975
1424
-------
                                                                 TABLE 232
                                      SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY  TABLE  ANALYSIS— CMP3
                                      GROUPED BY    INERTIA  WT          	"'
                                      FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE --  144  CAR  FLEET (MY 1974)
                                      BOUNDED ERRORS  OF  COMMISSION; EC=    5%
                 'NO.     M                           %        %
           	   OF    _0   _  CUT POINTS      _ CORRECT
"iNER'fi/Twf   VEHICLES" D~~ST "UNITS	FTP UNITS  FAILURES    EC
                                                                           EO
                                                                                   STE
                                                                                                               FTP AVG
                                                                                                               FOR ST
" S T R R""EC7( E C + F F T"  PAS S	FAIL
 CORRE-
IATIOKT
ALL
2501 TO 3500
3501 TO 4501
FROM 4501
144
46
49
49
61 .81
69.57
. 91 .84
28.57
9.72
4.35
4.08
'6': 12"
18.06
10.87
4.08
34.69
6.77
0.86
0.96
-"0.45-
0.90
0.92
1 .00
0.55
0.14
0.06
0.04
0.18
0.2587
0.5806
-0.0426
0.2886
tv
o
-------
                                                             TABLE 233
                                      SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS— CMP3
00
GROUPED BY INERTIA WT
FEDERAL THREE-MODE — 144 CAR FLEET (MY 1974)
BOUNDED ERRORS OF COMMISSION; EC= 5% . .
— lNERTTA~Wf
ALL
2501 TO 3500

3501 TO 4501

PROM 4501

NO. M
OF 0
VEHICLES- D""S?.'-
E
- T44 -
1 44
1 44
46
-46" '
46
49
49
" -— 49 -~
"49 ~
49
49

L
I
B
H
L
I
B
H
L
I
B
H
L
I
B
CUT POINTS CORRECT
"UNITS 	 FTP UNITS" "FAILURES 	
29.
41 .
55.
51 .
28.
34.
36.
47.
65.
87.
89.
89.
16.
24.
32.
24.
17 ' '""
67
56
39 " 	
26
78
96
83
31
76
80 	 " '
80
33
49
65
49
EC -••
3.47
5.56
5.55
4.17
6.52
4.35
2.17
2. 17
2.04
4.08
"2 . 04
2.04
O'.OO
8.16
8.16
"4.08
Of
/O
Eij
""" 50.69
38. 19
24.31
28.47
52. 17
••""45.65' "
43.48
32.61
30.61
8. 16
	 6.12" ""'
6.12
	 "46.94" "'
38.78
30.61
	 38.78 	

STE 	 "
0~37'~
0.52
0.70
0 . 64 "•
0.35
0.43 "
0.46
0.59
0.68
0.91
0.94 "
0.94
0.2S
0.39
0.52
'0".39~

FTP
FOR
" ' STRR "• EC/CEC+FFI PASS
0.41
0.59
0.77
0.70
0.43
0.49
0.49
0.62
0.70
0.96
" "0.96
0.96
0.26
0.52
0.65
0.45
0. 11
0.12
0.09
0.07
0.19
0.11
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.25
0.20
0.14
AVG
ST CORRE-
FAIL LATION
0. 1649
0. 1975
0.3453
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-o.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
3b24
0150
1709
2832
3836
0763
0615
3152
3152
3366
1695
2883
2945" 	
-------
                            TABLE 234

                FTP FAILURE RATES AND THEIR
                  STANDARD ERRORS:  300 CARS

CID
Group


All
si 50 CID
151-259 CID
^260 CID

No.
of
Vehicles

300
95
45
151
Estimated Failure Rate and
Standard Error in Percent

HC
FU) .
31.71
32. 14
27.27
32. 89
SE^}
2.67
4.79
6.06
3. 82
CO
F
53. 82
44.70
55. 54
57. 15
SE
2. 88
5. 10
6.76
4.03
N(
F
21. 15
15. 53
19.98
24.78
Dx
SE
2.36
3.72
5. 44
3. 51
(1)
  F - Failures
(2)
  SE - Standard Error
                                 209
-------
                             TABLE 235

                   STANDARD ERRORS FOR THE
                   FTP STANDARDS*1'; 300 CARS
CID
Group
All
£ 150 CID
151-259 CID
£260 CID
No. of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
Estimated Standard Errors
Grams/Mile
HC
0. 0767
0. 1248
0. 1806
0. 1143
CO
0. 9500
1.2505
1. 8802
1. 5843
NOx
0. 1330
0. 3300
0.2737
0. 1518
(1)
  FTP  standards are  1. 5 gm/mi HC,
  15. 0  gm/mi CO, and 3. 1 gm/mi NOx
                                  210
-------
                             TABLE 236

               ST CUT-POINTS AND THEIR STANDARD
            ERRORS FOR THE FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE;
                             300 CARS
ST
Cut -Point
Policy


STRR=1. 0
E
C - 1
E +FF ,
c . 2
EC=5%
STE=. 6
.7
. 8
Cut-Points and Standard
Errors in Grams/Mile

HC
OP*1'
1. 09

2. 06
1.37
1. 32
1.29
1.07
0. 86
SE^
0. 077

0. 190
0. 108
0. 121
0. 117
0. 099
0. 085
CO
CP
5. 17

9. 91
4. 51
8. 40
11.25
8. 12
5. 60
SE
0. 618

1.201
0. 542
1. 312
1. 367
1. 001
0.728
NOx
CP
2. 45

3.69
3. 00
2. 62
2. 63
2. 38
2. 12
SE
0. 112

0.235
0. 157
0. 134
0. 157
0. 144
0. 137
(1)
   CP - Cut-Point
(2)
  SE - Standard Error
                                   211
-------
                       TABLE 237
         ST  CUT-POINTS AND THEIR STANDARD
      ERRORS FOR THE FEDERAL THREE MODE
                       300 CARS
(3).
• ' ST
Cut -Point
Policy


STRR=1.0
E
C - 1
E +FF - ,
c . 2
E =5%
c
STE= . 6
.7
.8
Cut-Points and Standard
Errors in. PPM

HC
CP(i)
112

573
298
184

112
89
68
SE^'
8.7

99. 1
32. 6
21. 1

12.6
10.3
8. 5
CO
CP
2198

12945
2956
7081

5867
3475
1898
SE
384

2409
515
1857

1157
703
412
NOx
CP
1803

4379
2265

1558
1362
1164
SE
85

552
149

123
112
103
- Cut-Point
- Standard Error
and CO Idle in Drive; NOx at the High Speed
                              212
-------
                              TABLE 238

              COMPARISON OF STANDARD ERRORS FOR
           FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE:  300 CARS; STRR=1. 0

CID
Group


All
si 50 CID
151-259 CID
^260 CID

No.
of
Vehicles

300
95
54
151
Cut-Points and Standard
Errors in Grams/Mile

HC
Cpl-D
1.09
1. 03
0. 96
1.07
SE™
0. 077
0. 125
0. 168
0. 118
CO
CP
5. 17
8. 90
4. 47
3.75
SE
0. 618
1. 163
1. 067
0.772
NOx
CP
2.45
2. 33
2. 50
2. 49
SE
0. 112
0.224
0.246
0. 137
(1)
  CP  - Cut-Point
(2)
  SE - Standard Error
                                   213
-------
                               TABLE 239
               COMPARISON OF STANDARD ERRORS FOR
           FEDERAL, THREE-MODE<3>: 300 CARS; STRR=1. 0
CID
Group
All
si 50 CID
151-259 CID
2:260 CID
No.
of
Vehicles
300
95
54
151
Cut-Points and Standard
Errors in PPM
HC
cp(l)
112
124
138
97
SE(li)
8.7
16. 8
21.7
10. 9
CO
CP
2198
5907
2446
1121
SE
384
1464
915
315
NC
CP
1803
2475
1572
1589
3x
SE
85
259
154
93
[1)
  CP - Cut-Point
(2)
  SE - Standard Error
(3)
  HC,  CO idle in drive,  NOx at high speed
                                    214
-------
                            TABLE 240

          STANDARD ERRORS FOR CONTINGENCY TABLE
             PARAMETERS:  FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE;
                        300 CARS; STRR= 1. 0
Pollutant
HC
CO
NOx
Contingency Table Parameters and
Their Standard Errors in Percent
FF
p(l)
22.70
44. 07
14.24
SE^
2. 45
2. 96
2. 11
Er
P
9.01
9.75
6. 91
SE
2.78
2. 90
2. 57
EO
P
9. 01
9.75
6. 91
SE
2. 80
2. 88
2. 68
(1)
(2)
  P - Parameter Value
  SE - Standard Error of Parameter Value
                                   215
-------
                             TABLE 241

          STANDARD ERRORS FOR CONTINGENCY TABLE
             PARAMETERS:  FEDERAL THREE-MODE;
                         300 CARS; STRR= 1. 0
Pollutant(3)
HC
CO
NOx
Contingency Table Parameters and
Their Standard Errors in Percent
FF
p(D
19. 01
43. 42
10.24
SE^
2.29
3. 08
1.77
Er
P
12.70
12. 41
10. 91
SE
2.78
2. 96
2. 54
E0
P
12.70
12. 41
10. 91
SE
2. 81
2. 92
2.72
(1)
  P - Parameter Value
(2)
  SE - Standard Error of Parameter Value
(3)
  HC, CO Idle in Drive,  NOx at High Speed
                                    216
-------
                            TABLE 242
                 FTP FAILURE RATES AND THEIR
                  STANDARD ERRORS:  117 CARS

No. of
Vehicles


117
Estimated Failure Rate and
Standard Error in Percent

HC
F.(l)
68.05
SE<^
4.31
CO
F
90.77
SE
2.68
NOx
F
5.67
SE
2. 14
(1)
  F - Failures
(2)
  SE - Standard Error
                                  217
-------
                      TABLE 243

             STANDARD ERRORS FOR THE
              FTP STANDARDS;  117 CARS
No. of
Vehicles

117
FTP Cut-Points and Standard
Errors in Grams/Mile
HC
CPUJ
1. 50
SE^
0. 109
CO
CP
15.0
SE
2.97
NOx
CP
3. 10
SE
0. 563
- Cut-Point
- Standard Error
                            218
-------
                                 TABLE 244

                ST CUT-POINTS AND  STANDARD ERRORS
                         FOR  117 CARS; STRR =1.0


Short Test


Federal Short Cycle
Federal Three-Mode
ST Cut-Points and Iheir
Standard Errors

HC
cp(2l
0. 86
75
SE(3>
0. 080
9. 5
CO
CP
4. 06
605
SE
0.743
197
N(
CP
2. 95
2442
px
SE
0.325
322
(1)


(2)

(3)

(4)
Units are grams/mile for the Federal Short Cycle
and ppm for the Federal Three-Mode


CP - Cut-°oint


SE - Standard Error


HC, CO idle in drive,  NOx at high speed
                                     219
-------
                             TABLE 245
             CONTINGENCY TABLE PARAMETERS AND
       THEIR STANDARD ERRORS:  FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE;
                         117 CARS; STRR= 1. 0
Pollutant
HC
CO
NOx
Contingency Table Parameters and
Their Standard Errors in Percent
FF
plD
59.35
86. 83
3.29
SE^>
4.99
4.79
2.34
Er
P
8.70
3. 94
2. 38
SE
4. 48
3.95
2. 86
EO.
P
8.70
3. 94
2. 38
SE
4. 43
3.28
4. 48
(1)
  P - Parameter Value
(2)
  SE - Standard Error of Parameter Value
                                   2ZO
-------
                             TABLE 246

              CONTINGENCY TABLE PARAMETERS AND    ...
      THEIR STANDARD ERRORS:  FEDERAL THREE-MODEV  ';
                        117 CARS; STRR=1. 0
Pollutant
HC
CO
NOx
Contingency Table Parameters and
Their Standard Errors in Percent
FF
p(l)
53. 97
84.77
1.97
SE^
5.41
5. 52
1.68
Er
P
14.20
6.00
3.69
SE
4. 52
4. 15
2.72
EO
P
14.70
6. 00
3.69
SE
4. 44
3.09
4.63
(1)
  P - Parameter Value
(2)
  SE - Standard Error of Parameter Value
(3)
   HC ,  CO idle in drive; NOx at the High Speed
                                   221
-------
                        :      .  TABLE 247

                  COMPARISON OF ST DISPERSION FOR
                      STRR= 1. 0 BY  FLEET AND ST
Vehicle
Fleet
300 Cars


117 Cars


ST
Federal Short
Cycle
Federal Three-
Mode^'
Federal Short
Cycle
Federal Three-
Mode^ '
ST Cut -Point
Dispersion
HC
0.071

0. 078
0. 093

0. 127
CO
0. 120

0. 175
,0. 183

0. 326
NOx
0. 046

0. 047
0. 110

0. 132
   Dispersion - (Standard Error) -j- (the cut-point value)
(2)
  HC, CO idle in drive,  NOx at high speed
                                    222
-------
                                GLOSSARY
CID



CO



CVS



E
 c


EFP



E
 o


FF



FTP



HC



I/M



NO
   x


PP



ST



STE



STRR



207(b)
cubic inch displacement



carbon monoxide



constant volume sampling



error of commission



Emission Factors Program



error of omission



vehicles failed by both the  ST and the FTP



Federal Test Procedure



hydrocarbon



inspection and maintenance



oxides of nitrogen



vehicles passed by both the ST and FTP



short test



short test effectiveness



short test rejection ratio



reference to section 207(b) of the  1970 Clean Air Act
                                 GL-1
-------
                                 TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                          (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-460/3-76-010b
                            2.
                                                        3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Short Test Correlation Analyses on 300
  1975 Model Year Cars
        Volume II
            5. REPORT DATE
                August 1977
            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOH(S)
                                                        8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
          M. G. Hinton and John C. Thacker
              ATR-77(7623-01)-l
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  The Mobile Systems  Group
  Environment & Energy Conservation Division
  The Aerospace Corporation
  El Segundo, California 90245
                                                        10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

               68-03-2482
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  EPA Office of Air and Waste Management
  Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
  Emission Control Technology Division
  Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               Final
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
  A series of statistical analyses was performed to determine the degree of
  "correlation" that exists between two specific short tests  (STs) and the Federal
  Emission Certification Test Procedure  (FTP) for new vehicles.  This work was
  performed to determine if "reasonable correlation with certification test proce-
  dures" exists; this is a condition precedent to the promulgation of regulations that
  impose the in-use warranty provisions of Sec.  207(b) of the Clean Air Act of 1970
  upon the  motor vehicle manufacturers.

  The basis for the analyses was ST  and FTP test data from (a) three 100-vehicle
  1975 model year fleets located in (1) Chicago, Illinois, (2) Houston, Texas, and
  (3) Phoenix,  Arizona, (b) a 117-vehicle  1975 model year fleet located in Denver,
  Colorado,  (c) a 147-vehicle 1974 model  year fleet located in the greater Detroit,
  Michigan area, and (d) a 40-vehicle catalyst-equipped "1975-prototype" experi-
  mental fleet that had been operated in California in Ford vehicle test programs.
  Each of the vehicles  in these fleets was  tested by the FTP,  the Federal Short Cycle,
  and the Federal 3-Mode.  Two different statistical analysis methods were used to
  assess "correlation" --a conventional correlation analysis, and a contingency
  table analysis.  This work is a continuation of that activity reported in Report No.
  EPA-460/3-76-010a.
17.
                              KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                 DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COS AT I Field/Group
       Air Pollution
       Emission Testing
       Short Test Procedures
       Test Correlations
  Air Pollution Control
  Conventional Corre-
     lation Analysis
  Contingency Table
     Analysis
    13B
    14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
       Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
  Unclassified	
21. NO. OF PAGES
     372
                                            20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                              Unclassified
                                                                     22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
                                                          INSTRUCTIONS

    1.   REPORT NUMBER   .  ,          :.' '  '
        Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.

    2.   LEAVE BLANK

    3.   RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
        Reserved for use by each report'recipient.

    4.   TITLE AND SUBTITLE
        Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently.  Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
        type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
        number and include subtitle for the specific title.

    5.   REPORT DATE
        Each report-shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
        approval, date of preparation, etc.).

    6.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
        Leave blank.

    7.   AUTHOR(S)
        Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.).  List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
        zation.    •••••.-

    8.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
        Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.

    9.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
        Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.

    10.  PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
        Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.

    11.  CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
        Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.

    12.  SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
        Include ZIP code.

    13.  TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
        Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.

    14.  SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
        Leave blank.

    15.  SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
        Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as:  Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of. Presented at conference of,
        To be published in,  Supersedes, Supplements, etc.

    16.  ABSTRACT       .
        Include a brief {200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
        significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.

    17.  KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
        (a) DESCRIPTORS  - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that  identify the major
        concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.

        (b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
        ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.

        (c)COSATl FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COS ATI Subject Category List.  Since the ma-
        jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will  be specific discipline, area of human
        endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
        the primary posting(s).  .   .  	   .       .  .      ..      .        .    ,

    18.  DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
        Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited."  Cite any availability to
        the public, with address and price.

    19. & 20.  SECURITY CLASSIFICATION  <
        DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.

    21.  NUMBER OF PAGES                >                                                        .'
        Insert the total number of pages, including,this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.

    22.  PRICE            ;                  ..:-..-..
        Insert the price set b'y the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Ravtru)
-------