United States Region I EPA 901/9-79-010
Environmental Protection J.F. Kennedy Federal Building September 1979
Agency Boston, MA 02203
Air
Fjna, Rep0rt on tne
Attitudinal Assessments of
Motor Vehicle Inspection
Station Personnel and
Motor Vehicle Owners
Towards the Rhode Island
Inspection/Maintenance
Program
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instnictions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
9Q1/9-79-Q1Q
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION'NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE FINAL REPORT ON THE ATT1TUD1.NAL
ASSESSMENTS OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION PER-
SONNEL AND MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS TOWARDS THE RHODE
ISLAND INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
5. REPORT DATE
September 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
'. AUTHOR(3)
Benjamin F. Brown and Deborah K. Martin
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
1132-J80-00
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRC - THE RESEARCH CORPORATION of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Task Order No. 17
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2615
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Assignment Final; April 1979
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The task officer was Carl P- Ripaldi or the Air Branch or
Region I, Providence, Rhode Island 02903.
16. ABSTRACT
This report gives the results of a study of Rhode Island's Inspection/Maintenance
Program which was conducted in cooperation with The Rhode Island Lung Association.
The study was based upon interviews with inspection station personnel and motor
vehicle owners in the state. It evaluated the program in terms of public aware-
ness, program quality, program deficiencies, inspection station quality and fee
structure. The report findings will enable the Rhode Island Lung Association
to make recommendations for enhancing and redirecting the program's public
information campaign to detail its benefits.
Key findings of the study were: (1) A preference for the private garage system
by both groups; (2) A preference to have the State's "Challenge Station" issue
inspection stickers for cars which it passes but were previously failed at a
garage; (3) A majority of the inspection station personnel feeling that the
inspection fee was too low; (4) The majority of the motor vehicle owners being
unaware of the existence and purpose of the "Challenge Station".
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COS AT I Field/Group
Rhode Island
Air Pollution
Inspection Maintenance
Program Assessment
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
EPA 901/9-79-010
FINAL REPORT ON THE ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENTS
OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL
AND MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS TOWARDS THE RHODE
ISLAND INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
September, 1979
By
B. F. Brown and D. K. Martin
The Research Corporation of New England
Wethersfield, CT 06109
EPA Task Officer: C. Ripaldi
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region I
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
This study was conducted in cooperation with
The Rhode Island Lung Association
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Prepared For:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D. C. 20460
Contract No. 68-02-2615
Task Order, No. 17
111
-------
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
TRC - THE RESEARCH CORPORATION of New England, Wethers field, Connecticut, in
fulfillment of EPA Contract No. 68-02-2615, Task Order No. 17- This report has
been reviewed by the Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region I,
Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This report is issued by the Air and Hazardous Materials Division,
Region I, Environmental Protection Agency, to assist state and local air
pollution control agencies in carrying out their program activities. Copies of
this report may be obtained, for a nominal cost, from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Region I, Publication No. EPA 901/9-79-010
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of Rhode Island began a mandatory vehicle safety and emissions
inspection/maintenance (I/M) program January 1, 1979. The approximately
500,000 vehicles which are subject to the program are required, for a $4 fee,
to have the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in their exhausts measured and
their safety equipment checked.
The Rhode Island Lung Association in conjunction with the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management is conducting an educational public
information campaign on the I/M program to create "... public understanding and
cooperation ..." according to their jointly issued concord on the campaign.
TRC - THE RESEARCH CORPORATION of New England was contracted by the EPA
Region I office on behalf of the Rhode Island Lung Association to implement two
phases of the campaign by conducting attitudinal assessments of motor vehicle
inspection station personnel and motor vehicle owners.
TRC conducted in-person interviews of 99 motor vehicle inspection station
personnel and telephone interviews of 300 motor vehicle owners during the month
of April, 1979. These interviews were statistically valid and representative
of their respective total populations.
The key findings and recomnendations of the interviews are the following:
• Although 78% of the motor vehicle owners do not have or know anyone
who has an illness aggravated by air pollution, 61% of them would
describe Rhode Island's air quality problem as moderate or severe.
Thirty-nine percent of the people say the government is responsible
for achieving clean air; thirty-seven percent say industry is
responsible and twenty-one percent say the public is. Industry is
viewed as the major contributor to air pollution by a 46% plurality.
RECOMMENDATION; AN INCREASED PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM SHOULD BE
PREPARED AND IMPLEMENTED.
• A preference for the private garage system was voiced by a majority
of the inspection station personnel and motor vehicle owners.
RECOMMENDATION; PRIVATE GARAGES SHOULD REMAIN AS OFFICIAL TESTING
FACILITIES FOR THE INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.
-------
• Forty-four percent of the inspection station personnel and a
sizeable majority of the motor vehicle owners believe that "hot
stickers" can be obtained.
RECOMMENDATION; A PROGRAM SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM SHOULD BE DEVELOPED
SO THAT IT IS MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO OBTAIN ILLEGAL OR "HOT
STICKERS."
The majority of the inspection station personnel (56%) and the motor
vehicle owners (88%) prefer to have the Challenge Station issue the
sticker for a vehicle which passes there but was previously failed at
a garage.
RECOMMENDATION; STICKERS SHOULD BE ISSUED ON-THE-SPOT TO CARS WHICH
PASS INSPECTION AT THE CHALLENGE STATION.
The majority of the inspection station personnel had no strong
objections to the State's overall required emissions testing train-
ing program and would be willing to demonstrate their proficiency
through certification examinations before being licensed by the
State. Many inspection station personnel thought the training
course should have been longer to cover additional material such as
fuel injection, maintenance problems and expanded attention to
analyzer operations.
RECOMMENDATION; THE TRAINING COURSE SHOULD INCLUDE A PROFICIENCY
TEST AS PREREQUISITE FOR BECOMING A CERTIFIED STATION INSPECTOR.
Seventy-six percent of the inspection station personnel thought the
$4 fee was too low because it did not cover their costs. More than
50% of the inspection station personnel thought the $4 fee encour-
aged shortened inspections and 40% thought the low fee encouraged
unnecessary repairs.
RECOMMENDATION; A STUDY OF THE ACTUAL COST OF INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE
UNDERTAKEN TO DETERMINE IF AN INCREASE IN THE FEE IS NECESSARY.
Four and one-half percent of the motor vehicle owners reported that
their cars failed the first inspection. The figure is low when
compared with the overall failure rate of 21% recorded for the 1978
voluntary inspection program.
RECOMMENDATION; THE LOWER FAILURE RATE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY
THE STATE.
VI
-------
The majority (71%) of the motor vehicle owners were unaware of the
existence and purpose of the Challenge Station; forty-five percent
found its hours inconvenient.
RECOMMENDATION; THE CHALLENGE STATION'S EXISTENCE SHOULD BE
PUBLICIZED AND ITS HOURS EXPANDED.
At the time of the interviews 70% of the inspection stations had not
received the green I/M information cards.
RECOMMENDATION: NONE.
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer iv
Executive Summary v
Tables ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary of Findings and Recommendations ..... 3
Project Description 3
General Findings 3
Program Support Findings 3
Program Obstacle Findings 4
Task I - Attitudinal Assessment of Motor Vehicle
Inspection Station Personnel 4
General Findings 4
Program Support Findings 5
Program Obstacles Findings 6
Task II - Attitudinal Assessment of Motor Vehicle
Owners 23
General Findings 23
Program Support Findings 24
Program Obstacles Findings 24
3. Methodology 30
General 30
Task I - Attitudinal Assessment of Inspection Station
Personnel 30
Task II - Attitudinal Assessment of Motor Vehicle
Owners 31
4. Discussion 35
General 35
Tabulation and Analysis of Results 35
Findings and Recommendations 41
Methodology, Task I - Attitudinal Assessment of Motor
Vehicle Inspection Station Personnel 42
Methodology, Task II - Attitudinal Assessments of Motor
Vehicle Owners 42
Appendices
A. Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Personnel Questionnaire ... 45
B. Comments by Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Personnel .... 51
C. List of Auto Emissions Analyzers 61
D. Motor Vehicle Owner Questionnaire 63
E. Comments by Motor Vehicle Owners 71
F. Distribution of Automobile Makes for Motor Vehicle Owners . . 75
G. Random Numbers Table 77
Vlll
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of Overall Responses of Inspection Station Personnel . 8
2 Summary of Responses of Inspection Station Personnel at
Stations with Greater Than 10% Failure Rate 13
3 Summary of Responses of Inspection Station Personnel at
Stations with Less Than 10% Failure Rate 18
4 Summary of Responses of Motor Vehicle Owners 26
5 Stations Visited Per Town 32
6 Projected and Actual Telephone Interviews Distribution
by Town 34
7 CHI2 Computations for Selected Questions from the
Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Personnel Attitudinal
Assessment 36
8 CHI2 Computations for Selected Questions from the
Motor Vehicle Owner Attitudinal Assessment 37
9 Comparison of Responses of Significance from Inspection
Station Personnel with >10% and <10% Failure Rates 38
10 Motor Vehicle Owner Survey, Question #6
Reasons for Not Having Car Inspected 39
11 Occupational Distribution of Motor Vehicle Owners 44
vix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Effective January 1, 1979, the State of Rhode Island began a mandatory
vehicle safety and emissions inspection/maintenance (I/M) program. The pro-
gram requires inspection of nearly all of the motor vehicles in the State
weighing 8,000 Ibs. or less. Exempted vehicles are those whose original sales
date is less than twelve months prior to the first of the year (provided that
they have not been driven over 12,000 miles), electric vehicles, motorcycles,
trailers, those burning diesel fuel and those weighing over 8,000 Ibs.
Approximately 500,000 vehicles are subject to the program.
A check of all vehicle safety equipment and the measurement of vehicle
exhaust emissions for hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) is required of
each vehicle at one of the 792 Department of Transportation-licensed
inspection stations throughout the State. Vehicles passing both tests, which
are conducted for a fee of $4, receive a windshield sticker. Reports on
failure causes are given to owners of vehicles which do not pass. The owners
have fourteen days in which to have the problem or problems corrected.
The Rhode Island Lung Association in conjunction with the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management is conducting an educational public
information campaign on the I/M program to create "... public understanding and
cooperation..." according to their jointly issued concord on the campaign. Two
phases of the plan to implement the campaign are separate attitudinal assess-
ments of inspection station personnel and motor vehicle owners.
TRC - THE RESEARCH CORPORATION of New England was contracted by the EPA
Region I office to conduct the attitudinal assessments for the Rhode Island
Lung Association. The assessments were to evaluate the I/M program in terms
of:
• Public awareness, understanding, cooperation and acceptance
• Program quality
• Program deficiencies previously identified by the Rhode Island Lung
Association
• Competency and reliability of inspection stations
• Fee structure
The evaluation will enable the Rhode Island Lung Association to make
recommendations for enhancing and redirecting the public information campaign
-------
detailing the benefits of the program. They will also enable the RILA to make
recommendations for augmenting or modifying the informational and operational
aspects of the program.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TASK I - ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL
AND TASK II - ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS
Project Description
The project was divided into two major tasks. Task I - Attitudinal
Assessments of Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Personnel - involved conduct-
ing 99 in-person interviews with inspection station owners, managers,
mechanics or any combination of these categories. Task II - Attitudinal
Assessments of Motor Vehicle Owners - was accomplished by completing randomly
selected telephone calls to approximately three hundred motor vehicle owners
whose automobiles should have been inspected since January 1, 1979.
General Findings
1. Sixty-two percent of the two-hundred and ninety-two motor vehicle
owners interviewed indicated that they left their cars all day for
inspection.
2. The inspection station personnel indicated that they handled 79% of
their inspections by appointment.
3. Half of the motor vehicle owners feel that the I/M Program has been
responsible for unnecessary repairs but 85% of them have never sus-
pected that unnecessary repairs were performed on their vehicles as
a result of the inspection. More than 40% of the inspection station
personnel feel that the low fee encourages unnecessary repairs.
RECOMMENDATIONS; AN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATION OF FRAUDULENT AUTO
REPAIR PRACTICES SHOULD. BE CONSIDERED AND CONDUCTED BY THE STATE TO
DETERMINE IF THIS IS A PROBLEM OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Program Support Findings
1. The majority of the motor vehicle owners (88%) and the inspection
station personnel (80%) feel that automobile emissions tests are
important.
-------
2. A preference for the private garage system, as opposed to a state-run
or contractor-run system, was voiced by 69% of motor vehicle owners
and 69% of inspection station personnel.
RECOMMENDATIONS; PRIVATE GARAGES SHOULD REMAIN AS OFFICIAL TESTING
FACILITIES IN THE INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.
Program Obstacle Findings
1. Nearly half of the inspection station personnel and a sizeable
majority of the motor vehicle owners believe that "hot stickers" can
be obtained. They feel that more thorough means of preventing
cheating should be implemented.
RECOMMENDATIONS; PROGRAM SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES SHOULD BE DEVEL-
OPED SO THAT IT IS MORE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO OBTAIN ILLEGAL OR
"HOT STICKERS." REQUIRING PROOF OF INSPECTION FOR REGISTRATION MAY
BE ONE METHOD.
2. The majority of the inspection station personnel (56%) and the motor
vehicle owners (88%) prefer to have the Challenge Station issue the
sticker for a vehicle which passes there but was previously failed at
a garage.
RECOMMENDATIONS; STICKERS SHOULD BE ISSUED ON-THE-SPOT TO CARS
WHICH PASS INSPECTION AT THE CHALLENGE STATION.
TASK I - ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL
General Findings
1. Sixty-five percent of inspection station personnel interviewed feel
that automobile pollution is a threat to the health of Rhode Island
residents.
2. There is an average of 2.5 people per station qualified to perform
the emissions testing.
3. The average capital cost for an inspection station's emissions
analyzer is $2,149. The warm-up time for 25% of the analyzers is 11-
20 minutes; for 38%, it is more than 20 minutes. Twenty-five percent
of the stations leave their analyzers on all day. Seventy percent of
the analyzers are calibrated weekly.
4. The inspection station personnel identified poorly tuned engines and
carburetor problems as the causes of excessive auto emissions in 82%
-------
of the cases. These statistics compare well with EPA national
statistics on causes for excessive emissions.
5. Twenty-nine percent of the personnel reported that it required 21-30
minutes to perform the combined emissions and safety test; fifty-six
percent reported a combined time of 30-60 minutes. According to 20%
of the personnel, the emissions testing only required 0-3 minutes,
35% reported an average time of 4-5 minutes, 22% reported an average
time of 5-10 minutes and 21% reported that the emissions testing
required more than 11 minutes. The majority of the stations do not
set a time limit for the inspections and do not feel that they
interfere with their other activities.
6. The majority of the inspection station personnel reported that they
issue a failure report to the vehicles' owners and keep a record of
those reports. Most will make minor adjustments and not report a
vehicle as having failed if those adjustments will allow the vehicle
to pass the emissions tests.
7. The reporting form used in the 1978 voluntary emissions inspection
program presented no problems to 58% of the personnel who felt it
should be left as it is. The 39% of the personnel who had problems
with the form described it as too lengthy or causing too much paper-
work.
8. The majority of the personnel reports that 75% or more of the I/M
business is from regular customers with 59% saying that the I/M
program has been responsible for more business and 37% saying that
the amount of business has remained the same. The personnel report
that an average of 16% of their repair work comes from emissions
repair work.
9. The majority of the personnel reports that their inspections are as
stringent or more stringent now that the program is mandatory; they
also say that they are not more lenient on inspections with regular
customers than they are with infrequent customers. The majority
also says that they are not reluctant to issue a failure report to a
customer knowing that such a report could possibly result in the
suspension of that person's automobile registration plates.
Program Support Findings
1. The majority of the personnel felt the state's training course
adequately prepared them to perform the emissions tests. They had no
strong objections to the overall program and 75% would be willing to
demonstrate their proficiency through certification examinations
before being licensed by the state. Thirty-seven percent of the
-------
inspection station personnel thought that more time should have been
spent in the training program. Their comments are included in
Appendix B,
RECOMMENDATIONS; THE TRAINING COURSE SHOULD INCLUDE A PROFICIENCY
TEST AS A PREREQUISITE FOR BECOMING A CERTIFIED STATION INSPECTOR.
THE STATE SHOULD REVIEW THOSE AREAS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE ASSESSMENT BY
THE INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AS AREAS FOR INCLUSION IN THE
TRAINING PROGRAM.
2. Seventy-two percent of the stations report only personnel who have
taken the state's emissions testing course are allowed to conduct
the tests.
RECOMMENDATIONS; WHILE THE MAJORITY OF INSPECTIONS ARE PERFORMED BY
TRAINED MECHANICS THE FACT THAT 28% ARE NOT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY
THE STATE.
DOT inspectors visit the stations monthly say 52% of the station
personnel with an additional 32% receiving visits more often than
monthly. The inspectors were judged as competent by 69% of the
personnel with the remaining personnel viewing them as either
incompetent or some as competent and others as not. Unfamiliarity
with the analyzer calibration procedures was the most common reason
for incompetence.
RECOMMENDATIONS; DOT INSPECTORS SHOULD RECEIVE MORE THOROUGH
TRAINING IN THE THEORY OF ANALYZER OPERATION AND CALIBRATION. IT
WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPECT THEM TO BE FAMILIAR WITH EVERY ANALYZER
CALIBRATION PROCEDURE CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MAKES AND
MODELS EMPLOYED. WITH THOROUGH THEORY TRAINING AND A REVIEW OF THE
ANALYZER MANUAL AT THE STATION BEING INSPECTED, THE INSPECTOR SHOULD
BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THE CALIBRATION IS BEING PERFORMED
CORRECTLY.
Program Obstacles Findings
Seventy-six percent of the inspection station personnel thought the
$4 fee was too low and, on the average, thought the fee should be
raised to $8.40. Fifty-two percent of these same personnel thought
the fee encouraged shortened inspections.
RECOMMENDATIONS; A STUDY OF THE ACTUAL COST OF INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE
UNDERTAKEN. THIS STUDY SHOULD TAKE ACTUAL COSTS OF INSPECTION
STATION OPERATIONS AND PERSONNEL INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE RECOMMENDING
ANY NEW FEE.
-------
2. Forty-four percent of the inspection station personnel urged more
emphasis on training in areas such as: fuel injection, analyzer
operations, maintenance problems and course reviews.
RECOMMENDATIONS; THE STATE TRAINING COURSE SHOULD CONTAIN AN
EVALUATION COMPONENT TO GATHER DETAILED INFORMATION ON STATION PER-
SONNEL TRAINING NEEDS AND INCLUDE THESE NEEDS IN FUTURE TRAINING.
3. At the time of the interviews 70% of the stations had not received
the green I/M information cards.
4. A comparison of the responses reveals several areas of significant
differences between the stations which had failed less than 10% of
the cars they tested for emissions during the voluntary program in
1978 and those which had a 10% or greater failure rate. These are
addressed in the discussion section on Findings and Recommendations.
Table 1 summarizes the responses for all the inspection station
personnel. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the responses of the stations according to
the 1978 voluntary program, by those with a less than 10% failure rate and
those with a greater than 10% failure rate, respectively.
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF OVERALL RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL
QUESTION
NUMBER QUESTION
CONFIDENCE
RESPONSE INTERVAL
AT 95%
YES NO OTHER LEVEL
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
do
6a
6b
9a
9b
Respondent is:
Do you feel automotive pollution is a threat to
the health of RI residents?
Do you feel the IM Program is an important step
in curbing auto emissions?
Do you feel the state's training program offered
in the Fall of 1977 on emissions testing adequate-
ly trained you to perform the tests with confid-
ence and accuracy?
Do you think certain areas of the training program
need more emphasis?
How would you feel about having to take a test
after the course to demonstrate your ability to do
emissions testing before being licensed by the
State?
How would you feel about an annual recertification
test?
Do you think courses should be conducted on repair
problems which cause vehicle inspection failure?
Are there any aspects of the emissions testing
program to which you object strongly?
How many qualified people do you have to run the
tests?
Do only personnel who have taken the emissions
testing course conduct emissions tests?
64.6%
79.8%
81.8%
43.8%
72.9%
3.3%
36.5%
27.3%
72.7%
Manager-?.1%
Owner-23.2%
Mechanic-28.3%
Manager-Mechanic-9.1%
Owner-Manager-
Mechanic-31.3%
Do not know-5.3%
30.3%
20.2%
15.2% Did not go-3%
56.3% Did not know-5%
21.9% Do not know-5.2%
64.6% Do not know-4.2%
63.5%
2.5 people/station
Range: 1-8 people/
station
.646 +_ .051
.798 i .080
.818 + .071
.4375 + .099
.365 + .096
.273 + .089
98
99
99
99
99
99
98
96
99
99
71.7%
28.3%
.717 + .089
99
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF OVERALL RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER QUESTION
CONFIDENCE
RESPONSE INTERVAL
AT 95%
YES NO OTHER LEVEL
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
lOa
lOb
lOc
lOd
lOe
11
What make and model instrument do you use for
your emissions testing?
What was the cost of the instrument?
How long is the instrument warmed up before you
proceed with the inspection?
How frequently do you calibrate it?
Are you happy with it?
On a scale of 1-5, from very easy to very
difficult to use, rate your instrument.
(1 = Very Easy, 5 = Very Difficult)
86.9%
13.1%
12 When a car which you failed is passed by the
"Challenge Station" whom would you prefer to
issue the sticker, your garage or the "Chal-
lenge Station"?
13 What do you see as the major cause of exces-
sive auto emissions?
See Appendix C
$2,149 x 95 stations
Range: $900 to
$7,000
0-5 - 4%
6-10 - 7.1%
11-20 - 25.3%
20+ min. - 38.4%
Left on all day-24.2%
Do not know-1%
Every day-9.1%
Every other day-1%
Twice a week-3.0%
Every week-79%
Every other week-4.0%
Every month-3.0%
Every test-1%
1 - 77.8%
2 - 14.1%
3 - 7.1%
4 - 1.0%
5 - 0.0%
Garage-34.3%
Challenge Station-55.6%
Do not care-10.1%
Poorly tuned engine-33.6%
Malfunctioning emission
control devices-7.8%
Broken valves/rings-6.3%
Carburetor-49.8%
Other-3.1%
99
95
98
.869 + .066
99
99
99
97
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF OVERALL RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER
14
RESPONSE
QUESTION YES NO OTHER
If you feel a minor adjustment will allow a 88.9% 10.1% Do not know-1%
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL
AT 95%
LEVEL
.889 + .059
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
99
vehicle to pass the emissions test, will you
make the adjustment without having reported
the vehicle as having initially failed?
15a How long does it take to perform an emissions
and safety test and record the results?
15b Emissions only?
16 What percentage of your inspections are handled
by appointment?
17a Does the station set a time limit for the inspec-
tion test?
0-10 min - 1%
11-20 min - 6.1%
21-30 min - 29.3%
30-60 min - 55.6%
60* min. - 6.1%
0-3 - 20.2%
4-5 - 35.4%
5-10 - 22.2%
11+ min. - 21.2%
Do not know-1%
78.5%
19.2%
80.8%
.192 + .078
97
98
96
99
17b If YES, how much?
18a Is the $4 fee adequate to cover the cost of the 23.2% 75.8%
emission/safety inspection?
18b If NOT, what should it be?
18c Does the low fee encourage stations to shorten 51.5% 43.4%
inspections?
18d Does the low fee encourage stations to make un- 40.4% 54.5%
necessary repairs?
19 When was the last time a DOT inspector paid you
a visit?
1 hour
Do not know-1%
$8.40 avg
Range: $5.00 to
$20.00
Do not know-5.1%
Do not know-5.1%
Today-1%
1 day ago-4%
2 days ago-2%
3 days ago-4%
.232 + .088
15
98
70
99
99
96
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF OVERALL RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL (Continued)
CONFIDENCE
RESPONSE INTERVAL
QUESTION AT 95%
NUMBER QUESTION YES NO OTHER LEVEL
19 Cont'd 1 Week ago-42.4%
2 weeks ago-23.2%
3 weeks ago-11.1%
1 month ago-6.1%
2 months ago-2%
3 months ago-1%
20a How frequently do DOT inspectors check your Weekly-7. 12
station? - Every two weeks-25.3%
Every three weeks-8.1%
Monthly-56.6%
20b How do you perceive the competence of the DOT Competent-68 .7%
inspectors? Incorapetent-17.2%
Some were and some
were not-ll.lZ
21a Do you issue a failure report with the results 85. 9% 9.1% No response-5% .859 + .055
to the owner of a vehicle which has failed the
emissions test?
21b Do you keep a record of these failures? 85.8% 7.1% No response-7 .1% .858 + .049
22a Did the voluntary emissions report form pre- 39.4% 57.6% 3% other responses .394 + .096
sent any problems to complete?
22b If in the future, the state requires documen- See Appendix B,
tation of the test, how would you improve the Question 22b
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
96
96
99
99
96
89
form?
23 What approach would you prefer to the inspec-
tions and repairs?
Inspection by State
owned stations with
private garages
handling the repairs
-27.3%
Inspection by contrac-
tors to the State with
private garages han-
dling the repairs-2%
Inspections and repairs
by private garages-
68.7%
97
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF OVERALL RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER
24
25a
25 b
26
27
28
29
QUESTION YES
Does IM interfere with other activities? 13.1%
What percentage of your IM business is from regu-
lar customers (those who patronize the station -
gas, oil, repairs and routine servicing on a
frequent basis)?
How much of your business comes from emissions
repair work?
Has IM been responsible for more business, less
business, or the same amount?
Are your inspections more or less stringent now
that the program is mandatory?
Is the industry more lenient with regular cus- 25.3%
tomers than with infrequent customers?
If you know or feel a customer's registration 5.1%
t
RESPONSE
BO OTHER
85.9%
0-25% - 2%
26-50% - 7.1%
51-75% - 24.2%
75%+ - 63.6%
16.25%
Range: 1.0% to 100%
More-58.6%
Less-1%
Same-37.4%
Do not know- 3%
More-45.5%
Less-1%
Same-53.5%
71.7%
90.9% Do not know-4%
CONFIDENCE TOTAL
INTERVAL NO .
AT 95% OF
LEVEL RESPONDENTS
.131 + .066 98
96
90
99
99
.253 + .085 96
.051 + .043 99
plate will be suspended if you issue a failure
report, will you be more lenient with their
inspection, or more reluctant to fill out a
report?
30 How many people who fail emission inspections
have their repairs performed here?
31 How easy is it for a person to obtain an improper
or "hot sticker" for a car that fails an emis-
sions test or is not inspected?
32a Have you received the Green IM card?
32b Are you distributing them to your customers?
32c How useful is the card?
29.3%
79.3%
70.7%
6.9%
85.8%
Easy-42.4%
Hard-45.5%
Do not know-12.1%
Useful-58.6%
Useless-3.4%
Do not know-38.0%
.293 + .092
93
99
99
25
25
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
GREATER THAN 10% FAILURE RATE*
QUESTION
NUMBER
6a
6b
9a
9b
QUESTION
Respondent is:
Do you feel automotive pollution is 3 threat to
the health of RI residents?
Do you feel the IM Program is an important step
in curbing auto emissions?
Do you feel the state's training program offered
in the Fall of 1977 on emissions testing adequate-
ly trained you to perform the tests with confid-
ence and accuracy?
Do you think certain areas of the training program
need more emphasis?
How would you feel about having to take a test
after the course to demonstrate your ability to do
emissions testing before being licensed by the
State?
How would you feel aobut an annual recer ti f ication
test?
Do you think courses should be conducted on repair
problems which cause vehicle inspection failure?
Are there any aspects of the emissions testing
program to which you object strongly?
How many qualified people do you have to run the
tests?
Do only personnel who have taken the emissions
testing course conduct emissions tests?
YES
64.2%
80.2%
80.2%
46.2%
70.4%
29.6%
34.6%
29.6%
RESPONSE
NO
OTHER
70.4%
Manager-6.3%
Owner-23.8%
Mechanic-28. 8%
Manager-Mechanic-8. 82
Owner-Manager-
Mechanic-32.5%
30.9% Other res ponses-4. 9%
19.8%
16.0%
53.8%
22.2% Other res ponses-7. 4%
63.0%
61.7%
70.4%
2.5 people/station
Range: 1-8 people/station
29.6%
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
80
77
81
78
78
75
75
78
81
81
81
*Based upon 1978 voluntary emissions inspection program.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
GREATER THAN 10% FAILURE RATE (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER
lOa
lOb
lOc
lOd
lOe
11
12
13
RESPONSE
QUESTION
YES
NO
What make and model instrument do you use for
your emissions testing?
What was the cost of the instrument?
How long is the instrument warmed up before you
proceed with the inspection?
How frequently do you calibrate it?
Are you happy with it?
On a scale of 1-5, from very easy to very
difficult to use, rate your instrument.
(1 = Very Easy, 5 = Very Difficult)
When a car which you failed is passed by the
"Challenge Station" whom would you prefer to
issue the sticker, your garage or the "Chal-
lenge Station"?
What do you see as the major cause of exces-
sive auto emissions?
84.0%
16.1
OTHER
See Appendix C
$2,224 Aug/78 stations
Range: $900 to $7,000
0-5 - 2.5%
6-10 - 6.2%
11-20 - 27.2%
20+ rain. - 37.0%
Left on all day-25.9%
Every day-11.1%
Every other day-1.2%
Twice a week-2. 5%
Every week-76.6%
Every other week-4.9%
Every month-3. 7%
1 - 77.8%
2 - 14.8%
3 - 6.2%
4 - 1.2%
5-0%
Garage-34.6%
Challenge-54.3%
Poorly tuned engine-36.12
Malfunctioning emission
control devices-0%
Broken valves/rings-7. 2%
Carburetor-53.6%
Other-3.1%
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENT
81
78
80
81
81
81
72
80
14 If you feel a minor adjustment will allow a
vehicle to pass the emissions test, will you
make the adjustment without having reported
the vehicle as having initially failed?
88.9%
9.9%
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
GREATER THAN 10% FAILURE RATE (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER
15a
15b
16
17a
17b
18a
18b
18c
18d
19
20a
RESPONSE
QUESTION
YES
NO
How long does it take to perform an emissions
and safety test and record the results?
Emissions only?
What percentage of your inspections are handled
by appointment?
Does the station set a time limit for the inspec-
tion test?
If YES, how much?
Is the $4 fee adequate to cover the cost of the
emission/safety inspection?
If NOT, what should it be?
Does the low fee encourage stations to shorten
ins pections ?
Does the low fee encourage stations to make un-
necessary repairs?
When was the last time a DOT inspector paid you
a visit?
18.5%
22.2%
49.4%
38.3%
81.5%
77.8%
48. 1%
59.2%
How frequently do DOT inspectors check your
station?
OTHER
0-10 - 1.2%
11-20 - 4.9%
21-30 - 30.9%
30-60 - 55.6%
60+ rain. - 4.9%
0-3 - 22.2%
4-5 - 35.8%
5-10 - 21.0%
11+ min. - 19.8%
76.9%
1 hour
$8.82
Range:
$5.00 to $18.00
Today-1%
1 day ago-4.9%
2 days ago-2. 5%
3 days ago-4.9%
1 week ago-44.4%
2 weeks ago-18. 5%
3 weeks ago-12. 3%
1 month ago-6.2%
2 months ago-2.5%
3 months ago-1.2%
Weekly-6.2%
Every two weeks-24. 7%
Evei'y three weeks-9.9%
Monthly-55. 6%
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
79
80
78
81
12
81
59
79
79
79
78
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
GREATER THAN 10% FAILURE RATE (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER
2 Ob
21a
21b
22a
22b
Cf>
QUESTION
How do you perceive the competence of the DOT
inspectors?
Do you issue a failure report with the results
to the owner of a vehicle which has failed the
emissions test?
Do you keep a record of these failures?
Did the voluntary emissions report form pre-
sent any problems to complete?
If in the future, the state requires documen-
tation of the test, how would you improve the
form?
RESPONSE
YES
NO
86.4%
86.4%
39.5%
9.9%
7.4%
58.0%
01'HER
Conpetent-66. 7%
Incompetent-18.5%
Some were and some
we not-11.1%
Delete-13. 6%, Shorten-
29.6%, Consolidate-
13.6%, Wouldn't change-
34.6%, Make it more
specific-1.2%
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
78
78
76
79
75
23
24
25a
What approach would you prefer to the inspec-
tions and repairs?
Does IM interfere with other activities?
What percentage of your IM business is from regu-
lar customers (those who patronize the station -
gas, oil, repairs and routine servicing on a
frequent basis)?
13.6%
85.2%
Inspection by State
owned stations with
private garages
handling the repairs
-24.7%
Inspection by contrac-
tors to the State with
private garages han-
dling the repairs-2.5%
Inspections and repairs
by private garages-
70.4%
0-25 - 1.2%
26-50 - 8.6%
51-75 - 25.9%
75+ - 61.7%
79
80
79
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
GREATER THAN 10% FAILURE RATE (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER QUESTION YES
25b How much of your business comes from emissions
repair work?
26 Has IM been responsible for more business, less
business, or the same amount?
27 Are your inspections more or less stringent now
that the program is mandatory?
RESPONSE
NO OTHER
16.2%
Range: 1-10%
More-58.0%
Same-40. 7%
More-43.2%
Less- 1.2%
Same-55.6%
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
73
80
81
28 Is the industry more lenient with regular cus- 25.9% 72.8%
toraers than with infrequent customers?
29 If you know or feel a customer's registration 6.17% 92.6%
plate will be suspended if you issue a failure
report, will you be more lenient with their
inspection, or more reluctant to fill out a
report?
30 How many people who fail emission inspections
have their repairs performed here?
31 How easy is it for a person to obtain an improper
or "hot sticker" for a car that fails an emis-
sions test or is not inspected?
32a Have you received the Green IM card? 28.4% 71.6%
32b Are you distributing them to your customers? 87.0% 4.3%
32c How useful is the card?
85. 8%
Easy-44.4%
Hard-43.2%
Do not know-12.3%
Useful-60. 9%
Useless-4. 3%
80
80
76
81
81
21
21
-------
00
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
LESS THAN 10% FAILURE RATE*
QUESTION
NUMBER
6a
6b
9a
9b
QUESTION
Respondent is:
Do you feel automotive pollution is a threat to
the health of RI residents?
Do you feel the IH Program is an important step
in curbing auto emissions?
Do you feel the state's training program offered
in the Fall of 1977 on emissions testing adequate-
ly trained you to perform the tests with .confid-
ence and accuracy?
Do you think certain areas of the training program
need more emphasis?
How would you feel about having to take a test
after the course to demonstrate your ability to do
emissions testing before being licensed by the
State?
How would you feel aobut an annual recerti f ication
test?
Do you think courses should be conducted on repair
problems which cause vehicle inspection failure?
Are there any aspects of the emissions testing
program to which you object strongly?
How many qualified people do you have to run the
tests?
Do only personnel who have taken the emissions
testing course conduct emissions tests?
VES
66.7%
77.8%
88.9%
33.3%
72.2%
33.3%
38. 9%
16.7%
RESPONSE
NO
27.8%
22.2%
11.1%
66. 7%
16.7%
61.1%
61.1%
83. T/.
OTHER
Manager-11.1%
Owner-22.2%
Mechanic-27. 8%
Manager-Mechanic-11.1%
Owner-Manage r-
Mechanic-27.8%
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDEHfS
18
2.4 people/station
Range: 1-5 people/station
77.8%
22.2%
17
18
18
18
16
17
18
18
18
18
*Based upon 1978 voluntary emissions inspection program.
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
LESS THAN 10% FAILURE RATE (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER QUESTION
TOTAL
RESPONSE NO.
OF
YES NO OTHER RESPONDENTS
lOa What make and model instrument do you use for
your emissions testing?
lOb What was the cost of the instrument?
lOc How long is the instrument warmed up before you
proceed with the inspection?
lOd How frequently do you calibrate it?
lOe Are you happy with it?
11 On a scale of 1-5, from very easy to very
difficult to use, rate your instrument.
(1 = Very Easy, 5 = Very Difficult)
12 When a car which you failed is passed by the
"Challenge Station" whom would you prefer to
issue the sticker, your garage or the "Chal-
lenge Station"?
13 What do you see as the major cause of exces-
sive auto emissions?
100%
See Appendix C
$1,805.00
Range: $1,000 to $6,000
0-5 - 11.1%
6-10 - 11.1%
11-20 - 16.7%
20+ min. - 44.4%
Left on all day-16.7%
Twice a week-5. 5%
Every test-5. 5%
Every week-88.9%
1 - 77.8%
2 - 11.1%
3 - 11.1%
4-0%
5-0%
Garage-33.3%
Challenge-6l.l%
Poorly tuned engine-38.0%
Malfunctioning emission
control devices-0%
Broken valves/rings-4. 8%
Carburetor-52.4%
Other-4.8%
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
14 If you feel a minor adjustment will allow a
vehicle to pass the emissions test, will you
make the adjustment without having reported
the vehicle as having initially failed?
88.9%
11.1%
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
LESS THAN 10% FAILURE RATE (Continued)
to
o
QUESTION
NUMBER
15a
15b
16
17a
17b
18a
18b
18c
18d
19
20a
2 Ob
QUESTION
How long does it take to perform an emissions
and safety test and record the results?
Emissions only?
What percentage of your inspections are handled
by appointment?
Does the station set a time limit for the inspec-
tion test?
If YES, how much?
Is the $4 fee adequate to cover the cost of the
emission/safety inspection?
If NOT, what should it be?
Does the low fee encourage stations to shorten
inspections?
Does the low fee encourage stations to make un-
necessary repairs?
When was the last time a DOT inspector paid you
a visit?
How frequently do DOT inspectors check your
station?
How do you perceive the competence of the DOT
ins pec tors?
RESPONSE
YES
NO
OTHER
22. 2%
27.1
61.1%
50. 0%
77.1
66.7%
22.2%
33.3%
0-10 - 0%
11-20 - 11.1%
21-30 - 22.2%
30-60 - 55.5%
60+ min. - 11.1%
0-3 - 11.1%
4-5 - 33.3%
5-10 - 27.8%
11+ min. - 27.8%
85.7%
1 hour
$8.82
Range: $6.00 to $20.00
Today-5.6%
1 week ago-33.3%
2 weeks ago-44.4%
3 weeks ago-5.6%
1 month ago-5. 6%
Weekly-11.1%
Every two weeks-27.
Monthly-61 .1%
Ccmpetent-77. 8%
Incompetent-11.1%
Some were and some
were not-11.1%
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
79
18
18
18
3
17
11
15
15
15
78
18
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
LESS THAN 10% FAILURE RATE (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER
21a Do you
to the
RESPONSE
QUESTION YES NO OTHER
issue a failure report with the results 83.3% 5.6%
owner of a vehicle which has failed the
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
16
emissions test?
21b Do you
22a Did the
keep a record of these failures? 83.3% 5.6%
voluntary emissions report form pre- 38.9% 55.6%
16
17
22b
23
24
25a
25b
sent any problems to complete?
If in the future, the state requires documen-
tation of the test, how would you improve the
form?
What approach would you prefer to the inspec-
tions and repairs?
Does IM interfere with other activities?
What percentage of your IM business is from regu-
lar customers (those who patronize the station -
gas, oil, repairs and routine servicing on a
frequent basis)?
How much of your business comes from emissions
repair work?
11.1%
88.9%
Delete-11.1%, Shorten-
22.2%, Consolidate-
16. 7%, Would not
change it-33. 3%
Inspection by State
owned stations with
private garages
handling the repairs
-38.9%
Inspection by contrac-
tors to the State with
private garages han-
dling the repairs-0.0%
Inspections and repairs
by private garages-
61.1%
0-25 - 5.56%
26-50 - 0%
51-75 - 16.7%
75+ - 72.2%
17%
Range: 5-40%
15
18
18
17
17
26 Has IM been responsible for more business, less
business, or the same amount?
More-61.1%
Same-5.6%
Same-2.2%
Do not know-1.1
18
-------
S3
10
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH
LESS THAN 10% FAILURE RATE (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER
27
28
29
30
31
32a
32b
32c
QUESTION
Are your inspections more or less stringent now
that the program is mandatory?
Is the industry more lenient with regular cus-
tomers than with infrequent customers?
If you know or feel a customer's registration
plate will be suspended if you issue a failure
report, will you be more lenient with their
inspection, or more reluctant to fill out a
report?
How many people who fail emission inspections
have their repairs performed here?
How easy is it for a person to obtain an improper
or "hot sticker" for a car that fails an emis-
sions test or is not inspected?
Have you received the Green IM card?
Are you distributing them to your customers?
How useful is the card?
YES
MORE
55.6%
22.2%
33.3%
50.0%
RESPONSE
NO
LESS
44.4%
66.7%
83.3%
66.7%
16.7%
OTHER
86.9%
Easy-33.3%
Hard-55.6%
Useful-50%
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
18
16
15
17
18
18
4
3
-------
TASK II - ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS
General Findings
1. Although 78% of the motor vehicle owners do not have or know anyone
who has an illness aggravated by air pollution, 61% of them would
describe Rhode Island's air quality problem as moderate or severe.
Thirty-nine percent of the people interviewed think the government
is responsible for achieving clean air; 37% think it is primarily
industry's responsibility, and 21% think private citizens should be
most responsible. Industry is viewed as the major contributor to air
pollution by a plurality of those interviewed (46%). Twenty-six
percent of the people think that cars are the major air polluters and
23% think that buses and trucks are.
RECOMMENDATIONS; AN INCREASED PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM SHOULD BE
PREPARED AND IMPLEMENTED. FOCUS SHOULD BE ON AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS
TO SERVE TO ENLIGHTEN THE PUBLIC OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO AIR POLLU-
TION BY DRIVING POORLY MAINTAINED AUTOMOBILES. STRESS SHOULD BE
PLACED ON THE FACT THAT AUTOMOBILES ARE SIGNIFICANT SOURCES OF AIR
POLLUTION AND THAT THE PUBLIC IS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING UP
THE AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM AS ARE INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT. IN ADDI-
TION, THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE MADE AWARE THAT A PROPERLY TUNED VEHICLE
NOT ONLY CONTRIBUTES LESS TO AIR POLLUTION, BUT ALSO IS MORE ECONOMI-
CAL TO OPERATE DUE TO MORE EFFICIENT COMBUSTION.
2. Ninety-two percent feel the $4 is entirely reasonable. Some believe
the inspections should be free of charge, while others are willing to
pay any charge to a maximum of $50.
3. Only two respondents resent the government's involvement in this
program and think that the government should place more pressure on
automobile manufacturers to design cars with lower air pollution
potential rather than placing the burden on the public.
4. The majority of the people brought their cars to their regularly
patronized garage and feel that the people conducting the inspec-
tions are competent. Of the two-hundred and ninety-two responses,
seventy-two owners (25%) had not had their automobiles inspected
since the I/M program became effective on January 1, 1979. Half of
the respondents would not offer reasons; the majority of the remain-
ing respondents had legitimate reasons such as: ignorance of the
program, having just purchased a car and their inspection time not
being due yet (see Table 10).
5. Eighty-one percent of the respondents whose cars had been inspected
by the time of the survey had taken their automobiles to a garage
less .than five miles from their residence. Sixty-nine percent took
23
-------
their cars to their regular garages. Of the people who had their
cars inspected, 95% passed the test the first time. An average of
1.4 inspections were needed for the cars that had failed initially.
Four and one-half percent of the motor vehicle owners interviewed
reported their cars failed the first inspection. This figure is low
when compared with the overall failure rate of 21% obtained by EPA in
1978 and may be attributable to the inspection garage people making
the minor repairs on vehicles which fail.
RECOMMENDATIONS; THE LOWER THAN PREVIOUSLY REPORTED FAILURE RATE
OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC ASSESSMENT (4.5% AS OPPOSED TO
21%) SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY THE STATE.
Program Support Findings
1. Respondents (approximately 10%) have commented that they are happy
to see the government taking a role in reducing automobile-related
air pollution.
2. Eighty-six percent of the respondents were aware of the mandatory
emissions/safety inspection program. The majority of the motor
vehicle owners (88%) feel that automobile tests are important.
Program Obstacles Findings
1. The majority of the people interviewed were unaware of the existence
and purpose of the Challenge Station.
RECOMMENDATIONS: THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
SHOULD PUBLICIZE THE CHALLENGE STATION FURTHER. SINCE IT IS
DESIGNED TO BE A CONSUMER SAFEGUARD, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC
BE MADE AWARE OF ITS EXISTENCE.
2. The presently scheduled Challenge Station operating hours are not
convenient for 45.2% of the motor vehicle owners questioned. Of
these, 23.5% prefer that evening hours be added and 16.3% prefer that
Saturday hours be made available for the rete.sts.
RECOMMENDATIONS; THE CHALLENGE STATION HOURS SHOULD BE EXPANDED ON
A TRIAL BASIS TO INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE EVENING PER WEEK AND/OR SATUR-
DAY MORNINGS.
24
-------
3. Eighty-eight percent of the public interviewed thought the Challenge
Station should issue stickers.
RECOMMENDATIONS: THE CHALLENGE STATION SHOULD ISSUE THE STICKERS TO
CARS THAT DO PASS THE INSPECTIONS THERE.
4. Fourteen percent of the motor vehicle owners were not aware that
their auto emissions had to be tested. Of the 86% who were aware,
54% learned of the requirement through mass media - radio, tv and
newspapers.
RECOMMENDATIONS; AN OFFICIAL AND UNIFORM MEANS OF NOTIFICATION FOR
THE I/M INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. THIS COULD BE ACCOM-
PLISHED IN CONJUNCTION WITH REGISTRATION NOTICES.
5. A substantial portion of the public was not aware that emissions
tune-ups also would save them gasoline.
RECOMMENDATIONS; THE PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN SHOULD STRESS THE
ENERGY CONSERVATION ASPECTS OF I/M.
Table 4 summarizes the interview responses of the motor vehicle owners.
Appendix E contains a summary of comments made by the motor vehicle owners when
asked about their likes and dislikes for suggestions to the I/M program.
25
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS
CONFIDENCE
RESPONSE INTERVAL
QUESTION AT 95%
NUMBER QUESTION YES NO OTHER LEVEL
1 Do you own and drive a registered automobile? 100%
2 What year model is it? 1979-3.1%
1977-78-19.2%
1973-76-40.8%
1970-72-24.3%
Earlier than 1970-13.7%
3a What is the car's average annual mileage? 10,000
3b What is the car's average present mileage? 44,000
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
292
295
260
SJ
7a
7b
Are you aware that your car's exhaust must be
tested for air pollution? If yes:
How did you become aware of the emissions
inspection program?
85.6%
14.4%
Do you think that exhaust emissions tests on
automobiles are important?
Has your car been inspected since January of
this year? If no, why not?
If yes:
Did you get the results?
Would you like to know the results of the
test?
How far did you travel for the emission test?
What is the maximum distance you should have
to travel for this test?
87.5%
76.7%
57.9%
47.1%
8.7%
23.3%
26.2%
10.8%
By having car
inspected-26%
Word of mouth-10.4%
Newspaper-34.4%
Gas station-10.4%
Radio-9.6%
TV-10.4%
DOT notice-8.8%
Other-4.4%
Don't car-8.8%
See Table 10
Less than 5 miles-81%
5-10 miles-10.4%
10-15 miles-9.0%
More than 15 miles-1.8%
Avg. of 6.9 miles
.875 + .032
.767 + .048
.579 +
.471 +
.051
.041
292
292
288
186
150
207
159
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS (Continued)
QUESTION
NUMBER
8a
8b
QUESTION
Did your car pass or fail the initial test?
If the car failed, how many tests were required
RESPONSE
YES NO OTHER
P-95%, P-4.5%
Av. of 1.4
CONFIDENCE TOTAL
INTERVAL NO.
AT 95% OF
LEVEL RESPONDENTS
220
10
before the car passed?
9a Have you ever suspected that unnecessary 10.9%
repairs were made on your car as a result of
an inspection?
9b If your car was adjusted to pass the test, 5.6%
have you had any problems with the car's
performance?
N5 10 Do you think that the State should set a limit
for repairs costs to get the car to pass the
inspection?
11 Do you think it's possible for someone to get 77.7%
a sticker for a car that failed the test?
12a Was the inspection conducted at a garage which
you patronize, frequently, infrequently or
never?
12b Do you feel that the inspection personnel 90.0%
were competent?
13a Do you think the $4 inspection fee is reason- 92.2%
able?
13b What is the most you should have to pay for
the inspection?
13c Do you think the $4 fee is so low that it 27.6%
encourages stations to shorten inspections?
14 Do you think the inspection program has 50.2%
increased the problem of auto repair fraud
of unnecessary repairs?
85.0%
56.4%
55.0% 37.7%
17.7%
6.8%
58.5%
Frequently-69.4%
Infrequently-21.5%
Never-7.3%
Do not know-5.4%
Avg.-$5.20
Range $0.00 to $50.00
Do not know-13.9%
.109 + .017
.056 + .023
.055 + .019
.777 + .049
33.6% Do not know-16.2%
.9 + .009
.922 + .033
.276 + .053
.502 + .055
211
136
204
210
215
189
217
195
187
217
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS (Continued)
RESPONSE
QUESTION
NUMBER
15
CO
16
17a
17b
18a
18b
19
20
QUESTION
YES
NO
How long did you have to wait to have your car
inspected?
How long did the actual inspection take?
Several states have had the inspection program
working for some time. Some states have found
that state-run inspection stations are effec-
tive while others are satisfied with the work
of private contractors or independent garages.
If you had a choice, who would you rather have
your car inspected by?
Would you feel more protected if the testing
was separated from repair work?
Are you aware of the state run "Challenge
Station" where you can double check the results
of a garage inspection?
If you wanted to get your car checked by a
"Challenge Station" would it be convenient
for you to get there between 7:30 a.m. to
3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday?
Do you think the "Challenge Station" should
issue the sticker if you pass the test,
rather than having to go back to the inspec-
tion garage?
Do you think that 14 days is enough time to
have your car repaired and re tested?
48.8%
27.6%
52.5%
71%
41.9%
71.0%
45.2%
9.2%
27.6%
OTHER
Done immediately-15.7%
Less than 15 min-.9%
15 min to 1/2 hour-4.1%
1/2 hr to 1 hr-5.1%
More than 1 hr-5.5%
Left the car the day-
62.2%
15 min or less-6.5%
15 min to 1/2 hr-=12.0%
1/2 hr to 1 hr-9.2%
Long than 1 hr-9.2%
Do not know-63.1%
State-run garage-13.8%
Private garage-68.7%
A 3rd party hired by
the state that would
not make repairs-15.2%
Other times:
Open on Saturday-
16.3%
Open evenings-23.5%
Open early morning-1%
CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL
AT 95%
LEVEL
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
217
217
212
.488 + .06
.176 + .059
.525 + .077
.88 + .0-38
.71 + .059
174
214
212
40
211
214
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS (Continued)
CONFIDENCE
RESPONSE INTERVAL
QUESTION AT 95%
NUMBER QUESTION YES NO OTHER LEVEL
21a Do you, a relative or anyone you know have a res- 20. 4% 77.6% .204 + .053
TOTAL
NO.
OF
RESPONDENTS
221
piratory illness aggravated by air pollution?
21b Who do you think is most responsible for cleaning
up the air?
21c What do you think contributes most to air pollu-
tion?
22 How would you describe the seriousness of Rhode
Island's air quality problem?
23 Do you believe that the Inspection Maintenance
Program will save you money by increasing gas
mileage as well as decreasing air pollution?
24 This program has been labeled "improved." Do
you think that this year's inspection system
is better than last year's.
25 What do you like and dislike about the program?
26a If you had to classify your household income
before taxes, would it be:
26b What is your age?
26c What is your occupation?
52.1%
34.7%
Private citizen-20.7%
Industry-37.4%
Government-38.9%
Cars-26.4%
Buses & trucks-23.3%
Industry-45.8%
Other-2.8%
No problem-9.5%
Slight problem-24.9%
Moderate problem-46.5%
Severe problem-14.5%
Better-33.8%
Same-35.1%
Worse-2.3%
Do not know-28.8%
See Appendix E
0-$9,999-20.6%
$10,000-19,999-29%
$20,000-49,999-13.1%
Above $50,000-3.3%
Avg. 46 years
See Table 11
.521 + .060
221
221
187
219
219
119
181
-------
SECTION 3
METHODOLOGY
GENERAL
Questionnaires for the motor vehicle inspection station personnel and the
motor vehicle owners attitudinal assessments were drafted incorporating the
directions, data, and information of the EPA and the Rhode Island Lung Associa-
tion. The questionnaires were revised according to the comments and sugges-
tions offered by the EPA Task Officer, the Rhode Island Lung Association, the
Rhode Island Department of Transportation and the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Protection personnel prior to conducting preliminary interviews.
Preliminary interviews were conducted for both tasks. Ten were conducted
for the inspection station personnel and thirty were conducted for the motor
vehicle owners. The purpose of the preliminary interviews was to evaluate the
questions for clarity, to screen ambiguous ones, to identify areas which had
not been covered and to assess the types of responses interviewers could expect
in order to refine the questionnaires for responsive and comprehensive inter-
views. When the preliminary interviews were completed, final revisions were
incorporated in the questionnaires and the principal interviews were con-
ducted.
Appendices A and D contain finalized copies of the questionnaires.
TASK I - ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL
A master list of the Rhode Island Inspection stations was obtained from
the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. A team of two TRC Technical
Specialists randomly chose ten Providence, R.I. inspection stations from that
list for preliminary interviews and conducted the interviews on April 5 and 6,
1979. After the questionnaire underwent a final revision, teams of TRC Techni-
cal Specialists conducted ninety-nine interviews of inspection station
personnel. A three-member team conducted fifty-eight interviews from Tuesday
to Friday during the week beginning April 8, 1979. The following week a two
member team conducted forty-one interviews from Monday through Friday.
The DOT List contained the names, addresses and station numbers of the
Rhode Island Motor Vehicle Inspection Stations. It was numerically sequential
by station numbers but random with respect to the municipal location of the
stations.
30
-------
The EPA furnished a list, compiled under a data management contract, of
the stations which had participated in the 1978 voluntary emissions program.
The listing did not indicate station names or towns but did provide statisti-
cally summarized data on the vehicles inspected in the 1978 program and their
emissions.
The EPA list was used to segregate the stations on the DOT listing
according to the approximately 20% which had failed less than 10% of the
vehicles which they had inspected for emissions in 1978 and the approximately
80% of those which failed 10% or more during the 1978 program.
To achieve the targeted number of ninety principal interviews, a
systematic selection procedure was used after separating the categories of
less than 10% and greater than 10% failure rates. The target number of ninety
interviews was selected as a sample size which would meet temporal and manpower
allotments for conducting the assessments, fulfill all statistical analytical
requirements and be representative of the population mean and population vari-
ances. Every fifth station under 10% and every eighth station over 10% was
selected from the DOT listing for the principal interviews. This provided a
selection of 107 stations for the ninety required interviews.
The interview teams attempted to conduct interviews at the stations which
were initially selected. They found that approximately 20% of the stations
which they visited were unable or unwilling to answer their questions. In
these cases, the interviewers referred to their TRC prepared list of the number
of stations in that town and the DOT listing of their addresses. They
attempted to interview the station nearest to the original selection. If one
or two attempts at locating an alternative station in the vicinity proved
unfruitful, the interviewer proceeded to the next primary selection on his
list.
If the fifth or eighth station turned out to be a station which had been
visited during the preliminary interviews, the next station on the listing was
substituted.
In the case where the refusing station was a 10% or less station, the
interviewer consulted his TRC and DOT lists to locate another 10% or less
station in the same town. Most of the times the interviewers were able to
locate an alternative station within a few miles of the original station.
Table 5 lists the number of stations visited per town.
TASK II - ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS
A team of four TRC staff members conducted thirty preliminary interviews
on April 3 and 4, 1979. During the weeks beginning April 8, 15 and 22, 1979,
the principal interviews were accomplished by telephone interviews of a random
sample of Rhode Island motor vehicle owners. The number of people whose
automobiles were to have undergone the combination emissions and safety
31
-------
TABLE 5. STATIONS VISITED PER TOWN
NUMBER OF
TOWN STATIONS INTERVIEWED
Providence 16 (3)
East Providence 10
North Providence 2
Cranston 11 (3)
Pawtucket 6
Central Falls 3
Cumberland 3 (1)
Lincoln 2
Middletown 5 (1)
Warwick 12 (3)
Barrington 2 (1)
Bristol 1 (1)
Conventry 1
Chepaquet 1
East Greenwich 1
Hopkinton 1
Johnston 5 (4)
Kenyon 1
North Kingston 5 (1)
Newport 1
Oakland 1
Pascoag 1
Tiverton 4
Wakefield 1
Westerly 2
Woonsocket 3 (1)
West Warwick 6
( ) - Parenthetical number indicates number of stations in that town where
interviews were conducted that had a emissions inspection failure rate
of less than 10% in the 1978 voluntary emissions inspection program.
32
-------
inspections since January 1, 1979 was limited to those people whose last names
began with H through L.
The total number of interviews to be conducted was decided to be 300 +_ 10.
The number of calls, 300, is a standard sample size employed for opinion
assessments. The number is large enough to fulfill all analytical statistical
requirements and be representative of the population mean and the population
variances. A proportional number of telephone interviews were allocated to
each Rhode Island city or town in proportion to the state population. This is
termed "proportional stratified sampling." Population figures for Rhode
Island were obtained from the most recent Census of Population published by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 6 shows the projected and actual call
distributions for the cities/towns in the survey. Random sampling without
replacement was used to generate the pages to be used from the Rhode Island
telephone directories. This sampling method involved the use of a random
number table (included in Appendix G) for page selection. The first page with
names beginning with H was designated page one; the remaining pages were
consecutively numbered. Once a page was selected using the random number
table, it was removed from use. In other words, one page was used for call
selection only once; it was not returned to the "pool" of numbers.
The individuals selected for participation in the attitude assessment
were obtained by a systematic selection procedure. Every tenth name on the
randomly selected page was called. The telephone was allowed to ring seven
times. If no one answered, the number was noted and if time allowed, it was
called again that evening. If the line was busy, it also was noted for a call
back if time allowed. Business numbers were excluded. In these three cases,
the next tenth name was called for a response.
Approximately 1,200 calls were placed in order to obtain the required 300
+ 10 responses. The calls were placed between 4:30 and 9:30 p.m., Mondays
through Thursdays, in order to get maximum participation. An average of seven
positive responses was obtained per interviewer per evening. Nine TRC staff
members participated over the three weeks as telephone interviewers.
33
-------
TABLE 6. PROJECTED AND ACTUAL TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS DISTRIBUTION BY TOWN
TOWN
NEWPORT
Jamestown
MiddleCown
Portsmouth
NARRAGANSETT
Kingston
Richmond
Wakefield
Wickford
WESTERLY
Charlestown
Hopkinton
PAWTUCKET
Central Falls
Cumberland
Lincoln
WOONSOCKET
Glocester
Burrillville
Manville
Pascoag
PROVIDENCE
Cranston
East Providence
Foster
Johnston
North Providence
Sraichfield
Scituate
Harrington
Bristol
Warren
Coventry
East Greenwich
Warwick
West Warwick
TOTAL
POPULATION
34,562
2,911
29,290
12,521
7,138
11,200
2,625
3,300
29,793
17,248
1,966
5,392
76,983
18,716
26,605
16,182
46,820
5,160
10,087
3,100
3,332
179,116
74,287
48,207
2,626
22,037
24,337
13,468
7,489
17,554
17,860
10,523
22,947
9,577
83,694
24,323
DISTRIBUTION
FOR
300 RESPONSES
13
1
11
5
4
1
1
10
1
2
24
6
15
2
3
1
1
57
23
15
1
7
8
4
3
6
6
3
7
3
27
300
ACTUAL
NUMBER OF
RESPONSES
13
3
6
1
4
1
1
10
2
2
24
6
87
6
15
1
0
1
1
58
21
15
2
3
4
4
3
6
6
3
10
4
27
292
34
-------
SECTION 4
DISCUSSION
GENERAL
The questionnaire lengths were a little longer than ideal in terms of the
overall time it took to administer them, but the information on them was felt
to be essential and comprehensive. Some station personnel and vehicle owners
did impatiently query the number of remaining questions about one-half to
three-quarters of the way through some interviews. But in most cases, once the
interviews were begun the respondents continued to answer the questions to the
conclusion.
The inspection station personnel questionnaire, with a total of fifty-two
desired responses, required forty-five minutes to complete on the average; the
respondents frequently had to interrupt the interviews to attend to customers.
The motor vehicle owner questionnaire, with forty-four desired responses,
required twenty minutes on the average to answer.
The questionnaires were drafted by TRC and reviewed by EPA, RILA, DOT and
DEM. They were revised once after the agency reviews and a second time after
the preliminary assessments. The revisions included dropping some questions
and/or repositioning, rewording, expanding and segmenting others. Questions
were deleted when they appeared biased or when the information they were
soliciting was being provided in the response to another question. The other
revisions provided clarity to ambiguous questions, easier responses to
multiple choice questions, and consideration of the general public's level of
awareness of terms such as "emissions" and "compliance." As an example of
consideration to terms, one question, "Are you aware that your car's exhaust
emissions must be tested?" was changed to "Are you aware that your car's
exhaust must be tested for air pollution?"
Through the revisions, the number of questions on the motor vehicle owner
assessment questionnaire was increased from 22 to 25; on the inspection station
personnel assessment questionnaire the number was increased from 28 to 34.
Tabulation and Analysis of Results
In the tabulation of responses (Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10) some of the
responses total slightly less than 100%. The reason for this apparent discrep-
ancy is that some respondents chose not to respond to a particular question or
section.
35
-------
TABLE 7. CHI2 COMPUTATIONS FOR SELECTED QUESTIONS FROM THE MOTOR
VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION NO. x
13 Major cause of
excessive emissions 20.75
15a Duration of emis-
sions and safety
test 6.2
22a Problems with
voluntary report
form 2.75
13 Major cause of
excessive emissions 2.71
15a Duration of emis-
sions and safety
test 2.5
15b Duration of emis-
sions test only 2.8
22a Problems with
voluntary report
form 5.8
Degrees Of SIGNIFICANCE CONSIDERED
Freedom
12
12
LEVEL
.0555
,9048
,6044
.447
.648
.433
.01683
PARAMETER
Occupation
Occupation
Occupation
Failure
Failure
% Failure
% Failure
36
-------
TABLE 8. CHI2 COMPUTATIONS FOR SELECTED QUESTIONS FROM THE
MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT
Degrees Of
QUESTION NO. X2 Freedom
10 Limit
costs
13a $4 fee
10 Limit
costs
13a $4 fee
on repair
2.8
reasonable .831
on repair
4.3
reasonable 3.4
3
3
4
4
SIGNIFICANCE
LEVEL
.4663
.8413
.438
.4878
CONSIDERED
PARAMETER
Income
Income
Age
Age
37
-------
TABLE 9. COMPARISON OF RESPONSES OF SIGNIFICANCE FROM INSPECTION STATION
PERSONNEL AT STATIONS WITH >10% AND <10% FAILURE RATES
QUESTION _ _
NUMBER QUESTION YES NO OTHER TOTAL YES NO OTHER TOTAL
4 Do you feel the state's training pro-
gram offered in the Fall of 1977 on
emissions testing adequately trained
you to perform the tests with confi-
dence and accuracy? 80.2% 16.0% 78 38.9% 11.1% 18
5 Do you think certain areas of the
training program need more emphasis? 46.2% 53.8% 78 33.3% 66.7% 18
8 Are there any aspects of the emissions
testing program to which you object
strongly? 29.6% 70.4% 81 16.7% 83.3% 18
lOb What was the cost of the instrument? $2,224 (avg) 78 $1,805 (avg) 18
lOe Are you happy with it? 84.0% 16.0% 81 100%
18c Does the low fee encourage stations
to shorten inspections? 49.4% 48.1% 79 61.1% 22.2%
00
18d Does the low fee encourage stations
to make unnecessary repairs? 38.3% 59.2% 79 50.0% 33.3%
25a What percentage of your I/M business 0-25 1.2% 0-25 5.56%
is from regular customers (those who 26-50 5.6% 26-50 0.00% 15
partronize the station-gas, oil, 51-75 25.9% 51-75 16.7% 15
repairs and routine servicing on a 75+ 61.7% 75+ 72.2%
frequent basis)?
-------
TABLE 10. MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER SURVEY, QUESTION #6
REASONS FOR NOT HAVING CAR INSPECTED
Not due yet
Have just been putting it off
Don't know about the program
Have a new car
Don't consider it important
To be inspected tomorrow
Car is registered out of state
TOTAL
NO. OF
RESPONSES
9
1
14
13
4
1
2
44
% OF TOTAL
OF 70 VEHICLES
NOT INSPECTED
12.86
1.43
20.00
18.57
5.71
1.43
2.86
39
-------
A confidence interval at the 95% level was computed for most of the
questions in the tables. The confidence interval is a range of values "...
with a stated degree of confidence that this stated range of values does
include the value of the true mean of the population being sampled."
Chi-square tests were made for certain selected questions to see if there
were any differences in responses to the telephone interviews based upon occu-
pation or income. For the inspection station personnel interviews chi-square
tests were made to determine if the position of the respondent as owner,
manager, mechanic or any combination of those categories had a bearing upon the
responses. The tests were also made to see if there was a difference between
the stations with less than 10% failures and those with greater than 10%
failures. (See Tables 7 and 8.) The chi-square test is used "... to evaluate
whether or not frequencies which have been empirically obtained differ signif-
icantly from those which would be expected under a certain set of theoretical
assumptions."2
Only Questions 13 and 22A of the inspection station personnel assessments
had chi-square test results that were significant. Their respective
chi-squares indicate that by chance 5.5% of the time in response to Question 13
and .6% of the time in response to Question 22A would you expect that the
responses that were obtained in the assessment. For Question 13, "What do you
see as the major cause of excessive auto emissions?,
Poorly tuned engine
Malfunctioning emissions control devices
Carburetor
"Other,"
\J ^LIC A. •
the respondents' position as an "owner," "manager," "mechanic," "owner-
manager-mechanic" or "manager-mechanic" apears to affect the response to the
question.
For Question 22A, "Did the voluntary emissions report form present any
problem to complete?", the fact that the respondent was working at a station
with a lower than 10% failure rate or a higher than 10% failure rate appears to
be a factor.
For purposes of analysis, the preliminary questionnaire responses were
dropped from the analysis because of the extent of the changes made to the
questions for the principal interviews.
1Woodrow W. Wyatt and Charles M. Bridges, Statistics For The Behavioral
Sciences. Boston: D.C. Hath and Company, 1966, Pg. No. 105.
2Hubert M. Blalock, Jr. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1972, Pg. No. 275.
40
-------
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
When the responses of the 10% or less stations were compared with the
stations which had a greater than 10% failure rate, some differences were
noticed which, for operational or attitudinal reasons, may account for overall
differences in the cars passed. (See Table 9.)
A small percentage (88%) of the personnel at stations with failure rates
above 10% felt that their 1977 emissions testing training was adequate compared
to 89% of the personnel at stations with failure rates below 10%. Thirteen
percent more of the high-failure station personnel felt certain areas of the
training program needed more emphasis and 13% more of the same group had
objections to some aspects of the training program.
The stations with the greater than 10% failure rates paid, on the average,
$400 more for their analyzers than did the lower-failure stations. In spite of
the higher costs, 16% of their numbers expressed dissatisfaction with the
analyzers as opposed to no expression of analyzer dissatisfaction from the
other group.
Twelve percent less of the personnel at high-failure stations compared
with personnel at low failure stations feel that the low fee encourages
shortened inspections and unnecessary repairs.
Eleven percent more of the stations with the lower failure rates derive
75% or more of their I/M business from regular customers than the higher
failure rate stations.
A common sentiment among the station personnel who felt that "hot
stickers" were available was that although they did not know personally where
to obtain them they felt "hot stickers" were available from the cars they had
seen on the road with valid stickers and apparently non-compliant emissions
spewing from their exhaust systems.
It appears from the assessment that publicity should be increased for the
Challenge Station. Only 27.6% of people questioned were aware of its existence
and purpose. Eighty-eight percent of those interviewed were of the opinion
that the Challenge Station should issue the sticker rather than having the
motorist return to the original inspection station.
The recommendation that an official and uniform means of notification for
the I/M inspections should be implemented stems from the facts that a signfi-
cant portion, 14%, of the motoring public was unaware of the inspection
requirement and that only 35% of the motor vehicle owners who knew of the
inspection requirement learned of it through official channels — 9% from a DOT
notification and 26% from having had their cars inspected during the 1978
voluntary program. The remaining 65% learned of the program through a variety
of sources with newspapers providing notification for 34%.
41
-------
The recommendation of initiating an inspection fee study is based upon the
responses of 75% of the inspection station personnel who feel that the fee is
inadequate to cover the costs of the inspections. Although 95% of the motor
vehicle operators were satisfied with the current fee they were willing to pay,
on the average, an amount increased to $5.20. The average amount that the
inspection personnel wanted the fee increased to was $8.40. Those personnel
who volunteered comments on the amount want to recover the costs of the
analyzer and the expense for the time of a qualified mechanic to conduct the
tests. Two inspection personnel who felt the fee was adequate commented that
repairs usually compensated for the fee. The public comments on the fee were a
range of willingness to pay as much as fifty dollars to the expressed opinion,
in several cases, that the inspection should be free.
METHODOLOGY, TASK I - ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION
STATION PERSONNEL
Ninety-nine inspection station personnel were interviewed, nineteen at
stations with a less than 10% failure rate and eighty at stations with a
greater than 10% failure rate. The interviews covered personnel at eighty-two
service stations, eleven new-car dealerships, five autobody shops and one tire
wholesaler. Sixteen of the inspection stations were Class A (authorized to
inspect vehicles over and under 8,000 Ibs.) and eighty-four were Class B
(authorized to inspect vehicles under 8,000 Ibs). Stations in twenty-seven
towns were visited to complete the interviews.
The reason for identifying and targeting a proportionate number of
stations which had failed 10% or less of their cars for emissions during the
1978 voluntary emissions inspection program was because this was identified as
one of the program's problem areas by the RILA. A fact sheet which they had
published indicated that 19% of the inspection stations in 1978 had a failure
rate of 10% or less while the overall failure rate was 21%.
The stations selected for the preliminary interviews were all in the
Providence area, and were selected on an arbitrary basis. This was done to
insure that as many of the ten preliminary interviews could be completed in the
two days allotted for them.
METHODOLOGY, TASK II - ATTITUDINAL ASSESSMENTS OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS
Approximately 1,200 telephone calls were placed to obtain two-hundred
ninety-two positive responses to the public opinion I/M questionnaire.
Thirty-five cities and towns were used in the survey to obtain opinions from
rural, suburban and urban populations. Because of the unavailability of a DOT
list of motor vehicle owners, telephone directories were used for the selection
process. The number of calls per city/town was allocated in proportion to the
population. The distribution of calls was not realized for seven cities/towns
due to the random distribution of cities and towns in the telephone direc-
tories. In some cases, additional towns were called;in other cases, extra
42
-------
calls were made to several cities and towns to compensate for the ones with
fewer than projected responses. People who had not had their cars inspected
for the reasons listed in Table 10 were not asked to complete the entire
questionnaire; they were asked only to complete Questions 1 through 6.
Ages of people interviewed ranged from twenty years to eighty-three years
with the average age of forty-six. The majority of the people interviewed had
gross annual incomes in the 0 to $20,000 ranges. A full range of occupations
was sampled - from students to unemployed people to professional people to
retirees (see Table 11). Professional and retired people had the most respon-
ses, with eighteen and sixteen percent, respectively. A plurality, approxi-
mately 41 percent of the people interviewed, drive automobiles in the 1973-76
model year range. Annual mileages ranged from 1,000 to 35,000 miles. The
maximum distance people were willing to travel for the inspection ranged from
0 miles to 40 miles. The maximum fee for the inspection that people were
willing to pay ranged from no charge to $50. Appendix F contains the list of
automobile types owned by the respondents.
43
-------
TABLE 11. OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS
OCCUPATIONAL TYPE # %
Student 5 2.3
Unemployed 5 2.3
Unskilled Labor 16 7.5
Skilled Labor 30 14.0
Clerical 29 13.6
Self-Employed 28 13.1
Businessman 16 7.5
Professional 39 18.2
Craftsman 6 2.8
Retired 35 16.4
44
-------
APPENDIX A
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION
PERSONNEL QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
This attitude assessment is being conducted by TRC through the U.S. EPA Region I Office for the Rhode Island Lung
Association. TRC will maintain the confidentiality of the responses by reporting results in summary form to the
Rhode Island Lung Association. RILA Contacts - Bob Jones or Kim Allsup - Phone 401-421-6487
1. Respondent is: managet
; mechanic
manager-mechanic
; owner-manager-mechanic
2. Do you feel automotive pollution is a threat to the health of RI residents?
Yes
No
Comment:
3. Do you feel the IM program is an important step in curbing auto emissions?
Yes No Comment:
Station #
Station
Classification
Station Address
(Street & Town)
Date
Time
Interviewer
4. Do you feel the state's training program offered in the Fall of 1977 on emissions testing adequately trained
you to perform the tests with confidence and accuracy?
Yes
No
Comment:
5. Do you think certain areas of the training program need more emphasis?
Yes No If Yes, what are they?
6A. How would you feel about having to take a test after the course to demonstrate your ability to do emissions
testing before being licensed by the state? Comment:
D. How would you feel about an annual recertification test? Comment:
7. Do you think courses should be conducted on repair problems which cause vehicle inspection failure?
Yes No Comment:
8. Are they any aspects of the emissions testing program to which you object strongly?
Yes No Comment:
-1-
-------
9A How many qualified people do you have to run the testa?
B. Do only personnel who have taken the emissions testing course conduct emissions tests?
Yes Ho Comment:
10A What make and model of instrument do you use for your emissions testing?
B What was the cost of the instrument?
C How long is the instrument warmed up before you proceed witli the inspection?
0-5 ; 6-10 ; 11-20 ; 20+ minutes Left on au day
D How frequently do you calibrate it?
E Are you happy with it? Yes No Comment:
11. On a scale of 1-5, from very easy to very difficult to use, rate your instrument?
1 2 3 4 5
-P-
12. When a car which you failed is passed by the "Challenge Station" whom would you prefer to issue the
sticker, your garage or the "Challenge Station"?
13. What do you see as the major cause of excessive auto emissions?
Poorly tuned engine
Malfunctioning emissions control devices
Broken valves/rings
Carburetor
Other
14. If you feel a minor adjustment will allow a vehicle to pass the emissions test, will you make the adjustment
without having reported the vehicle as having initially failed?
Yes No
]5A How long does it take to perform an emissions and safety test and record the results?
0-10 ; 11-20 ; 21-30 ; 30-60 ; 60+ minutes
B Emissions only? 0-3 ; Minutes 4-5 ; 5-10 ; 11+ minutes
-2-
-------
16. What percentage of your inspections are handled by appointment?
Comment:
17A Does the station set a time limit for the inspection test?
Yes No
B If yes, how much? ^^__^^^^_^^^^
18. Is the $4.00 fee adequate to cover the cost of the emission/safety inspection?
Yes No
If not, what should it be? Comment:
Does the low fee encourage stations to shorten inspections?
Does the low fee encourage stations to make unnecessary repairs? Comment:
19. When was the last time a DOT Inspector paid you a visit?
Comment:
-P~ 20A How frequently do DOT inspectors check your station? Comment:
B How do you perceive the competence of the DOT inspectors ? Comment:
21A Do you issue a failure report with the results to the owner of a vehicle which has failed the emissions
test?
Yes No Comment:
B Do you keep a record of these failures?
Yes No Comment:
22A Did the voluntary emissions report form present any problems to complete? Comment:
B If In the future, the state requires documentation of the test, how would you improve the form? Comment:
-3-
-------
23. What approach would you prefer to the Inspections and repairs?
a. Inspection by State-owned stations with private garages handling the repairs?
b. Inspection by contractors to the state with private garages handling the repairs?
c. Inspections and repairs by private garages?
Comment:
24. Does IM interfere with other activities? Yes No Comment:
2SA What percentage of your IM business is from regular customers (those who patronize the
station-gas, oil, repairs and routine servicing on a frequent basis)?
0-25 ; 26-50 ; 51-75 ; 75+%
B How much of your business comes from emissions repair work?
26. Has IM been responsible for more business, less business or the same amount?
Comment:
27. Are your inspections more or less stringent now that the program is mandatory?
More ; Less ; Same
28. Is the industry more lenient with regular customers than with Infrequent customers?
Yes _____ No
29. If you know or feel a customer's registration plate will be suspended if you issue a failure report,
will you be more lenient with their Inspection, or more reluctant to fill out a report?
Yes No Comment:
30. How easy is It for a person to obtain an improper or "hot sticker" for a car that fails an emissions
test or is not inspected? Comment:
31. How many people who fail emissions inspections have their repairs performed here?
32A Have you received the Green IM card? Yes No
B Are you distributing them to your customers? Yes No
C. How useful is the card? Comment:
-4-
-------
33. Is there anything else you would like to comment on? Comment:
34. Interviewer's Comments:
-5-
-------
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS BY MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL
51
-------
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS BY MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION PERSONNEL
5. DO YOU THINK CERTAIN AREAS OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM NEED MORE EMPHASIS?
Yes No If yes , what are they?
• One respondent believes that the training program needs more
emphasis on fuel injection.
« Three respondents think the training program should dwell more on
running and setting analyzers.
• Three respondents feel that the training program should cover every-
thing more thoroughly. They feel that not enough time was spent to
make the program worthwhile.
• Two respondents feel review courses after the original training
program would be helpful.
• Three respondents would like to see the training course put more
emphasis on maintenance problems and what to do about them.
6a. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT HAVING TO TAKE A TEST AFTER THE COURSE TO
DEMONSTRATE YOUR ABILITY TO DO EMISSIONS TESTING BEFORE BEING LICENSED BY
THE STATE? COMMENT:
• Twenty respondents feel a test after taking the training course to
demonstrate their ability to do emissions testing before they could
be licensed by the state would be unnecessary. They said that they
are already licensed mechanics and the Department of Transportation
is always checking.
• Forty-nine respondents wouldn't mind demonstrating their ability to
do the emissions testing before being licensed by the state.
• Ten respondents feel that being tested to demonstrate their ability
to do emissions testing before being licensed by the state is neces-
sary.
• One respondent does not see how you can be tested on the training
course when it is only four hours long.
52
-------
6b. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT AN ANNUAL RECERTIFICATION TEST? COMMENT:
• Forty-nine respondents feel an annual recertification test to demon-
strate their ability to do emissions testing would not be necessary.
• Ten respondents think it would be too much of a bother to take a
recertification test to demonstrate their ability to do emissions
testing every year.
• Eleven respondents think an annual recertification test to
demonstrate their ability to do emissions testing is necessary.
• Twenty-one would agree to taking an annual recertification test to
demonstrate their ability to do emissions testing.
• Three respondents think a recertification test every two or three
years would be better.
8. ARE THERE ANY ASPECTS OF THE EMISSIONS TESTING PROGRAM TO WHICH YOU OBJECT
STRONGLY?
• One respondent objects to unlicensed garages being certified in the
emissions testing program.
• One respondent objects to paying for the gas to calibrate the
analyzer to do the emissions testing. He thinks that the state
should pay for it.
• Four respondents object to the large investment in the analyzer
which is necessary for the emissions testing program and its upkeep.
• Two respondents object to the fact that it is so easy to cheat on the
emissions test.
• One respondent objects to the fact that some stations use a cheaper
type of analyzer to do the emissions testing.
• Three respondents object to the fact that the emissions testing
program is performed by private garages; they feel it should be done
by the state.
• One respondent feels that the emissions testing program would be
better if more spot checks were made.
• Three respondents object to the price of the emissions test. They
feel that the fee paid for services rendered is not fair.
• Four respondents object to the standards of the emissions testing
program, one feels they are too high and three feel they are too low.
53
-------
• One respondent objects to the unfamiliarity of the program inspect-
ors with the analyzers.
22a. DID THE VOLUNTARY EMISSIONS REPORT FORM PRESENT ANY PROBLEMS TO COMPLETE?
COMMENT:
• Thirty-four respondents feel that filling out the voluntary emis-
sions report form for every test is too much paper work. They feel
that it should only be filled out for test failures.
• One respondent feels that filling out the voluntary emissions report
form takes too long for the fee being paid to take the test.
• Two respondents feel that filling out the voluntary emissions report
form is useless.
• Six respondents feel that filling out the voluntary emissions report
form is time consuming.
22b. IF IN THE FUTURE THE STATE REQUIRES DOCUMENTATION OF THE TEST, HOW WOULD
YOU IMPROVE THE FORM? COMMENT:
• Thirty-seven respondents feel that if in the - future the state
requires documentation of the test, no improvements would be neces-
sary.
• Twenty-seven respondents feel that if in the future the state
requires documentation of the test, the emissions report form should
be made shorter by deleting the corrections.
• Ten respondents feel that the state should not require documentation
of the test.
« Twelve respondents feel that if the state requires documentation of
the emissions test a section for emissions should be included in the
inspection sticker book.
• One respondent feels that if in the future the state requires
documentation of the emissions test the additional corrections on
maintenance problems on the present form should be made more speci-
fic.
30. HOW EASY IS IT FOR A PERSON TO OBTAIN AN IMPROPER OR "HOT STICKER" FOR A
CAR THAT FAILS AN EMISSIONS TEST OR IS NOT INSPECTED? COMMENT:
• Fifteen respondents feel that it's impossible to get a "hot sticker"
for a car that has failed or not taken the emissions test.
54
-------
• Sixteen respondents feel that it's very hard to get a "hot sticker"
for a car that has not taken the emissions test or failed it.
« Eighteen respondents feel that it is possible to get a "hot sticker"
for a car that has not taken or failed the emissions test.
• Nineteen respondents feel it is easy to get a "hot sticker" for a car
that had failed or not taken the emissions test.
« Seven respondents say that "hot stickers," for cars that either
failed or did not take the emissions test, were available in certain
places but not at that station.
o Nine respondents say that "hot stickers," for cars that either
failed or did not take the emissions test, are around but are becom-
ing harder to find.
• Two respondents never heard of anyone obtaining a "hot sticker" for a
car that either failed or did not take the emissions test.
33a. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON? COMMENT:
• One respondent feels the program is not 100% effective in that "hot
stickers" are obtainable though not at his station. He also feels
that if a car fails the emissions test, the person is free to go to
numerous stations until one is found that will let them pass without
being within compliance.
• Two respondents feel that emissions inspections should be done twice
a year.
• One respondent feels the state should not come out with a longer form
for future documentation. He feels the sticker book should be the
only form.
• Two respondents feel the emission testing is a good idea.
• One respondent suggests stricter guidelines for how things should be
under the hood. He states that a car with 8 cylinders can easily
pass the emissions inspection running on only 6 cylinders. The state
doesn't mention that all 8 cylinders must be working.
• One respondent feels the emissions criteria should be altered so
that cars will run well and stay within the limits.
• One respondent suggests training the police to spot check cars for
emissions and safety items. He says they should be stricter with
violators and people with "hot stickers."
55
-------
One respondent complains that he has to stop whatever work he is
doing when the state inspector arrives. He says that he doesn't like
the hassles from the state; he was told to send to them the license
number of any car he sees that should be inspected and hasn't been.
He feels this should be the inspector's job.
One respondent feels that specific makes of cars should have the
emission testing done at the respective dealerships to protect the
car owner.
One respondent suggests a follow-up on cars that failed the emis-
sions inspection and that a more in-depth training course would be
good since most mechanics might not quite be knowledgeable about
emissions testing.
Two respondents feel the state should be totally responsible for the
emissions testing.
One respondent feels that of all the different inspection programs
to date, the present one is the best one.
Two respondents feel the program is a waste of time. They have more
important things to think of than automotive emissions.
Four respondents feel the fee for the emission inspection is a
problem and that it should be raised to $6-10.
One respondent feels the only way to get the emissions inspections
done right is for the state to take over the inspections. He hopes
that the $1 that goes to the state will be used in the future to
enable the state to do all inspections.
One respondent feels that the $4 fee for the emissions inspection is
sufficient because he inspects mostly regular customers who will
come back for service in the future.
Two respondents like the fact that the emissions inspections are
being done year around instead of just during the summer as in the
past.
One respondent feels that the fee for emissions inspection should be
higher because the state requires that when original tools are out-
dated, you have to purchase new ones. At $4 an inspection, it is not
worth it.
One respondent feels the state as well as the police are not doing
their job to enforce the inspection/maintenance program on the road.
The state should remind the people of the emissions inspection and
its importance; the inspection time should be advertised clearly in
the paper or on the radio.
56
-------
• Two respondents complain that the state does not send out notifica-
tions to inform their customers that they are due for their emissions
inspection.
0 One respondent feels the automobile manufacturers could come up with
cars that don't pollute.
• One respondent, who says his was the first safety inspection station
in the State of Rhode Island, says he will stop doing emissions
inspections if the $4 fee does not go up.
• One respondent feels that since the emission inspection requires
factory components for safety equipment that different manufacturers
should make the parts interchangeable.
• One respondent is glad to see the emissions inspections getting more
stringent; he thinks that it's a very important program.
• One respondent thinks the state is doing a great job with the
inspection/maintenance program.
• One respondent feels the standards for the emission
inspection/maintenance program should be flexible considering the
gas problem.
« One respondent feels that older cars have cleaner emissions than new
ones and can be made to run cleaner.
• One respondent complains that there are too many cars on the road
that shouldn't be. He says the police in Rhode Island are lazy and
they won't check people to see if they have been inspected because
that will mean more paper work for them. He says the state should
run all the inspection stations; that way they would be the only ones
responsible.
• One respondent complains about having to pay $350 a year for
liability insurance and you have to have this insurance to do the
emission inspections.
• One respondent feels the emission inspections standards are not low
enough.
• One respondent feels the inspections system is good but the emis-
sions test is not really necessary and that the $4 inspection fee for
both is too low.
• One respondent feels the state manual on the emissions inspection
program is not detailed enough. He says it leaves too many decisions
up to the garage.
57
-------
* One respondent feels the garage should keep a carbon copy of the
emission and maintenance inspection report for their own personal
files and the original should be sent to the state.
« One respondent feels the people involved in the inspection/mainten-
ance program are doing their best. However, the inspection fee
should be higher to compensate for the work done.
• One respondent feels that the manufacturers are to blame for the bad
emissions and maintenance problems on cars and is sorry the consumer
must pay the price. The newer cars give out more pollution than the
old ones.
• One respondent suggests that cars be analyzed for emissions under
various conditions like at 40 miles per hour.
e One respondent feels the inspection/maintenance program is a good
one. It got rid of the klunkers, is curbing pollution and helps cars
get better mileage. However, some older cars, he says, have visible
smoke and since the regulations for HC and CO are high for older cars
these cars can pass. He says the regulations shouldn't be this
lenient.
• One respondent feels there should be an itemized bill on the repair
work for emission and maintenance inspection which should be sent to
the state for a record. He says this would be included on the final
emission inspection report form. The state and media should remind
people of the importance of the inspection and time once a week prior
to the inspection and spot check the inspection stations. He says
some of the inspection stations should show more courtesy to the
public.
• One respondent feels there should be more concern about emissions in
the city than out in the country.
• One respondent feels the emissions inspection/maintenance program is
a benefit to the station.
• One respondent feels the state inspectors for the emission
inspection program are incompetent as far as doing their job
properly.
• One respondent feels more emphasis should be put on maintenance
inspection rather than emission inspection.
• One respondent feels the state should handle the whole inspection/
maintenance program by itself and train their own men to do the
tests. He is upset with the way the state is handling the
maintenance portion of the inspection. He did not like having to buy
new tools to do the "same old job."
58
-------
• One respondent feels the $4 fee is not enough to cover the cost of
the equipment needed to do the emissions inspection.
• One respondent would like to see the state take over the emissions
and maintenance inspections and send the cars to private garages for
repairs.
• One respondent feels everyone should use just one type of analyzer
for the emissions inspection.
• One respondent feels the state should be more careful choosing
inspectors for the emissions and maintenance program.
• One respondent feels the emissions/inspection programs standards are
too low.
59
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF AUTO EMISSIONS ANALYZERS
61
-------
LIST OF AUTO EMISSION ANALYZERS
INSTRUMENT
GMIR
DELTA
HORIBA
ALLEN
MARQUETTE
SON
BARNES
AC IR
CAL. EQUIP.
FOX 1800
SNAP ON
STEWART WARNER
FMC
NAPA
TOTAL
1
1
8
11
9
9
10
21
11
10
4
1
1
1
AVERAGE COST
$1,500
1,500
2,071
3,678
2,100
3,500
2,070
1,351
1,285
1,900
2,848
2,300
1,300
1,500
62
-------
APPENDIX D
MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE
63
-------
INTRODUCTION:
Hello Mr., Mrs. Ms.
My name is
of The Research Corporation of New England. My company has been
contracted by the Rhode Island Lung Association to conduct a sur-
vey of the Rhode Island public with relation to the new safety/
exhaust emissions inspection program. I am calling because we
would like your opinion on how we can improve the program.
Would you be willing to give me about five minutes to answer
some questions. (If you require verification, you can call the ~
R.I. Lung Association and ask for Mr. Bob Jones or Ms. Kim Allsup
at 421-6487).
NAME OF INTERVIEWER:
NAME OF INTERVIEWEE:
CITY
PHOME //
1. Do you own and drive a registered automobile?
Yes
No
Comments:
2a. What is the make of the vehicle?
b. What model year is it? 1979 ; 1977-78
; 1973-76
; 1970-72
; earlier than 1970
3a. What Is the car's present mileage?
b. What is your average annual mileage?
Are you aware that your car's exhaust must be tested for air pollution? Yes
IF YES, How did you become aware of the emissions inspection program?
by having car Inspected
word of mouth
newspaper
gas station
radio
TV
DOT notice
Other
-1-
-------
5. Do you think that exhaust emissions tests on automobiles are Important?
Yes No Don't Care
6. Has your car been Inspected since January of this year? Yes Ho
IF NO, WHY NOT? Don't know about program Don't consider this important
Have a new car
*IF YES, Did you get the results? Yes No
Would you like to know the results of the test? Yes No
7a How far did you travel for the emission test?
Less than 5 miles
5-10 miles
10-15 miles
More than 15 miles
b What is the maximum distance you should have to travel for this test?
8a Did your car pass or fail the initial test? P
b If the car failed, how many tests were required before the car passed?
9a Have you ever suspected that unnecessary repairs were made on your car as a result of an inspection?
Yes No
b If your car was adjusted to pass the test, have you had any problems with the car's performance?
Yes No
-2-
-------
10. Do you think that the State should set a limit for repair costs to get the car to pass the inspection?
Yes No
11. Do you think it's possible for someone to get a sticker for a car that failed the test?
Yes No
12a Was the inspection conducted at a garage which you patronize frequently, infrequently or
never?
Frequently
Infrequently
Never
b Do you feel that the inspection personnel were competent? Yes No Don't know Other
13a Do you think the $4 Inspection fee is reasonable? Yes No
b What is the most you should have to pay for the inspection?
c Do you think the $4 fee is so low that it encourages stations to shorten inspections? Yes No
Don't know
14. Do you think the inspection program has increased the problem of auto repair fraud or unnecessary repairs?
Yes _____ No _____ Don't Know
15. How long did you have to wait to have your car inspected?
done immediately h hr to 1 hr
less than 15 mln. more than 1 hr
15 min. to '5 hr. left the car all day
-3-
-------
16. How long did the actual inspection take?
15 rain or less
15 min to -t hr
h hr to 1 hr
longer than 1 hr
Don't know
17a (Several states have had the inspection program working for some time. Some states have found that state-
run inspection stations are effective, while others are satisfied with the work of private contractors or
independent garages.) if you had a choice, who would you rather have your car inspected by:
State-run garage
private garager
A 3rd party hired by the state that would not make repairs
b Mould you feel more protected if the testing was separated from repair work? Yes No
18a Are you aware of the state run "Challenge Station" where you can double check the results of a garage
inspection?
Yes No
b If you wanted to get your car checked by an "Challenge Station" would it be convenient for you to get there
between 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday? Yes _ No _ Other Time _
19. Do you think the "Challenge Station" should issue the sticker if you pass the test, rather than having to go
back to the inspection garage? Yes _ No _
20. Do you think that 14 days is enough time to have your car repaired and retested?
Yes No _
-4-
-------
21a Do you, a relative or anyone you know have a respiratory illness aggravated by air pollution?
Yes No
b Who do you think is most responsible for cleaning up the air?
Private citizen
Industry
Government
c What do you think contributes most to air pollution? Cars Buses and Trucks Industry Other
22. How would you describe the seriousness of Rhode Island's air quality problem?
no problem moderate problem
slight problem severe
23. Do you believe that the Inspection Maintenance Program" will save you money by increasing gas mileage as
well as decreasing air pollution?
Yes No
24. This program has been labeled "improved". Do you think that this year's inspection system is better than
last year's?
better worse
same don't know
25. What do you like & dislike about the program. Like:
Dislike:
-5-
-------
26a If you had to classify your household Income before taxes would It be:
0-$9,999 ; $10,000-19.999 _; $20,000-'49,999 ; Above $50,000
b What Is your age (how old are you?)?
c What is your occupation?
vO
-------
APPENDIX E
COMMENTS BY MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION OWNERS
71
-------
APPENDIX E
COMMENTS BY MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION OWNERS
LIKES
What 20 people questioned liked about the inspection/maintenance program
was that the Government was finally coming down on motorists for air
pollution control. They feel the inspection program keeps bad cars off
the road and cuts down on pollution.
Thirteen people liked the feeling of security they get from knowing their
car is in good shape. Most people wouldn't have their cars inspected on
their own but do so because the inspection/maintenance program makes it
mandatory.
Ten people like the inspection/maintenance program's new system of alpha-
betical scheduling. They say it makes the inspections go much smoother
without long waiting lines.
Two people like the equipment the inspection stations are using. They
feel it is better than the previous equipment used to do the inspections
and think it was interesting to watch.
Two people like the fact that private garages are handling the emission
inspections and they are doing a good job.
DISLIKES
• Nine people dislike the inspection/maintenance program, complaining that
it is not very effective and that many people don't get inspected. They
felt if a person does not have proof of being inspected, his/her registra-
tion should be revoked.
• Seven people dislike the inspection/maintenance program because they feel
it causes repair fraud.
• Six people dislike the inspection/maintenance program because they feel
it is all politics or a money making gimmick that wastes time and accom-
plishes nothing.
• Five people dislike the inspection/maintenance program because they feel
it costs too much; they think it should be free.
• Four people dislike the fact that if their car fails the emission or
maintenance inspection they have only 14 days to have the car repaired and
retested. They feel the time allowed should depend on what is wrong.
72
-------
• Four people dislike the fact that the emission and maintenance
inspections are not thorough enough.
• Two people dislike the inspection/maintenance program because it is
mandatory. They do not like having to have their cars inspected.
« Two people dislike the fact that there are not more challenge stations
around where the results of the garage emission and maintenance tests can
be double checked.
• Two people dislike the fact that they have to wait so long to take the
emission and maintenance tests.
• Three people dislike the inspection/maintenance program because it is so
easy to cheat. People take off air pollution control devices after they
have been inspected. One man suggests that compression tests should be
given to guard against people using S.T.P. just before the test to give
nice clear emission results.
• Two people dislike the fact that the emission and maintenance inspection
was done only once a year. They feel inspections should be given twice a
year or at least a follow-up should be made on the first one.
• Two people dislike the inspection/maintenance program because it puts too
much emphasis on emissions and not enough on safety features such as
brakes and lights. They feel that the air pollution problem is being
blown out of proportion.
• Two people dislike the inspection/maintenance program because they feel
the government is after the wrong people. They think the government
should get after the automobile manufacturers about the emissions problem
and also about gas mileage.
• One person dislikes the auto repair fraud involved with the inspection/
maintenance program. He feels that if an inspection garage fails someone
who passes the inspection when he has the garage results double-checked at
a challenge station, the inspection garage should be reported to the state
and possibly closed down.
o One person dislikes the staggered alphabet system the inspection/
maintenance program is using.
• One person doesn't like the fact that there are so many inspection
stations. He thinks there would be more control if there were just a few.
• One person feels that the people doing the inspections for the inspec-
tion/maintenance program are incompetent.
• One person does not like the inspection/maintenance program this year
because they did not send out notices when cars were due to be inspected
as they did last year.
73
-------
One person dislikes the fact that he was scheduled to have his car
inspected for emissions and maintenance in January. He feels that winter
isn't a good time of the year to have a car inspected.
One person dislikes the inspection/maintenance program because a complete
explanation of the entire procedure was not given. She was not aware that
the stubs from the car repairs were to be sent to the Department of
Transportation until they sent a letter asking for them. She feels she
should have been told this sooner.
74
-------
APPENDIX F
DISTRIBUTION OF AUTOMOBILE MAKES FOR MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERS
75
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF AUTOMOBILER MAKES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES
MAKE
AMC
BMW
Buick
Cadillac
Chevrolet
Dodge
Datsun
Ford
Honda
Lincoln-Mercury
Mazda
Mercedes
Plymouth
Pontiac
Peugeot
Renault
Rolls Royce
Saab
Subaru
Toyota
Volvo
Volkswagen
Chrysler
Oldsmobile
J_
14
2
16
2
67
30
4
48
1
9
3
2
30
14
1
1
1
1
2
9
5
13
6
16
%
4.79
.68
5.48
.68
22.95
10.27
1.37
16.44
.34
3.08
1.03
.68
10.27
4.79
.34
.34
.34
.34
.68
3.08
1.71
4.45
2.05
5.48
76
-------
APPENDIX G
RANDOM NUMBERS TABLE
-------
Table B Random numbers
10 09
37 54
08 42
99 01
12 80
66 06
31 06
85 26
63 57
73 79
93 52
11 80
83 45
88 68
99 59
65 48
80 12
74 35
69 91
09 89
91 49
80 33
44 10
1? 55
63 60
61 19
15 47
94 55
42 48
23 52
04 49
00 54
35 96
59 80
46 05
32 17
69 23
19 56
45 15
94 86
73 25
20 48
26 89
90 25
79 99
57 47
01 08
97 76
33 21
64 57
01 77
50 54
29 96
54 02
46 73
11 76
43 56
09 98
62 68
32 05
91 45
69 45
48 19
07 37
64 93
69 04
44 52
72 85
11 62
37 83
35 24
99 76
31 53
SO 83
88 52
90 05
46 14
54 14
51 49
43 19
33
05
53
29
70
17
05
02
35
53
67
31
34
00
48
74
35
17
03
05
23
98
49
42
29
46
66
73
13
17
94
54
07
91
36
97
06
30
38
94
76
64
19
09
80
34
45
02
05
03
14
39
06
86
87
17
17
77
66
14
68
26
85
11
16
26
95
67
97
73
75
64
26
45
01
87
20
01
19
36
52 01
89 47
64 50
37 67
15 73
07 27
57 18
05 16
32 54
52 96
90 56
80 82
28 89
50 75
51 76
46 85
72 70
40 27
25 22
22 56
47 92
94 03
15 74
10 00
50 53
45 74
27 07
89 75
34 40
20 88
24 63
05 IS
89 80
42 72
39 09
37 92
11 74
75 87
47 60
16 81
35 86
42 96
93 03
07 15
61 47
6850
2406
56 92
70 48
4778
8607
7732
8083
84 01
49 69
09 50
80 15
72 14
91 48
85 14
76 86
6858
79 54
2040
44 84
77 74
99 53
43 87
87 21
9837
3824
81 59
93 54
68 42
22 86
52 41
52 04
53 79
72 46
08 51
34 67 35
24 SO 52
23 20 90
38 31 13
64 03 23
36 69 73
35 30 34
68 66 57
90 55 35
35 80 83
22 10 94
50 72 56
13 74 67
36 76 66
91 82 60
58 04 77
45 31 82
43 23 60
36 93 68
46 42 75
46 16 28
70 29 73
32 97 92
12 86 07
40 21 95
51 92 43
59 36 78
54 62 24
16 86 84
68 93 59
45 86 25
96 11 96
33 35 13
83 60 94
77 28 14
05 56 70
15 95 66
40 41 92
43 66 79
34 88 88
48 76
40 37
25 60
11 65
6653
61 70
26 14
48 18
75 48
42 82
05 58
82 48
00 78
79 51
89 28
69 74
23 74
02 10
72 03
6788
3554
41 35
6575
46 97
25 63
3729
38 48
4431
87 67
14 16
1025
3896
54 62
97 00
40 77
7007
00 00
15 85
45 43
15 53
80 95 90
20 63 61
15 95 33
88 67 67
98 95 11
65 81 33
86 79 90
73 05 38
28 46 82
60 93 52
60 97 09
29 40 52
18 47 54
90 36 47
93 78 56
73 03 95
21 11 57
45 52 16
76 62 11
96 29 77
94 75 08
53 14 03
57 60 04
96 64 48
43 65 17
65 39 45
82 39 61
91 19 04
03 07 11
26 25 22
61 96 27
54 69 28
77 97 45
13 02 12
93 91 08
86 74 31
18 74 39
66 67 43
59 04 79
01 54 03
91 17
0402
47 64
43 97
68 77
98 85
7439
52 47
8709
03 44
34 33
42 01
06 10
6493
13 68
71 86
82 53
42 37
39 90
88 22
99 23
33 40
0881
9439
70 82
95 93
01 18
25 92
20 59
96 63
93 35
23 91
00 24
48 92
36 47
71 57
2423
68 06
00 33
54 56
39 29
00 82
3508
0443
12 17
11 19
23 40
18 62
83 49
35 27
50 50
52 77
68 71
29 60
23 47
4021
14 38
96 28
94 40
5438
3708
42 05
22 22
28 70
0720
42 58
33 21
92 92
25 70
05 52
6533
23 28
90 10
78 56
70 61
85 39
97 11
84 96
20 82
05 01
27 49 45
29 16 65
03 36 06
62 76 59
17 68 33
92 91 70
30 97 32
38 85 79
12 56 24
38 34 35
07 39 98
56 78 51
17 78 17
91 10 62
83 41 13
81 65 44
55 37 63
60 26 55
05 04 18
21 45 98
92 00 48
08 23 41
20 64 13
72 58 15
73 17 90
26 05 27
15 94 66
74 59 73
14 66 70
28 25 62
71 24 72
72 95 29
33 93 33
52 01 06
74 29 41
41 18 38
89 63 38
28 52 07
66 95 41
45 11 76
SOURCE: The RAND Corporation, A Million Random Digits, Free Press, G'encoe,
ID., 1955, pp. 1-3, with, the kind permission of the publisher.
78
-------
Table B Random numbers (Continued)
41 84 98
46 35 23
11 08 79
52 70 10
57 27 53
20 85 77
15 63 38
92 69 44
77 61 31
38 68 S3
25 16 30
65 25 10
36 81 54
64 39 71
04 51 52
83 76 16
14 38 70
51 32 19
72 47 20
05 46 65
39 52 87
81 61 61
07 58 61
90 76 70
40 18 82
34 41 48
63 43 97
67 04 90
79 49 50
91 70 43
45 47
30 49
62 94
83 37
68 98
31 56
49 24
82 97
90 19
24 86
18 89
76 29
36 25
16 92
56 24
08 73
63 45
22 46
00 08
53 06
24 84
87 11
61 20
42 35
81 93
21 57
53 63
90 70
41 46
05 52
46
69
14
56
81
70
90
39
S3
45
70
37
18
05
95
43
SO
80
80
93
82
53
82
13
29
86
44
93
52
04
85 05
24 89
01 33
30 38
30 44
28 42
41 59
90 40
15 20
13 46
01 41
23 93
63 73
32 78
09 66
25 38
85 40
08 87
89 01
12 81
47 42
34 24
64 12
57 41
59 38
88 75
98 91
39 94
16 29
73 72
23 26
34 60
17 92
73 15
85 85
43 26
36 14
21 15
00 80
35 45
5021
32 95
7509
21 62
79 46
41 45
92 79
7074
80 02
84 64
55 93
42 76
28 20
72 00
8627
50 87
68 22
55 47
02 86
1031
34 67 75
45 30 50
59 74 76
16 52 06
68 65 22
79 37 59
33 52 12
59 58 94
20 55 49
59 40 47
41 29 06
05 87 00
82 44 49
20 24 78
48 46 08
60 83 32
43 52 90
88 72 25
94 81 33
74 45 79
48 54 53
75 12 21
92 90 41
69 90 26
94 97 21
19 15 20
36 02 40
94 45 87
54 15 S3
75 05 19
83 00
75 21
72 77
96 76
73 76
52 20
66 65
90 67
14 09
20 59
73 12
11 19
9005
17 59
55 58
59 83
63 18
67 36
19 00
05 61
52 47
1724
31 41
37 42
15 98
00 23
09 67
42 84
42 43
30 29
74
61
76
11
92
01
55
66
96
43
71
92
04
45
15
01
38
66
54
72
18
74
32
78
62
12
76
05
46
47
91 06
31 83
50 33
65 49
85 25
15 96
82 34
82 14
27 74
94 75
85 71
78 42
92 17
19 72
19 11
29 14
38 47
16 44
15 58
84 81
61 91
62 77
39 21
46 42
09 53
30 28
37 84
04 14
97 83
66 56
43 45
1855
45 13
98 93
58 66
32 67
76 41
15 75
82 57
1680
59 57
63 40
37 01
53 32
87 82
13 49
47 61
9431
34 36
1834
36 74
37 07
97 63
25 01
67 87
07 83
16 05
98 07
54 82
43 82
1932
14 41
39 66
02 18
88 44
10 62
86 22
49 76
50 81
43 85
68 97
IS 47
14 70
83 74
16 93
2036
41 19
66 91
35 35
79 98
18 61
5831
61 19
18 62
00 44
32 62
65 96
20 28
59 36
99 78
58 15 49
37 09 51
37 75 44
16 81 61
80 35 84
24 33 91
53 17 04
70 40 37
69 76 16
25 96 93
11 14 03
76 56 22
79 39 97
52 25 67
03 33 61.
80 71 26
63 74 80
93 16 78
25 41 31
26 34 16
11 92 41
91 59 97
96 79 40
79 08 72
15 89 97
46 86 91
17 34 88
83 40 60
29 59 38
29 34 78
79
-------
Table B Random numbers (Continued)
59 58
38 50
30 69
65 44
27 26
91 30
68 43
48 90
06 91
10 45
12 88
21 77
19 52
67 24
60 58
53 85
24 63
83 08
16 44
60 79
03 99
38 55
17 54
32 64
69 57
24 12
61 19
30 53
03 78
48 22
60 36
83 79
32 96
19 32
11 22
31 75
88 49
30 93
22 88
78 21
00
80
27
39
75
70
49
81
34
51
39
83
35
55
44
34
73
01
42
01
11
59
67
35
26
26
63
22
89
86
59
94
00
25
09
15
29
44
84
21
64 78
73 41
06 68
56 59
02 64
69 91
46 88
58 77
51 97
60 19
73 43
09 76
95 15
26 70
73 77
13 77
87 36
24 51
43 34
81 57
04 61
55 54
37 04
28 61
87 77
65 91
02 31
17 04
75 99
33 79
46 53
24 02
74 05
38 45
47 47
12 60
93 82
77 44
58 93
69 93
75 56
23 79
94 68
13 23
13 19
19 07
84 47
54 74
42 67
14 21
65 02
33 80
65 12
35 5.8
07 50
36 06
74 33
38 99
36 15
57 17
93 71
32 88
92 05
95 81
39 51
27 69
92 96
10 27
75 86
85 78
35 07
56 62
36 40
57 62
07 39
68 98
14 45
07 48
27 49
35 90
97 88 00
34 87 63
81 61 27
82 74 37
27 22 94
22 42 10
31 36 22
52 45 91
27 86 01
03 37 12
76 11 84
73 69 61
25 96 59
31 65 63
03 79 92
69 48 50
48 93 42
22 28 15
19 90 73
86 57 62
61 68 94
65 97 80
24 62 15
90 68 31
03 59 05
90 64 94
26 1773
41 22 02
72 07 17
34 76 19
53 39 49
33 44 42
98 32 32
05 26 06
93 74 08
00 53 39
40 45 04
18 38 28
99 87 48
29 13 86
88
90
56
49
07
36
62
35
11
91
04
31
86
79
45
58
52
07
27
11
66
08
55
00
14
14
41
39
74
53
42
34
99
66
48
15
20
73
60
44
83 55
82 29
19 68
63 22
47 74
69 95
12 69
70 00
88 30
3423
28 50
64 94
28 36
24 68
13 42
44.86
70 22
00 91
40 41
46 06
37 28
84 08
47 54
95 23
7821
13 92
20 96
8258
66 86
65 29
838738 59
62 30
75 95
49 37
16 17
08 32
35 56
12 12
91 19
06 04
8454
83 95
68 52
41 65
1526
61 42
99 44
3854
49 76
50 92
47 04
09 49
78 80
53 04
37 21
79 92
17 77
09 39
85 76
46 53
08 60
92 81
89 36
06 19
66-72
53 82
33 09
31 66
7433
92 97
13 74
16 00
86 46
39 29
83 55
89 77
65 33
51 28
5486
23 76
17 71
82 06
OS 33
17 98
28 82
12 84
83 82
63 01
88 32
17 97
63 28
69 57
76 46
26 76
49 36
12 36
9737
85 13
45 31
84 60
29 73
59 07
76 35
29 54
61 95
17 26
10 06
35 20
35 66
01 91
70 07
11 13
78 13
27 48
88 65
74 84
28 59
74 02
65 74
80 61 56
90 42 07
76 34 00
76 56 76
54 89 11
53 57 93
38 25 90
45 26 92
19 89 01
58 08 51
41 50 77
10 20 23
21 37 98
33 42 22
08 36 37
47 33 31
91 36 01
72 75 85
03 25 52
95 29 79
95 82 32
54 77 62
60 79 36
59 37 79
96 96 16
87 71 00
77 09 43
16 88 29
83 33 74
35 29 72
82 83 16
11 47 36
30 75 86
86 65 59
24 54 76
12 25 96
39 34 13
72 04 05
28 46 17
11 40 14
04 11
95 95
05 46
96 29
9734
28 97
09 81
54 13
1497
43 66
90 71
08 31
16 43
26 65
41 32
96 24
03 74
51 97
54 84
65 13
88 61
71 29
27 95
80 86
33 56
90 89
78 03
55 98
87 53
16 31
93 95
09 95
15 91
19 64
85 24
03 15
22 10
94 20
82 03
87 48
10 84 08
44 99 53
26 92 00
99 08 36
13 03 58
66 62 52
59 31 46
05 51 60
44 03 44
770883
22 67 69
64 74 49
59 15 29
59 08 02
64 43 44
04 36 42
28 38 73
23 78 67
65 47 59
00 48 60
31 91 61
92 38 53
45 89 09
30 05 14
46 07 80
97 57 54
87 02 67
66 64 85
90 88 23
86 03 11
37 32 31
81 80 65
70 62 53
09 94 13
43 51 59
21 92 21
97 85 08
52 03 80
71 02 68
13 72 20
80
-------
Table B Random numbers (Continued)
98 08
33 18
80 95
79 75
18 63
74 02
54 17
11 66
48 32
69 07
09 IS
90 04
73 18
75 76
54 01
08 35
28 30
53 84
91 75
89 41
77 51
19 50
21 81
51 47
99 55
33 71
85 27
84 13
56 73
65 13
38 00
37 40
97 12
21 82
73 13
07 63
60 52
83 59
10 85
39 82
62 48
51 62
10 04
24 91
33 25
94 39
84 56
44 98
47 79
49 41
82 00
58 54
95 02
87 64
64 40
86 99
60 32
08 62
75 37
59 26
30 38
23 71
85 93
46 64
96 83
34 80
48 68
38 96
21 62
85 68
10 21
29 63
54 03
64 11
54 27
87 79
S8 34
63 56
06 27
09 89
26
32
06
40
37
02
11
S3
28
38
97
97
07
90
56
10
64
33
41
94
20
74
13
99
31
07
93
40
34
06
76
97
48
34
42
29
41
55
46
52
45
41
96
71
98
77
80
52
31
87
32
51
47
20
66
78
81
81
61
00
86
69
93
68
62
93
11
44
17
87
81
01
87
47
95
03
07
06
99
43
24 02
94 15
38 27
96 12
14 50
55 73
99 33
07 98
24 96
63 79
82 53
98 15
67 72
97 18
28 13
54 24
33 31
59 41
61 36
39 75
83 42
97 92
27 88
10 72
53 52
58 47
30 32
03 55
39 59
64 88
71 91
30 47
08 33
14 33
71 90
06 11
95 41
95 89
59 91
62 26
8404
09 49
07 74
82 96
6571
22 70
71 43
48 27
47 10
19 76
95 27
06 54
52 69
17 49
10 03
27.85
05 91
36 28
22 69
83 91
99 01
02 88
17 57
36 21
41 70
28 69
92 70
21 66
61 31
5261
17 11
75 86
14 17
40 72
90 35
80 72
98 14
29 83
05 07
31 47
44 99 90
89 43 54
20 15 12
69 86 10
31 01 02
97 79 01
05 33 51
59 38 17
02 29 53
35 58 40
04 22 08
94 93 88
62 29 06
90 42 91
00 68 22
13 66 15
40 51 00
51 21 59
50 26 39
12 60 71
68 41 48
55 21 02
05 68 67
94 04 99
69 77 71
51 92 66
28 83 43
73 85 27
10 12 39
34 31 36
71 60 29
56 27 11
21 81 53
64 63 88
85 79 47
96 20 74
59 17 52
05 12 80
13 49 90
64 42 18
88 96
85 81
33 37
25 91
46 74
71 19
29 69
15 39
68 70
4401
63 04
19 97
44 64
22 72
73 98
88 73
78 93
02 90
02 12
76 46
2774
97 73
31 56
13 45
28 30
4721
41 37
00 91
16 22
58 61
29 37
00 86
92 50
59 02
42 06
41 56
06 95
97 19
63 19
08 14
39 09 47
88 69 54
25 01 62
74 85 22
05 45 56
52 52 75
56 12 71
09 97 33
32 30 75
10 51 82
83 38 98
91 87 07
27 12 46
95 37 50
20 71 45
04 61 89
32 60 46
28 46 66
55 78 17
48 94 97
51 90 81
74 28 77
07 08 28
42 83 60
74 81 97
58 30 32
73 51 59
61 22 26
85 49 65
45 87 52
74 21 96
47 32 46
75 23 76
49 13 90
08 78 98
23 82 19
05 53 35
77 43 35
53 07 57
43 80 00
34 07
19 94
52 98
05 39
14 27
8021
92 55
34 40
75 46
16 15
73 74
61 50
70 18
58 71
32 95
75 53
04 75
87 95
65 14
2306
39 80
52 51
50 46
91 91
81 42
9822
0400
05 61
75 60
1069
40 49
2605
2047
64 41
81 56
95 38
21 39
37 83
18 39
93 51
35 44
37 54
94 62
0038
77 93
8081
36 04
88 46
15 02
01 S4
6427
6847
41 36
93 S2
07 70
31 22
94 11
77 76
83 48
94 54
72 89
65 34
31 85
0800
43 86
93 17
71 14
62 32
81 60
85 64
65 58
40 03
15 50
03 85
64 69
0471
61 21
92 30
05 41
31 02
13 18 80
87 30 43
46 11 71
75 95 79
89 19 36
45 17 48
09 03 24
12 33 56
00 99 94
87 69 38
85 SO 44
66 46 59
18 27 60
34 31 78
61 78 13
30 84 20
90 18 40
22 07 91
34 70 55
13 74 08
35 55 07
46 74 15
33 84 52
74 54 49
07 28 34
49 39 72
84 36 43
71 84 23
41 88 80
44 72 77
44 96 98
03 74 38
12 95 78
65 45 52
11 92 02
36 69 94
20 64 55
15 04 98
01 93 62
47 31 67
81
------- |