### 1 Envirotest Systems 5175 Marshall St., Arvada, Colorado 80002



# The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January – December 2011

November 2012

Prepared for: 

# The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Prepared by:

Peter M McClintock, Ph.D. Applied Analysis 13700 Marina Pointe Drive #432. Marina Del Rey CA 90292-9259 pm2pt5@gmail.com

### 2 

# Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the support a nd input given by a number of individuals and organizations. Particular thanks are extended to the follo wing contributors: CDPHE for providing many helpfu l comments and suggestions. Drew Rau, Envirotest Program Operations Division and the Remote Sensing unit of Envirotest, Tucson for providing data access and operational information.

### 3 

# Table of Contents

I. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... ............................. 5

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE DENVER CLEAN SCREENING PROGRAM ........................................... 8

A. I/M P ROGRAM 

### O VERVIEW 

### ........................................................................................................................ 8 B. M EASUREMENT 

### S ITES



### ............................................................................................................................. 13 C. S OURCES OF 

### D ATA AND 

### D ESCRIPTION OF 

### E LEMENTS 

### ............................................................................. 18 III. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................ 21

A. M ONTHLY 

### C OLLECTION 

### A CTIVITY 

### ......................................................................................................... 21 B. M EASUREMENTS BY 

### H OUR OF 

### D AY 

### ........................................................................................................ 21 C. C OMPOSITION OF 

### V EHICLES 

### M EASURED 

### ................................................................................................. 23 IV. CLEAN SCREENING PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ....................................................................... 25

A. V EHICLES 

### S ELECTED 

### , N OTICES AND 

### R EDEMPTIONS 

### ............................................................................... 25 B. C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### P ROGRAM 

### E FFECTIVENESS 

### ............................................................................................ 27 C. G AS 

### C AP 

### E VAPORATIVE 

### E MISSIONS 

### ....................................................................................................... 31 D. H YBRID 

### RSD-LEI VS



### . 2- HIT 

### RSD ........................................................................................................... 34 V. ESTIMATE OF OVERALL I/M PROGRAM BENEFITS AND CLEAN SCREEN IMPACT ....... 37 A. C ONVERSION OF 

### I DLE 

### T ESTS TO 

### IM240 E QUIVALENT EMISSIONS 

### ........................................................... 37 B. A NNUAL 

### M ILEAGE 

### W EIGHTING 

### .............................................................................................................. 41 C. A NNUAL 

### E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

### .......................................................................................................... 42 VI. REVIEW OF CLEAN SCREEN STANDARDS AND PR OCEDURES ............................................. 44 VII. IM240 PROJECTED EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR ..................................................................... 45

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

A1 COLORADO 2011 TRANSIENT TEST EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS A2 COLORADO 2011 CLEAN SCREEN AUDI T TRANSIENT TEST EMISSION REDUCTIONS B COLORADO 2011 TRANSIENT TEST REDUCTION TONS

### 4 

# List of Tables

T ABLE 

### II-1 N ORTHERN 

### F RONT 

### R ANGE 

### ................................................................................................................... 14 T ABLE 

### II-2 D ENVER 

### RSD S ITES 

### ............................................................................................................................. 1 5 T ABLE 

### II-2 D ENVER 

### RSD S ITES CONTINUED 

### ......................................................................................................... 16 T ABLE 

### II-3 E L 

### P ASO 

### RSD S ITES



### ............................................................................................................................. 16 T ABLE 

### II-4 V EHICLE 

### M EASUREMENT 

### I NFORMATION 

### ............................................................................................. 19 T ABLE 

### III-1 C OLLECTION 

### S UMMARY 

### ...................................................................................................................... 21 T ABLE 

### III-2 S OURCE OF 

### V EHICLE 

### R EGISTRATIONS 

### M EASURED BY 

### RSD .............................................................. 23 T ABLE 

### III-3 T YPE OF 

### V EHICLES 

### M EASURED BY 

### RSD WITHIN 

### R EGISTRATION 

### J URISDICTION 

### ................................ 24 T ABLE 

### III-4 R EGISTERED 

### J URISDICTION AND 

### A GE OF 

### V EHICLES 

### M EASURED BY 

### RSD ........................................... 24 T ABLE 

### IV-1 V EHICLES 

### Q UALIFIED 

### A S 

### M EETING 

### C LEAN 

### S CREENING 

### C RITERIA BY 

### S TATUS 

### ................................... 25 T ABLE 

### IV-2 N OTIFICATIONS 

### T RANSMITTED TO 

### DOR ............................................................................................. 26 T ABLE 

### IV-3 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### A UDIT 

### T EST 

### P ASS 

### / F AIL 

### S TATISTICS 

### ........................................................................ 26 T ABLE 

### IV-4 T RANSIENT 

### T EST 

### E MISSION 

### R EDUCTIONS FOR 

### 1982-1985 P ASSENGER 

### V EHICLES 

### ............................. 29 T ABLE 

### IV-5 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### E MISSIONS 

### I MPACT FOR 

### T AILPIPE 

### E MISSIONS 

### ........................................................... 30 T ABLE 

### IV-6 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### I MPACT ON 

### E VAPORATIVE 

### HC E MISSIONS 

### ................................................................ 32 T ABLE 

### IV-7 G AS 

### C AP 

### R ELATED 

### B ENEFIT 

### T ONS 

### ..................................................................................................... 33 T ABLE 

### IV-8 A VERAGE 

### E MISSIONS PER 

### V EHICLE 

### ................................................................................................... 35 T ABLE 

### V-1 L OW 

### S PEED 

### I DLE TO 

### IM240 ................................................................................................................. 38 T ABLE 

### V-2 H IGH 

### S PEED 

### I DLE TO 

### IM240 ................................................................................................................ 39 T ABLE 

### V-3 E STIMATED 

### A NNUAL 

### M ILEAGE IN 

### 2011 ............................................................................................... 41 T ABLE 

### V-4 E STIMATED 

### A NNUAL 

### T ONS 

### O F 

### R EDUCTION 

### (IM240 AND 

### I DLE 

### T ESTED 

### V EHICLES 

### .............................. 43



# List of Figures

F IGURE 

### I-1 A VERAGE 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

### ............................................................................................ 7 F IGURE 

### II-1: T AG 

### E DIT TM 

### S CREEN 

### ........................................................................................................................... 12 F IGURE 

### II-2 A 

### : S ITE 

### L OCATIONS 

### N ORTHERN 

### F RONT 

### R ANGE 

### ................................................................................... 17 F IGURE 

### II-2 B 

### : S ITE 

### L OCATIONS



### – D ENVER 

### M ETRO 

### A REA 

### ...................................................................................... 18 F IGURE 

### III-1 M ONTHLY 

### RSD M EASUREMENTS 

### ...................................................................................................... 22 F IGURE 

### III-2 M EASUREMENTS BY 

### T IME OF 

### D AY 

### .................................................................................................... 22 F IGURE 

### IV-1 G AS 

### C AP 

### P RESSURE 

### F AILURE 

### R ATES 

### ................................................................................................ 31 F IGURE 

### IV-2 A VERAGE 

### I NITIAL 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

### ................................................................................................ 35 F IGURE 

### IV-3 A VERAGE 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

### ....................................................................................... 36 F IGURE 

### V-1 RSD VS



### . I DLE 

### T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

### .......................................................................................................... 38 F IGURE 

### V-2 RSD VS



### . 2500 I DLE 

### T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

### ................................................................................................. 39 F IGURE 

### V-3 RSD VS



### . 2500 I DLE 

### T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

### ................................................................................................. 40 F IGURE 

### VII-1 LDGV HC R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### .................................................................... 46 F IGURE 

### VII-2 LDGT HC R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### ..................................................................... 46 F IGURE 

### VII-3 LDGV CO R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### .................................................................... 47 F IGURE 

### VII-4 LDGT CO R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### ..................................................................... 47 F IGURE 

### VII-5 LDGV NO X 

### R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### .................................................................. 48 F IGURE 

### VII-6 LDGT NO X 

### R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### .................................................................. 48

### 5 

# I. Summary
The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) and the Department of Revenue (DOR) have operated an Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program in the Denver metropolitan area (DMA) since 1995. Operations for a remote sensing clean screening element commenced in 2003. Previ ous reports, “The Colorado Clean Screening Program’ reports for July 2003 – December 2004 and annual reports for 2005-2010 1 

## described on-road measurement activities and the vehicles exempted from inspection. This report covers calendar year 2011. The clean screening program uses remote se nsing to measure the tailpipe emissions of vehicles as they drive by measuring equipment positioned on the side of the road. Vehicles that are determined to have low tailpipe emi ssions are granted an exemption from the I/M inspection. Clean screening improves convenien ce of the I/M program for vehicle owners. In order to exempt vehicles from inspection, computer systems and procedures are required for administering the program and notifying vehi cle owners of their in spection exemption. The I/M program is registration enforced a nd the administration of the clean screening program requires the transmission of inform ation among the contractor, CDPHE and DOR who manage motor vehicle registrations. Collection Activity In 2011, eighteen RSD vans were deployed in the DMA with an additional 4 in the Northern Front Range (NFR). Twenty-four different RS D systems were used as some units were rotated for preventive or corrective maintenance. Van’s deployed at 90 locations in the DMA, 42 sites in the NFR and 2 sites in Colorado Springs for a total of 24,878 active collection hours. A total 7.7 million emission measurements were collected and successfully matched to Colorado registered vehicles. Additional remo te sensing productivity information is provided in Section IV. Expanded vehicle emissions testing began in part s of Weld and Larimer counties in late 2010. Vehicle owners with December 2010 renewal date s were the first required to get a test. 2010 vs 2011 Collection Comparison In 2010, RSD performed over nine million emissi on measurements at 47 locations in the DMA and 16 locations in the NFR. In 2011 there were 1.3 million fewer emission measurements but measurements were collected from almost twice the number of locations than in 2010. Despite the reduction in the quant ity of emission measurements the number of clean screens issued increased by 50,000 vehicles. This was partly due to the application of new location performance metrics by the contractor that resulte d in less focus on high traffic sites having many repeat measurements of vehicl es and more use of a larger number of lower traffic sites to measure a broader section of active vehicles. Th is provided qualifying measurements on a larger number of vehicles and allowed more owners to participate in the clean screen program. Other factors include d the addition of an RSD NO standard that eliminated some vehicles from consideration and the addition of the NFR for the full year.

### 6 

## Vehicle Exemptions Almost 300,000 vehicles measured on-road initi ally met the clean screening exemption criteria. Two percent of these were reserved to provide a program audit sample and others were eliminated during the QA reviews, for exam ple, as a result of vehicle plate changes. The owners of the remaining 289,768 vehicles meeting the clean screening cr iteria were issued notices granting exemption from the I/M test at an inspection stat ion. Approximately 246,700 (85%) of the vehicle owners took advant age of the Clean Screen exemption. Two methods were used to qualify vehicles, 2-RSD and Hybrid. With the 2-RSD method, vehicles qualified for an exemp tion if they had two or more on-road measurements and the most recent two measurements both showed emi ssions within the clean screen standards. With the ‘Hybrid’ clean screening method ve hicles measured once by remote sensing qualified for clean screening if the emissions measurement was within the clean screen standards and the vehicle model had a histor ically low rate of emissions problems. A 2% random sample of vehicles that qualifie d was not issued exemption notices and 4,958 of these vehicles were subsequently inspected at an enhanced inspection station. The results of the station inspections were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Additional information about vehicles mailed notices is provided in Section IV. Clean Screen Program Effectiveness In a Clean Screen program, some vehicles pass ing the clean screen emissions criteria might have failed if inspected at an inspection sta tion. Therefore, a Clea n Screen program, while greatly improving convenience for vehicle owners, can slightly reduce the overall effectiveness of the I/M program. On May 5 th 

## 2008, IM240 Denver Metro Area station test standards were tightened – especially for HC and NOx – to bring them into closer alignment with EPA final standards. The LEI table was updated with subsequent IM240 results to reflect consequent changes in inspection result statistics for vehicle models in December 2008, and periodically in 2009, 2010 and 2011.. The RSD standards were update d in October 2010 with the addition of an RSD NO standard of 1000ppm that first ap plied to December 2010 registrants. Figure I-1 compares the average IM240 exhaust reductions per vehicl e inspected at stations to those of the 2-RSD audit sample and the H ybrid RSD-LEI audit sample. The RSD-2 and RSD-LEI methods showed similar reductions for HC. For CO and NOx pollutants the RSDLEI audit sample showed smaller reductions than RSD-2 indicating the hybrid RSD-LEI method performed better.

### 7 

## Figure I-1 Average IM240 Emissions Reductions

For 2011, based on the 2% random audit vehicles tested with IM240, it was projected that 99.1%, 97.9% and 97.3% of HC, CO and NOx of program exhaust emission reductions were retained. The impact on gas cap related evaporative emissions was projected to be another 3.1% of HC reductions. The methodology for estimating clean screen effec tiveness only allows for a score of 100% or less and uses the IM240 test as a “gold’ standa rd. Any variations in vehicle performance or the IM240 test procedure that produce an anomal ous IM240 test failure are scored against Clean Screen. Therefore, it is possible the Clean Screen effectiveness was better than projected. 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10StationRSD-2RSD-LEIg/mi 

### HC

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2StationRSD-2RSD-LEI 

## CO

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10StationRSD-2RSD-LEI 

## NOx

### 8 

# II. Description of the Denver Clean Screening Program A. I/M Program Overview The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) operates an enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program in the Denver metropolitan area (DMA) and the Northern Front Range (NFR). The clean screen ing component of the IM program uses remote sensing equipment to measure the tailpipe em issions of vehicles as they drive by the measuring equipment. Vehicles that are determin ed to have low tailpipe emissions are granted an exemption from their I/M inspection. Operating rules for the Clean Screening progra m are contained in the Air Quality Control Commission’s Regulation 11 2 

## . The Regulation defines the ma ximum percentages of vehicles that may be evaluated by the clean screen pr ogram in the enhanced I/M area. In 2006, the percentage of vehicles allowed to be evalua ted using remote sensi ng was decreased from 80% to 50% as part of an Early Action Compact (EAC) to achieve an earlier attainment designation for ozone. Clean Screening regulations were expanded in 2007 to allow use of a single RSD measurement combined with an index of lo w emitting vehicles to evaluate exemption candidates. The Low Emitter Index (LEI) was developed using I/M240 data to identify vehicle groups that historically have a ve ry low probability of failing. The current requirement for a vehicle group to qualify as a low emitter is they must have an I/M240 pass rate of 98% or greater. There are multiple requirements and restrictions fo r vehicles to participate in the Clean Screen program as defined in Regulation 11. The followi ng are the primary elements for vehicles to qualify for a clean screen exemption.

 The applicable observations were within twelve months prio r to the individual vehicles registration renewal date,

 The two most recent observation re sults are below, 200ppm, 0.5%, and 1000ppm for HC, CO, and NOx respectiv ely, (NOx standard implemented October 2010)

 The two most recent observations must have occurred on a different day or on the same day at different site locations,

Contractor 

## Envirotest (Envirotest) was contracted to ope rate the enhanced program by a competitive bid process and the contract was subsequently ame nded to include clean screening in the Denver area. Envirotest uses technology derived from that origina lly developed at Denver University with whom Envirotest has a royalty agreement.

Theory of operation The RSD is a system designed for a non-intrus ive measurement of vehicle emissions. It generates and monitors a non-dispersive infrared and dispersive ultra-violet beam emitted and

### 9 

## reflected approximately 10 to 18 inches above ground preferably across a single lane road. Gasoline, diesel, or other fossil fuel powered ve hicles drive through this beam and the exhaust interferes with this transmission of the be am. Quantifying the interference enables the calculation of tailpipe concentrations of CO, HC, CO2, NO and particulate matter. A camera simultaneously captures a digitized video image of the rear of the vehicle and its license plate. Equipment The equipment initially deployed in the No rthern Front Range counties were RSD-3000 mobile units also called AccuScan TM 

## . Successor RSD 4000 units were introduced in 2003. Both systems were based on a technical platform developed at the University of Denver by Dr. Donald Stedman. In 2007, additional RSD4600 units were added. The RSD4600 is very similar to the RSD4000-L3 system describe d below. The RSD4600 has a more compact speed and acceleration measurement bar and mo re diagnostic ports. Functionally, the two systems are the same. One RSD 5000, the latest generation of RSD systems passed acceptance testing in 2011 and began data co llection in December 2011. The RSD 5000 is more compact, requires less power a nd supports remote wireless operation. AccuScan measures the exhaust of a passing motor vehicle in less than 0.7 seconds. Nondispersive infrared (IR) spectroscopy, the same an alytical technique used in garage based twospeed idle and ASM equipment is used to measure concentrations of CO, HC, and CO 2 

## . Dispersive ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopy is used to measure NOx. The system is based on the original designs and patents of Dr. Donald St edman, professor emeritus at the University of Denver. The following elements comprise a complete RSD4600 unit:

 RSD 4-gas analyzer Source Detector Module

 Corner Cubed Mirror Module (CCM)

 Two Alignment stands, one each for SDM and CCM

 Speed/Acceleration subsystem consisting of:

 Two Speed/Acceleration bars: one em itter and one detector bar with adjunct hardware

 Speed/Acceleration computer

 Digital Video camera and speed subsystem

 Computer control console subsystem consisting of:

 Video monitor

 Pentium TM 

## –based PC

 Additional PC cards and inte rnal hardware PC cards:

 Hard drive

 Removable Mass Storage

 Matrox video

 Serial and COM port

 RSD operation (data collection) software

 RSD compatible license plate tag-editing software

### 10 

##  Calibration and auditing s ubsystem consisting of:

 Calibration gas cell

 Audit tube

 Audit gas bottle

 Pressure regulator

 Hoses with quick disconnects

 RSD shipping container for SDM and CCM



## The following elements comprise an AccuScan TM 

## van:

 Ford one-ton truck

 Triton V-8 engine with 4-speed automatic transmission

 12 – 14 foot box on bed of truck

 Roof-mounted 13,500 BTU Coleman air-conditioner

 5 kW Onan generator

 Connector panel for quick connectio n of external cables and cal gas hoses

The RSD unit takes multiple rapid readings for each vehicle to characterize the exhaust plume profile and evaluate whether a valid measurement of a vehicle’ s exhaust has been achieved. The criteria include how much vehicle exhaus t plume is available for the duration of the sampling period, evaluation of whether plume measurements are consistent with normal plume dissipation, and correction for changes in background concentrations of emissions. The RSD units comply with the CDPHE, “C olorado On-road Vehicle Emissions Remote Sensing System (COVERS) Specifications” Amended July 2010 3 

## : The COVERS accuracy specifications are consistent with the California BAR OREMS Specification: 1 

## and include: Detector accuracy:
1. The CO 2 

## % reading shall be within  10% of the Certified Gas Sample, or an absolute value of  0.25, or shall be within published manufacturer’s specification – whichever is less restrictive. Negative values shall be included and shall not be rounded to zero.

2. The CO% reading shall be within  15% of the Certified Gas Sample, or an absolute value of  0.25 (whichever is greater). Negative values shall be included and shall not be rounded to zero.

3. The HC reading (ppm pr opane) shall be within  15% of the Certified Gas Sample, or an absolute value of  250ppm (whichever is greater) . Negative values shall be

1 

### On Road Emissions Measurement System OREMS) Specifications, Revision L, Bureau of Automotive Repair, Engineering

and Technical Research Branch, 10240 Sy stems Parkway, Sacramento, CA 9582 7; 2001 California DCA/BAR; p. 5.

### 11 

## included and shall not be rounded to zero.

4. The NOx reading (ppm) shall be within  15% of the Certified Gas Sample, or an absolute value of  250 ppm (whichever is greater). Negative values sh all be included and shall not be rounded to zero.

5. COVERS shall submit readings within the following limits: CO + CO 2 

##  21.0 %, HC  35,000 ppm hexane, CO 2 

##  16.0 %, and NO  7000 ppm.

6. The system shall record at least three a nd display at least two measures of plume characteristics, for example the maximum nu mber of CO2 molecules seen, the average number of CO2 molecules seen, and the number of valid samples (measurements) made.

7. Each unit shall demonstrate during contro lled acceptance testing the above criteria 98% of the time. Ninety-eight percent (98%) shall mean that one hundred percent (100%) of the valid records shall have th e following fields fill ed correctly with accurate data, ninety-eight pe rcent (98%) of the time: CO2% CO % HC ppm hexane NO ppm Speed and Acceleration Accuracy:
1. The vehicle speed measurement shoul d be accurately recorded within  1.0 mile per hour.

2. The vehicle acceleration measurement shoul d be accurately recorded within  0.5 mile per hour / second.

3. The speed and acceleration system shall demonstrate during controlled acceptance testing the above criteria ni nety-five percent 95% of the time. Ninety-five percent (95%) shall mean that one hundred percent (100%) of the valid records shall have the speed and acceleration fields filled co rrectly with accurate data, ninety-five percent (95%) of the time.
4. VSP shall be calculated during host pro cessing using the most recent CDPHE approved equation.

Vehicle Identification The system captures emissions readings and rear pictures of vehicles that pass through the RSD infrared beam. The video and emissions readings taken are st ored directly on a removable media disk and can be used for future reference.

### 12 

## Envirotest’s TagEdit TM 

## software is used to transcribe vehicle license plate information. Figure II-1 below shows an example of a TagEdit TM 

## screen. This license plate editing service is superior to an automatic license plate reader because:

 All video images associated with valid emi ssions data get processed. This ensures the highest possible vehicle capture rate.

 Vehicles with special plates are also processed . This is especially important in areas where many unique license plates are issued. Fa ilure to process all plate types can create a statistically skewed database that could be misinterpreted by the public as “targeting” only certain vehicle classes. 

## A special registration database was created for th e Clean Screen program to allow vehicles to be identified (VINs) from Clean Screen lice nse photos captured days prior to their data processing. This Clean Screen registration database is updated nightly with all the changes statewide that affect what VIN is associated with what plate. A lag time interval is incorporated to allow time fo r updates to get from the Count y Clerks Offices to the DOR database. The separate Clean Screen Registrati on Database on the Envirotest host contains all vehicle registration records statewide, even though only certain counties are expected to participate in the Clean Screen program. The fu ture growth of registration could require some housekeeping, but there is plenty of hardwa re scalability to handle this growth.

Figure II-1: TagEdit TM 

## Screen

### 13 

## B. Measurement Sites Good remote sensing sites are critical for obtai ning RSD measurements that are representative of vehicle operation. Recomm ended site attributes include:
(1) Absence of cold start vehicle operating conditions
(2) Sites where vehicles will generally be accelerating or driving at a steady speed uphill to ensure adequate engine power and exhaust plumes and avoid the problem of RSD not measuring vehicles that have vi rtually no exhaust under deceleration
(3) Absence of enrichment due to high load conditions
(4) Single lane operation
(5) High volume traffic
(6) Unobtrusive siting of the remote sensing equipment
(7) Adequate median space for safe operation of the RSD equipment.



## Table II-1 lists the RSD sites in the Northern Front Range (NFR), the number of days each site was used, the total hours dur ing which measurements were collected and the number of vehicles measured per hour. The hours shown do not include travel time to and from the site, equipment set-up and equipment takedown time.
Table II-2 lists the Denver Me tro Area (DMA) site locations. Table II-3 lists the El Paso County (Colora do Springs) locations where a small number of measurements are made annually. Site locations in the NFR and DMA are illustrated in Figures II-2a and IIb. Blue sites are active. Red sites are no longer permitted. The X's represent HQ and other stations where RSD vans are housed.

### 14 Table II-1 Northern Front Range

Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Re g istered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 2132 NB SHIELDS 100' PAST VINE DR FT COLLINS 17 116 13,864 120 2143 NB OVERLAND TRAIL NORTH OF DRAKE FT COLLINS 13 90 11,997 134 2989 EB US 34 BYPASS FROM 23RD AVE GREELE Y 56 434 59,582 137 3017 EB TRILBY ROAD EAST OF SHIELDS STREET FORT COLLINS 44 283 63,146 223 3019 ON RAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 402 (CR-54) LOVELAND 14 95 9,740 103 3020 ON RAMP TO SB I-25 FROM 402 (CR-54) LOVELAND 34 217 26,447 122 3506 ONRAMP TO NB US-85 FROM HWY 52 FT. LUPTON 10 77 4,834 63 3507 ONRAMP TO SB US-85 FROM HWY 52 FT. LUPTON 23 153 23,246 152 3508 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM HARMONY RD. FT. COLLINS 4 29 2,341 81 3509 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM PROSPECT RD. FT. COLLINS 3 20 1,107 57 3510 SB SHIELDS ST. AFTER FOSSIL CREEK FT. COLLINS 4 26 4,167 162 3511 OFF-RAMP FROM NB I-25 TO WB MULBERRY ST. FT. COLLINS 7 54 13,911 258 3512 SB TIMBERLINE RD. JUST BEFORE WILLOW SPRINGS RD. FT. COLLINS 8 65 8,953 139 3513 NB SHIELDS RD. AFTER BON HOMME RD. FT. COLLINS 4 28 2,353 83 3514 NB TAFT HILL RD. AFTER HARMONY RD. FT. COLLINS 17 116 34,931 302 3515 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WB US-34 FT. COLLINS 11 75 10,361 138 3516 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM CROSSROADS BLVD. FT. COLLINS 8 51 3,835 76 3518 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM SR-60 LOVELAND 3 18 1,079 59 3519 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM SR-56 BERTHOUD 4 26 1,131 44 3520 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM SR-66 LONGMONT 3 22 2,426 112 3521 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM SR-52 LONGMONT 15 101 24,460 243 3522 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM CR-8 DACONO 4 25 1,738 68 3523 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM CR-8 DACONO 5 33 267 8 3524 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM SR-52 LONGMONT 2 13 1,206 91 3525 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM SR-119 LONGMONT 12 80 10,889 136 3526 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM SR-66 LONGMONT 2 11 732 68 3572 WB US-34 JUST PAST GRAND ESTATES DR. ESTES PARK 2 8 988 118 3573 EB US-36 BETWEEN MILE MARKERS 2 AND 3 ESTES PARK 2 11 1,026 93 3574 EB US-34 BETWEEN VISTA LN. AND HILLSIDE LN. ESTES PARK 2 13 2,057 158 3575 SB SH-7 JUST PAST LEXINGTON LN. ESTES PARK 1 7 1,000 138 8037 EB US-34 BYPASS FRONTAGE ROAD JUST EAST OF 35TH AVE. GREELE Y 43 333 24,409 73 8041 WB US-287 JUST WEST OF SHIELDS ST. FT COLLINS 41 302 46,902 155 8042 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM EAST PROSPECT FT COLLINS 32 202 38,966 193 8043 ONRAMP TO WB US-34 FROM 27TH ST GREELE Y 59 501 98,906 198 8044 ONRAMP TO EB US-34 FROM SH-257 GREELE Y 8 55 3,558 65 8045 ONRAMP TO EB US-34 BYPASS FROM SH-257 GREELE Y 6 43 3,201 74 8048 ONRAMP TO WB US-34 FROM SH-257 GREELE Y 10 75 3,420 46 8049 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM HARMONY RD FT COLLINS 48 319 72,777 228 8050 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM LCR-32 W INDSOR 4 27 4,344 161 8051 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FOM LCR-32 W INDSOR 30 226 53,551 237 8052 NB SH-1 JUST EAST OF INTERSECTION WITH US-287 FT COLLINS 44 280 46,585 166 8053 EB US-287 ABOUT 500' EAST OF LCR-17 BERTHOUD 7 50 2,336 46 Subtotal 666 4,708 742,769 158

### 15 Table II-2 Denver RSD Sites

Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Re g istered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 2169 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 136TH AVE. THORNTON 3 23 1,925 83 2170 ONRAMP TO NB I-225 FROM BELLEVIEW AVE. CHERRY HILLS 4 27 3,665 137 2172 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM BOWLES AVE. LAKEWOOD 6 50 7,322 146 2174 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM WADSWORTH PKWY LAKEWOOD 5 37 4,052 110 2176 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM KEN CARYL AVE LAKEWOOD 26 183 50,963 278 2179 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM SB SHERIDAN BLVD DENVER 13 80 9,330 116 2319 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM LUCENT BLVD HIGHLANDS RANCH 20 162 36,087 223 2320 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM BROADWA Y HIGHLANDS RANCH 47 344 187,186 545 2321 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM UNIVERSITY BLVD HIGHLANDS RANCH 17 108 25,306 234 2322 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM UNIVERSITY BLVD HIGHLANDS RANCH 1 7 1,701 234 2323 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM LUCENT BLVD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 1 8 1,062 132 2325 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM QUINCY AVE LAKEWOOD 4 33 3,249 98 2400 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM NB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) LAKEWOOD 24 171 46,618 272 2456 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM PEORIA ST DENVER 13 88 11,927 135 2457 ONRAMP TO EB US-6TH AVE FROM SIMMS ST LAKEWOOD 3 18 1,651 90 2458 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM SIMMS ST LAKEWOOD 32 316 84,241 267 2461 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM NB WADSWORTH BLVD LAKEWOOD 19 146 30,709 210 2462 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM NB BRIGHTON BLVD COMMERCE CIT Y 8 59 5,712 97 2512 ONRAMP TO NB SH-157 FROM PEARL ST. BOULDER 12 84 12,162 145 2513 ONRAMP TO SB DIAGONAL HWY FROM NB BOULDER RD BOULDER 3 17 870 51 2514 ONRAMP TO 96TH AVE FROM SH-42. BOULDER 19 151 32,035 213 2560 ONRAMP TO EB US-6TH AVE FROM SB I-25 DENVER 2 26 6,058 234 2572 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM EB US-6TH AVE LAKEWOOD 19 128 36,416 285 2573 ONRAMP TO WB I-270 FROM QUEBEC ST. COMMERCE CIT Y 1 7 672 93 2574 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 25 201 25,631 127 2575 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM NB SHERIDAN BLVD W ESTMINSTER 3 24 3,210 136 2576 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM EB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 84 629 151,953 242 2577 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM EB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 123 923 431,356 468 2808 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM 136TH AVE THORNTON 5 31 5,053 165 2809 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM 144TH AVE THORNTON 5 32 1,806 57 2811 ONRAMP TO I-25 FROM WB SPEER DENVER 80 760 248,133 327 2812 OFF-RAMP FROM NB I-25 ONTO WB C-470 HIGHLANDS RANCH 3 22 4,753 216 2815 OFF-RAMP FROM WB US-36 ONTO SOUTH FEDERAL W ESTMINSTER 3 23 3,119 136 2816 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM FEDERAL W ESTMINSTER 4 19 1,747 91 2819 ONRAMP TO SB 121 FROM WB 287 W ESTMINSTER 109 1,164 342,283 294 2821 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 120TH AVE W ESTMINSTER 7 46 7,084 155 2822 ONRAMP TO SB FEDERAL FROM WB COLFA X LAKEWOOD 14 106 8,415 80 2826 ONRAMP TO EB US-36 FROM MCCASLIN LOUISVILLE 28 216 42,218 196 2827 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM INTERLOCKIEN LOOP LOUISVILLE 22 155 23,035 148 2828 ONRAMP TO NB DIAGONAL FROM NB 119 BOULDER 11 89 7,716 86 2971 EB DILLON RD EAST OF US-287 BROOMFIELD 39 328 99,376 303 3498 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM 74TH AVE. COMMERCE CIT Y 6 61 10,807 177 3499 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM WB I-76 DENVER 20 201 44,613 222 3500 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM WB LINCOLN AVE. LONE TREE 7 55 1,852 34 3501 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM EB LINCOLN AVE LONE TREE 43 329 111,764 340 3503 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM QUEBEC ST. DENVER 23 207 34,520 166 3504 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM PEORIA ST. DENVER 5 32 9,672 306 3505 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM QUEBEC ST. DENVER 13 120 41,039 341 8057 ON-RAMP TO SB SH 157 FROM PEARL ST. BOULDER 30 217 41,635 192 8058 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM SHERIDAN BLVD. ARVADA 42 377 87,345 231 8059 ONRAMP TO NB SANTA FE FROM US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) ENGLEWOOD 68 506 113,484 224 8060 EXIT LOOP TO NB SPEER BLVD FROM NB I-25 DENVER 3 21 4,002 194 8061 SB HERITAGE RD. AT INTERSECTION WITH US-40 (COLFAX) GOLDEN 2 11 948 88 8064 ONRAMP TO NB SH 157 FROM EB TABLE MESA BOULDER 27 193 42,225 219 8068 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM HARLAN ST. ARVADA 10 53 10,261 194 8069 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM KIPLING ST. W HEATRIDGE 39 347 88,618 255 8072 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 84TH AVE. THORNTON 16 124 22,979 186 8073 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 104TH AVE. NORTHGLENN 22 160 23,009 144 8077 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM QUEBEC ST. HIGHLANDS RANCH 116 897 489,125 545 8079 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM WADSWORTH PKWY BROOMFIELD 113 1,132 379,830 335 8081 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM HAVANA ST. DENVER 2 17 1,405 84 8083 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM FOUNDERS PARKWAY (EXIT 184) CASTLE ROCK 44 329 53,876 164 8084 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM LINCOLN AVE. LITTLETON 32 240 26,701 111

### 16 Table II-2 Denver RSD Sites continued

Table II-3 El Paso RSD Sites Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Re g istered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 8085 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WOLFENSBERGER RD. (EXIT 182) CASTLE ROCK 36 263 80,006 304 8086 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM FOUNDERS PARKWAY (EXIT 184) CASTLE ROCK 41 285 87,611 307 8087 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM AIRPORT BLVD. AURORA 6 44 6,543 150 8088 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM 88TH AVE COMMERCE CIT Y 2 15 1,757 116 8089 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM 96TH AVE COMMERCE CIT Y 16 111 21,157 191 8090 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM PECOS ST. DENVER 1 8 630 81 8091 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM BROMLEY LN. BRIGHTON 4 25 3,420 139 8093 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM NB I-25 DENVER 214 2,308 1,338,408 580 8097 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM NB I-25 DENVER 149 1,055 765,099 725 8098 ONRAMP TO NB I-225 FROM ILLIFF AVE AURORA 14 96 13,620 142 8100 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM SB KIPLING ST. LAKEWOOD 4 29 6,313 214 8106 ONRAMP TO NB US-285 FROM KIPLING BLVD. DENVER 12 91 22,802 249 8107 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM BROADWA Y DENVER 56 418 160,556 384 8108 ONRAMP TO WB SH-58 FROM MCINTYRE ST. GOLDEN 3 14 612 43 8109 ONRAMP TO WB SH-58 FROM WASHINGTON AVE GOLDEN 2 9 761 82 8110 ONRAMP TO EB SH-58 FROM WASHINGTON AVE GOLDEN 15 124 26,758 216 8111 ONRAMP TO EB SH-58 FROM MCINTYRE ST. GOLDEN 10 79 20,483 260 8112 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM MORRISON RD. MORRISON 14 87 11,410 131 8115 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM FEDERAL BLVD DENVER 12 84 13,717 163 8121 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM MISSISSIPPI AVE AURORA 19 141 36,518 259 8122 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM PARK AVE DENVER 118 1,109 366,521 330 8123 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 58TH AVE. DENVER 43 326 112,488 346 8125 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM THORNTON PKW Y THORNTON 8 53 8,691 163 8126 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM PECOS ST DENVER 37 292 90,608 310 8129 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM PECOS ST DENVER 8 56 12,745 227 8130 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM SHERIDAN BLVD ARVADA 26 234 53,716 230 8131 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM SHERIDAN BLVD. ARVADA 4 20 3,143 160 Subtotal 2,424 20,046 6,913,610 345

Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Re g istered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 2518 ONRAMP TO E.PLATTE AVE FROM NB ACADEMY BLVD COLORADO SPRINGS 8 52 10,055 193 2520 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM N.ACADEMY BLVD COLORADO SPRINGS 10 72 12,417 173 Subtotal 18 124 22,472 181

Total 3,108 24,878 7,678,851 309

### 17 

## Figure II-2 a: Site Locations Northern Front Range

### 18 

## Figure II-2 b: Site Locations – Denver Metro Area

C. Sources of Data and Description of Elements Data used in the analyses in this re port come from three primary sources:

 Remote sensing unit measurements

 The DMV database maintained on the AI R program contractor host computer

### 19 

##  I/M test database maintained on the AIR program contractor host computer
Data from the RSD units are loaded into a database maintained by the centralized contractor, Envirotest. Using th e vehicle plate identified by RSD, the registration file is accessed to determine the vehicle identifica tion number (VIN) and vehicle registration information. Envirotest uses the Polk VIN Decoder to add additio nal information about each vehicle. The combined data fields are shown in Table II-4.

Table II-4 Vehicle Measurement Information 

## Field Name Description V_DATA_VER Data version V_DATE_TIME Date and time of measurement V_RSD_UNIT RSD system number V_SEQ_NUM Measurement sequence number V_SITE_CODE Site reference V_PROGRAM_CODE I/M Program V_VAN_OPERATOR_ID V_CO Carbon monoxide emissions % V_CO2 Carbon dioxide emissions % V_MAX_CO2 Maximum observed CO2 V_CO2_VOLUME Volume of CO2 observed V_HC Hydrocarbon emissions ppm hexane equivalent V_NOX Oxides of nitrogen emissions ppm (NOx) V_NOX_FLAG Validity of NOx measurement V_OPAC Opacity measurement V_SPEED Speed MPH V_ACCEL Acceleration MPH/S V_SA_UNITS Units of speed and acceleration V_TEMPERATURE Ambient temperature V_HUMIDITY Ambient humidity V_WIND_SPEED Ambient wind speed V_WIND_DIRECTION Ambient wind direction V_WEATHER_UNITS V_PLATE_CONFIDENCE Reserved for future use V_ALPR_VENDOR Reserved for future use V_TEST_COUNTY Reserved for future use V_CRC V_TAG_EDIT_MODE V_TAG_EDIT_ID_1 V_TAG_EDIT_ID_2 V_TAG_EDIT_ID_3 V_TAG_EDIT_EMP_1 V_TAG_EDIT_EMP_2 V_TAG_EDIT_EMP_3 V_PLATE License plate V_PLATE_STATE State issuing license plate V_PLATE_TYPE Type of plate V_VIN Vehicle Identification Number

### 20 

## Field Name Description V_LZIP Zip code for legal owner address V_STATE_MAKE Make code V_STATE_MODEL Model code V_COUNTY County of registration V_VEH_YEAR Model year V_EM_FLAG Subject to emissions test V_POLK_VEH_YEAR Polk decoded model year V_POLK_MAKE Polk decoded make V_POLK_VEH_TYPE Polk decoded vehicle type (P-pass, T-truck, U-unknown) V_POLK_MODEL Polk decoded model V_POLK_DISP Polk decoded engine displacement V_VSP Calculated vehicle speci fic power during measurement

### 21 

# III. Summary of Data Collection Up to 22 remote sensing units were depl oyed for 3,108 days during 2011 to collect 6.9M measurements in the Denver metropolitan area (DMA)Metro Area, 743,000 measurements in the Northern Front Range (NFR) and 22,000 measuremen ts in El Paso County having a visible plate and valid HC, CO, speed and acceleration values. Plates were matched to registrations to determine vehicle information. Clean screen exemption notices were issued for 242,824 DMA vehicles and 46,944 NFR vehicles scheduled to renew their registration in 2011 and due for emissions testing (Table III-1). Vehicles registered in the DMA accounted fo r 6.3M measurements, the NFR for 788,000, and El Paso County 125,000. Another 279,000 measurements we re of vehicles registered in other Colorado counties (Table III-2). In 2010, RSD performed over nine million emission measurements at 47 locations in the DMA and 16 locations in the NFR. In 2011, 1.3 milli on fewer emission measurements were made but the measurements were taken at almost twice th e number of locations than in 2010. Despite the reduction in the quantity of emission measuremen ts, and the addition of the RSD NO standard for the full year, the number of clean screens issued in creased by 50,000 vehicles. The increase in clean screens was partly due to the application of location performance metrics by the contractor that resulted in less focu s on high productivity si tes having many repeat measurements and more use of a wider variety of sites. On a monthly basis a ratio of unique vehicles seen per hour of active collecti on by location on a 10.5 month rolling window was calculated and used for van scheduling. The ratio provided a metric of pot ential site saturation and allowed the contractor to adjust the van sc hedule accordingly. This approach allowed more vehicle owners to participate in the clean screen program. The addition of the NFR for the full year also increased the eligible vehicles.

Table III-1 Collection Summary



## A. Monthly Collection Activity Figure III-1 shows the monthly RS D measurements. Collection rates were lower during severe winter months. B. Measurements by Hour of Day Figure III-2 ‘Measurements by H our of Day’ shows the number of vehicles measured during each hour of the day. The shape of the curve is indicative of when measurements were collected and does not represent the level of traffic during the day. Most measurements were collected between 8:00am and 6:00pm. Statistic Denver Metro Area Northern Front Range Colorado Springs Total Sites Used 90 42 2 134 Collection Van Days 2,424 666 18 3,108 Active Collection Van Hours 20,046 4,708 124 24,878 Matched to Registration 6,913,610 742,769 22,472 7,678,851 Notices Generated for 2011 renewals 242,824 46,944 289,768

### 22 

## Figure III-1 Monthly RSD Measurements

Figure III-2 Measurements by Time of Day 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecMeasurements 

## Measurements by Month

El Paso County

Northern Front Range

Denver Metro Area



## 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000Before 6 am6-7 am7-8 am8-9 am9-10 am10-11 am11-12 am12 -1 pm1-2 pm2-3 pm3-4 pm4-5 pm5-7 pm6-7 pm7-8 pmMeasurements 

## Measurements by Time of Day

El Paso County

Northern Front Range

Denver Metro Area

### 23 

## C. Composition of Vehicles Measured Table III-2, Source of Vehicle Re gistrations Measured by RSD, shows the number of vehicles registered in each program area and the area wher e they were measured. The majority (98%) of Denver metropolitan area registered vehicles were measured in the DMA . A majority (76%) of Northern Front Range registered vehicles were measured in NFR with the remaining 24% being measured in the DMA. Table III-3, Type of Vehicles Measured by RSD within Registration Jurisdiction, shows that 81.6% of vehicles measured were registered in the DMA, 10.3% in the NFR, 1.6% in El Paso County (Colorado Springs), 3.6% in other non-I/M counties, and 2.8% were not matched. This can occur when plates are transferred by an owner to a new vehicle. These numbers are indicative of on-road activity – not unique registrations. The sa me vehicle may be measured more than once.
Table III-4 shows the distribut ion of vehicle measurements by vehicle type, age group and registration jurisdiction. The vehi cle types were identified by the Polk VIN decoder. The model years of 1980 and older vehicles and some of th e newest models were determined from the registration information but the vehicle type wa s not available. These were classified as Unknown in Table III-3. Four hundred measurem ents of motorcycles were also included as Unknown.

Table III-2 Source of Vehicl e Registrations Measured by RSD 

### Measured In Denver Metro Area Northern Front Range El Paso Adams 986,605 98% 19,345 2% 207 0% 1,006,157 Arapahoe 812,498 98% 14,842 2% 582 0% 827,922 Boulder 385,475 96% 16,894 4% 57 0% 402,426 Broomfield 289,565 99% 2,512 1% 24 0% 292,101 Denver 1,035,463 98% 16,533 2% 575 0% 1,052,571 Douglas 1, 035,561 99% 6,297 1% 616 0% 1,042,474 Jefferson 1,598,911 99% 12,613 1% 299 0% 1,611,823 State of Colorado 27,310 85% 4,351 14% 395 1% 32,056 Subtotal Denver Metro 6,171,388 98% 93,387 1% 2,755 0% 6,267,530 Larimer 63,473 15% 361,006 85% 69 0% 424,548 Weld 128,054 35% 235,935 65% 66 0% 364,055 Subtotal Northern Front Range 191,527 24% 596,941 76% 135 0% 788,603
El Paso El Paso 101,502 81% 5,766 5% 17,932 14% 125,200
Non I/M 255,698 92% 21,997 8% 1,070 0% 278,765 Not Matched 218,753 Total 6,720,115 718,091 21,892 7,678,851 Northern Front Range Denver Metro Area 

### Program Registered Count y Total

### 24 Table III-3 Type of Vehicles Measured by RSD within Registration Jurisdiction

Table III-4 Registered Jurisdiction and Age of Vehicles Measured by RSD 

## Program County Pass Truck Unknown Total % Adams 412,934 588,777 4,446 1,006,157 13.1% Arapahoe 340,202 479,958 7,762 827,922 10.8% Boulder 190,247 210,733 1,446 402,426 5.2% Broomfield 133,378 157,654 1,069 292,101 3.8% Denver 454,790 586,727 11,054 1,052,571 13.7% Douglas 372,375 667,248 2,851 1,042,474 13.6% Jefferson 675,939 929,961 5,923 1,611,823 21.0% State of Colorado 9,980 21,416 660 32,056 0.4% Denver Metro 2,589,845 3,642,474 35,211 6,267,530 81.6% Larimer 166,302 255,030 3,216 424,548 5.5% Weld 149,397 212,378 2,280 364,055 4.7% Subtotal North Front Range 315,699 467,408 5,496 788,603 10.3%
El Paso El Paso 52,880 71,448 872 125,200 1.6%
Non I/M 100,873 175,372 2,520 278,765 3.6% Not Matched 218,753 2.8%
Total 3,059,297 4,356,702 44,099 7,678,851 100.0% Denver Metro

Northern Front Range



## Vehicle

T yp e Model Year Denver Metro Area Northern Front Ran g e El Paso NonI/M Total Pass 1981 & older 461 133 9 50 653 1982-1990 49,064 9,185 1,049 3,285 62,583 1991-1995 183,895 29,086 3,595 9,037 225,613 1996-2000 541,872 72,757 10,985 21,693 647,307 2001-2005 894,241 107,754 18,302 35,633 1,055,930 2006-2010 813,072 88,938 17,176 28,478 947,664 2011 & newer 107,240 7,846 1,764 2,697 119,547 Light Truck 1981 & older 407 228 19 137 791 1982-1990 38,131 8,775 793 3,681 51,380 1991-1995 151,339 26,103 3,020 9,965 190,427 1996-2000 631,679 90,506 11,809 32,036 766,030 2001-2005 1,333,712 169,381 26,766 62,499 1,592,358 2006-2010 1,327,050 156,526 26,669 61,063 1,571,308 2011 & newer 160,156 15,889 2,372 5,991 184,408 Unknown 1981 & older 12,122 2,929 491 1,513 17,055 1982-1990 359 131 16 108 614 1991-1995 532 154 23 73 782 1996-2000 2,576 410 45 126 3,157 2001-2005 2,533 449 72 221 3,275 2006-2010 2,719 716 115 252 3,802 2011 & newer 13,865 707 110 227 14,909 Total 6,267,025 788,603 125,200 278,765 7,459,593

### 25 

# IV. Clean Screening Program Performance A. Vehicles Selected, Notices and Redemptions

In 2011, there were 299,445 vehicles that qualified to par ticipate in the clea n screen program. Table IV-1 summarizes the monthly number of vehi cles meeting screening criteria each month, to include the number withheld for the random sample and the number rejected through QA checks. A random sample of two percent of vehicles meeting Clean Screen criteria are not mailed notices. These vehicles are required to go to a te st station to obtain the station-based emission inspection. This random sample of vehicles is us ed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Clean Screen program.
Not all vehicles notified for clean screen or w ithheld in the random sample redeem the clean screen or obtain a test at that time, for example vehicles that changed owner are likely to have obtained an earlier station inspection. Compared to the 289,768 vehicles notified in the year, fewer vehicles 206,790 (85%) obtained a clean screen.

Table IV-1 Vehicles Qualified As Mee ting Clean Screening Criteria by Status



## Table IV-2 lists the nu mber of vehicles by month and city th at were notified via the Department of Revenue. Table IV-3 shows inspection results of the audit sample. Just 0.3% of the audit sample failed their exhaust emissions inspection down from 1.2% in 2010. Gas cap pressure test failures of 2.8% were also down from 3.1% in 2010. Reg Year Reg Month Random Sample QA failed Notified Total Qualified Random % of Qualified 2011 Jan 488 269 23,551 24,308 2.0% 2011 Feb 494 283 23,558 24,335 2.0% 2011 Mar 528 317 25,104 25,949 2.0% 2011 Apr 465 275 22,175 22,915 2.0% 2011 May 463 345 22,313 23,121 2.0% 2011 Jun 515 307 25,021 25,843 2.0% 2011 Jul 564 311 26,800 27,675 2.0% 2011 Aug 563 287 27,238 28,088 2.0% 2011 Sep 552 335 26,084 26,971 2.0% 2011 Oct 526 311 25,337 26,174 2.0% 2011 Nov 418 311 19,968 20,697 2.0% 2011 Dec 463 287 22,619 23,369 2.0% Total 6,039 3,638 289,768 299,445 2.0%

### 26 Table IV-2 Notifications Transmitted to DOR

Table IV-3 Clean Screen Audit Test Pass / Fail Statistics Registration Renewal Month City Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total DENVER 3,551 3,676 3,697 3,386 3,439 3,930 4,091 3,996 4,032 4,089 3,690 3,872 45,449 AURORA 1,648 1,731 1,860 1,614 1,665 1,720 1,815 1,744 1,678 1,689 1,495 1,515 20,174 FT COLLINS 1,626 1,546 1,806 1,575 1,665 1,868 2,016 2,081 1,656 1,180 325 1,055 18,399 LITTLETON 1,380 1,346 1,408 1,205 1,246 1,410 1,400 1,468 1,404 1,360 1,242 1,197 16,066 ARVADA 1,200 1,120 1,269 1,116 1,044 1,271 1,315 1,389 1,377 1,430 1,149 1,236 14,916 HIGHLAND RCH 1,119 1,260 1,238 1,087 1,151 1,334 1,428 1,410 1,318 1,329 1,069 1,081 14,824 LAKEWOOD 927 961 1,020 959 877 1,014 1,009 1,187 1,249 1,285 1,123 1,117 12,728 WESTMINSTER 974 918 1,025 845 868 1,006 1,128 1,078 1,092 1,113 984 994 12,025 CENTENNIAL 1,024 978 1,032 904 881 986 1,057 1,071 1,045 1,016 865 838 11,697 THORNTON 785 855 889 761 773 876 980 948 919 1,019 898 881 10,584 PARKER 768 691 744 661 661 761 812 818 775 747 651 650 8,739 CASTLE ROCK 677 654 758 648 660 735 791 746 794 784 664 663 8,574 BROOMFIELD 688 683 697 581 643 710 765 780 745 823 621 627 8,363 BOULDER 693 664 635 640 590 619 646 768 723 845 622 706 8,151 LOVELAND 655 700 744 682 704 745 763 800 684 485 132 405 7,499 GREELEY 584 557 658 624 590 602 787 711 626 385 104 439 6,667 GOLDEN 558 501 522 469 441 497 590 589 539 639 523 564 6,432 ENGLEWOOD 391 428 450 408 370 421 459 476 440 444 377 400 5,064 LONGMONT 339 345 351 277 329 318 419 396 401 457 332 397 4,361 BRIGHTON 245 257 278 242 227 242 307 314 273 281 272 256 3,194 WINDSOR 238 282 305 265 285 290 342 396 326 210 50 180 3,169 WHEAT RIDGE 238 239 252 235 196 221 259 270 265 285 243 275 2,978 NORTHGLENN 244 235 249 200 231 266 284 253 258 289 214 218 2,941 COMMERCE CITY 212 180 212 206 194 215 257 218 242 237 216 242 2,631 LOUISVILLE 164 189 196 164 188 186 218 221 204 217 187 172 2,306 LAFAYETTE 158 156 169 140 148 180 226 200 205 242 192 178 2,194 GREENWOOD VLG 183 167 180 160 147 175 180 197 177 191 150 166 2,073 EVERGREEN 125 133 174 118 141 163 172 175 191 209 173 189 1,963 ERIE 151 160 169 142 147 175 150 179 184 160 68 150 1,835 LONE TREE 138 148 155 145 130 151 133 185 160 176 135 167 1,823 CASTLE PNS N 131 128 144 115 124 160 150 183 161 146 134 133 1,709 SUPERIOR 113 109 120 89 103 95 106 150 147 120 100 119 1,371 MORRISON 105 110 112 87 78 91 106 135 138 145 114 147 1,368 EVANS 128 128 126 115 130 138 153 121 127 69 20 89 1,344 JOHNSTOWN 110 78 94 118 80 105 122 122 117 63 10 63 1,082 BERTHOUD 75 63 72 58 47 91 86 89 81 59 9 67 797 CHERRY HL VLG 64 69 73 71 50 69 59 80 78 67 55 47 782 LARKSPUR 66 63 60 76 41 78 54 68 69 66 46 63 750 FT LUPTON 67 64 57 54 59 61 74 81 69 73 22 62 743 OTHER 1,009 986 1,104 933 970 1,046 1,091 1,145 1,115 913 692 999 12,003 Total 23,551 23,558 25,104 22,175 22,313 25,021 26,800 27,238 26,084 25,337 19,968 22,619 289,768



### Vehicle Type Vehicles Fail Emissions Fail Gas Cap / Pressure Fail Inspection Passenger 2,054 4 56 58 Light Truck 2,904 12 81 95 Total 4,958 16 137 153 Percentage 0.3% 2.8% 3.1%

### 27 

## B. Clean Screen Program Effectiveness The emissions reductions obtained during the station testing of the audit samp le vehicles are used to project the total emissions re ductions foregone as a result of the Clean Screen program. Pass / Fail Statistics Matching initial tests for audit vehicles were limited to those occurring after the second RSD measurement and before expiration of the assigned Clean Screen period. Matching reinspections following an initial failure were sought through the end of February 2012. The inspections identified for audit sample vehicles and the inspection results are tabulated in Table IV-3. As noted earlier, some of the anticipated random vehicles did not obtain a test within the Clean Screen period. In aggregate, 0.3% of th e tested audit vehicles failed their tailpipe emissions inspection, and 2.8% of the tested audit vehicles faile d their gas cap pressure test 2



## . The 0.3% of emissions failures in 2011 was 75% lower than in 2010. The addition of the RSD NO standard is believed to be mostly responsib le for the reduction in e xhaust emission failures. Continued LEI updates may also have contributed. The reductio n in audit vehicle gas cap failures of 2.8% down from 3.1% in 2010 was also a positive result. Following sections describe in detail how these resu lts are used to evaluate the emissions impact of the Clean Screen program.

Tailpipe Emissions Over 90% of inspected vehicles, and 95% of the clean screen audi t vehicles, were tested using IM240. Models inspected using the idle test included 1981- and-older models and 1982-andnewer trucks over 8500 lbs GWWR plus some fou r-wheel drive and traction control vehicles. Few of these were clean screened. The IM240 te st provides a more accurate estimate of in-use vehicle exhaust emissions than the idle tailpipe te st. Therefore, the resu lts of the clean screen audit sample vehicles tested using IM240 were used to evaluate the exhaust emissions effectiveness of the clean screen program.
Vehicle test results were sorted by VIN and test date. Vehicles we re then further classified based on their first and last test result during th e period. To avoid potential double counting of emissions reductions, the emissions analysis only considered the first and last result for each vehicle during the year and inte rim results were ignored. In the list below, the first and last results are in dicated in parenthesis, where P is pass, F is fail, W is waiver and null indicates that there was only a single test resu lt for a particular vehicle. The expected combinations that apply to th e vast majority of ve hicles are underlined.

 P – Passed initial test (P/null, P/P, P/F, P/W)

 R – Failed and successfully repaired (F/P)

 U – Failed unresolved (F/null, F/F)

2 

### Note that the number of emissions fails plus the number of Ga s Cap / Gas Cap Pressure failures does not always equal the total

number of inspection failures. In a few cases a vehicle may fail both Emissions and Gas Cap. In a few cases, vehicles fail fo r other reasons.

### 28 

##  W – Failed and wavered (F/W)
The difference between the initial and final tests is used to determine the percentage of tailpipe emissions reduction of each group. Fo r vehicles with only one test, the final result is the same as the initial result. Adjustment of Fast-Pass Results A majority of vehicles tested on IM240 fast pass the test in less than the 240-second driving cycle. To allow for comparison of emissions of vehicles tested over different durations of the IM240 test cycle, the emission re sults for vehicles that fast-p ass the IM240 inspection must be extrapolated. A method for projecting full test emissions was developed and implemented in the I/M program in 1996 4 

## and the projected full test emissions values are stored in the test records and reported as the emissions results. Unresolved Vehicles When vehicles fail their initial in spection, they must obtain a repair and return for re-inspection. This process is normally completed in 30 days, but can take longer. Vehicles that had initial tests in late 2011 but completed repair and final test after February of the following year are treated as unresolved. Thus, the “Fail unres olved” category may be somewhat over-stated. A number of vehicles never complete the repair /re-inspection process. In most cases, these vehicles are either scrapped or removed fr om the non-attainment area, which does reduce emissions in the area. Surveys in Arizona 5 

## and Colorado 6 

## found that some vehicles continued to operate in the area in violation of the program rules, either with expired lic ense plates or with stolen license plates or license plate stickers. In this report, it is assumed that two-thirds of these unresolved vehicles leave the area and one third continues to operate. Studies in progress in Colorado preliminarily indicate the percenta ge leaving the area is closer to 80%.
To minimize the number of unresolved Clean Screen audit vehicles, retests of audit vehicles were included through the end of February 2012 and the audit ve hicles were all assumed to remain in the area.
First and Final Emissions Results Table IV-4 contains an example of the initial and final tailpipe results for 1982 to 1985 passenger vehicles inspected using the IM24 0 test. The table shows the av erage initial and average final emissions for each group of vehicles t ogether with the percentage reduction. For example, of the 1,562 1985 model year passenge r vehicles tested using the IM240 transient test, 15.5% of vehicles initially failed inspection and were repa ired (Pass) with HC and CO reductions of 61.6% and 74.5% and a NOx increase of 0.2%. Another 7.5% of vehicles failed their initial inspection and had not successf ully passed a retest by end February 2012 (Unresolved). Reductions from these vehicles are estimated to be approximately 67% for HC, CO and NOx, because follow-up studies have shown that more than two thirds cease operating in the area. Finally, 0.6% of vehi cles were waived (Waiver) with HC and CO increases of 20.5%, and 30.1% and NOx reductions of 22%. In aggregat e, including vehicles that passed their initial inspection, emission reductions for 1985 passenger vehicles were 31.4% for HC, 37.3% for CO and 5.2% for NOx. Complete tables by model year and vehicle type are provided in Appendix A for vehicles tested using the IM240. Tables are also provided fo r the Clean Screen audit sample vehicles.29Table IV-4 Transient Test Emission Reductions for 1982-1985 Passenger VehiclesColorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions ReductionsUnresolved fails remaining in area 33%Model First Last Initial Final Reduction %Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX1982 Pass - 275 1.64 19.26 2.09 1.64 19.26 2.09 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 44 12.4% 3.39 37.77 2.06 1.42 19.68 1.90 58.2% 47.9% 7.9%Fail Unresolv. 36 10.1% 8.10 79.73 2.00 2.26 25.03 0.58 72.1% 68.6% 70.8%Fail Waiver 1 0.3% 25.47 339.07 0.12 7.62 20.53 0.70 70.1% 93.9% -476.3%Total Fail% 356 22.8% 2.57 28.56 2.08 1.69 19.90 1.91 34.3% 30.3% 7.8%1983 Pass - 601 1.31 16.42 1.95 1.31 16.42 1.95 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 147 17.9% 3.33 46.98 2.05 1.30 14.25 1.97 60.8% 69.7% 3.7%Fail Unresolv. 69 8.4% 5.75 77.48 1.93 1.81 26.15 0.61 68.6% 66.3% 68.5%Fail Waiver 6 0.7% 11.41 131.35 0.87 10.14 136.65 0.90 11.2% -4.0% -3.5%Total Fail% 823 27.0% 2.11 27.84 1.96 1.41 17.73 1.83 33.2% 36.3% 6.4%1984 Pass - 777 1.30 14.54 1.98 1.30 14.54 1.98 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 183 17.3% 2.65 40.06 1.91 1.32 12.53 2.06 50.3% 68.7% -7.7%Fail Unresolv. 92 8.7% 6.85 88.17 1.79 2.29 29.20 0.57 66.6% 66.9% 68.3%Fail Waiver 3 0.3% 4.20 83.39 1.35 5.24 72.01 1.75 -24.8% 13.7% -29.8%Total Fail% 1,055 26.4% 2.03 25.58 1.95 1.40 15.64 1.87 30.9% 38.9% 4.1%1985 Pass - 1,562 1.04 11.53 1.94 1.04 11.53 1.94 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 318 15.5% 2.82 37.80 1.90 1.08 9.63 1.91 61.6% 74.5% -0.2%Fail Unresolv. 153 7.5% 4.70 57.95 1.92 1.51 18.91 0.61 67.8% 67.4% 68.0%Fail Waiver 13 0.6% 3.11 49.33 1.74 3.74 64.16 1.36 -20.5% -30.1% 22.0%Total Fail% 2,046 23.7% 1.61 19.32 1.93 1.10 12.12 1.83 31.4% 37.3% 5.2%

### 30 

## Audit Sample Reductions and Projected Impact Table IV-5 shows the aggregate first and fina l results for the 95% of the inspected audit sample vehicles that were tested using IM240. The average per vehicle emissions reductions from the audit sample are multiplied by the number of exempted clean screen vehicles to project the reductions that could have been achi eved if the clean screen vehicles had instead been inspected at the stations. This amount is then compared to the total emission reductions from vehicles tested at stations to determine the impact of the Clean Screen program and the percentage of emissions reductions retained. For vehicles subject to the IM240 test, the Cl ean Screen program retained 98.0% to 99.1% of the exhaust HC, CO and NOx reductions. These re ductions assume all vehicles are driven the same number of miles each year. Mileage ad justed emission reductions are calculated in section V.

Table IV-5 Clean Screen Emissions Impact for Tailpipe Emissions 

## IM240 Tailpipe Emissions Vehicles HC g/mi CO g/mi NOx g/mi Audit Sample 4,681 Mean Initial 0.115 1.907 0.373 Mean Final 0.112 1.836 0.369 Emissions reduction 0.003 0.072 0.004

Clean Screens 246,768 Potential Reductions 679 17,661 1,063

Station Vehicles 832,100 Mean Initial 0.354 4.599 0.739 Mean Final 0.269 3.530 0.678 Emissions reduction 0.085 1.070 0.061

In station reductions 71,072 890,014 50,955

Combined CS & Stn 1,078,868 71,751 907,675 52,018 Clean Screen Impact 0.9% 1.9% 2.0% Retained Reductions 99.1% 98.1% 98.0%

### 31 

## C. Gas Cap Evaporative Emissions The evaporative emissions test used in the I/M Program is a gas cap pressure test. Leaking gas caps allow evaporated gasoline (HC) to escape from vehicle gas tanks into the atmosphere. The impact of leaking gas caps on the Clean Screen progra m is only evaluated in this report in terms of the failure rate, not in terms of repairable gas cap emissions reductions 3



## . Figure IV-1 compares the average gas cap fail ure rate of the Clean Screen audit sample vehicles to the average failure ra te of the non-audit vehicles tested at stations. The failure rate of vehicles exempted via Clean Screen met hods was 35% lower than the failure rate of vehicles that received a station-based test (See Figure IV-1). This result is expected because remote sensing is directed towards measuring tail pipe emissions. A gas cap evaporative leak would have to be quite large to be detected by RSD units. Clean screen models were newer than the overall tested fleet. Figure IV-1 Gas Cap Pressure Failure Rates

Using the fail rates identified in the audit sample, Table IV-6 shows the projected gas cap failures that would have been found in the exem pted clean screen vehicles. These projected gas cap failures are added to the actual gas cap failures identified in initial inspections at the test stations to provide the total possible gas cap failure rate for the program. Vehicle counts in Figure IV-6 are higher than IV-5 because they include gas cap tests on vehicles tested using idle tests as well as those test ed using IM240. Vehicles with a redeemed Clean Screen notice

3 

### Although the gas cap leak rates ar e measured in the I/M Program, it is not clear that leak rates are directly related to the

amount of evaporative HC emissions releas ed from the gas tank. A small pressure leak may have the same effect as a large pressure leak, as long as it is sufficient to release internal gas tank pressure over a period of an hour or so. 

## 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5%

Pressure Failure Missing Cap
Nature of Failure 

# 2011 Gas Cap Pressure Failure Rates

Clean Screen Station

### 32 

## account for 14.5% of the total pos sible gas cap failures. Theref ore, 85.5% of evaporative gas cap HC emission reductions were retained. In general, it is desirable to use direct measurements of emissions to evaluate program performance rather than a model. Unlike exhaust emissions that are directly measured using tailpipe tests, however, emissions rates from gas caps cannot easily be directly measured. Emissions rates of vapor leaks are typically de termined in a test laboratory by enclosing a vehicle in a sealed compartment and measuring the emissions released into the compartment over time, which is impractical for testing many vehicles. Therefore, the EPA mobile source emissions model, Mobile6.2, was used to estimat e the fraction of emissi ons benefits derived from gas cap inspections. CDPHE provided results from M obile6.2 models of the benefits of the I/M program for 2011. The projected average reduction in HC emissions of the area fleet was 0.084 g/mi. This was comprised of 0.066 g/mi resulting from exhaus t emissions inspections and 0.018 g/mi from the Gas Cap testing. The measured I/M exhaus t reductions (see secti on V) were 696.7 tons. Assuming the 0.066 g/mi corresponded to 696.7 tons , the Gas Cap related HC reductions were projected to be 190.0 tons. Thes e results are shown in Table IV -7. The RapidScreen impact was projected as 27.6 tons or 3.1% of the I/M program reductions.

Table IV-6 Clean Screen Impact on Evaporative HC Emissions



## Initial Tests Pressure Failure Missing Cap Total Fails RapidScreen Audit 4,958 133 4 137 2.7% 0.1% 2.8%


## Projected RapidScreen 246,768 6,620 199 6,819

Station GC Tests 932,977 38,767 1,336 40,103 4.2% 0.1% 4.3% 

## Total Program 1,179,745 45,387 1,535 46,922 RapidScreen Impact 20.9% 14.6% 13.0% 14.5% Retained Reductions 79.1% 85.4% 87.0% 85.5%

### 33 Table IV-7 Gas Cap Related Benefit Tons



## Mobile6 Estimates (from CDPHE) 2011 M6 g/mi HC I/M 2011 HC tons I/M Exhaust emission reductions 0.066 696.7 Projected Gas Cap Evap Emissions reductions 0.018 190.0 I/M Program total HC reductions 0.084 886.7
Gas Cap Evap RapidScreen impact 14.5% 0.003 27.6 % of I/M program HC benefit 3.1%

### 34 

## D. Hybrid RSD-LEI vs. 2-hit RSD Envirotest compared the effectiveness of th e ‘Hybrid’ and ‘2-RSD’ screening methods. The Hybrid method uses a single RSD measurement and a low emitter index (LEI) table. The 2- RSD method uses two RSD measurements. The audit sample of vehicles with IM240 tests contained 3,444 ve hicles screened using the 2- RSD method and 1,237 vehicles screened using Hybrid RSD-LEI method. Table IV-8 shows the emissions reductions for these two samples a nd the average for all vehicles inspected at stations. Figures IV-2 and IV -3 show the average initial em issions and emissions reductions for each sample.
The 2-RSD method audit vehicles had initial em issions that were 40%, 50% and 59% of the overall I/M fleet average for HC and CO a nd NOx respectively. These percentages were lower than the equivalent percentages in 2010 of 52%, 59% and 74% respectively. The Hybrid RSD-LEI method audit vehicles had lower initial em issions that were 32%, 42% and 51% of the I/M fleet average for HC and CO and NOx respectively. These percentages were also lower than the 2010 e quivalents of 38%, 50% and 56%. The introduction of the RSD NO starting with D ecember 2010 registrations is believed to be the principle reason for the lower average emissions of clean screen vehicles compared to the overall fleet. Average I/M emissions reductions for the 2-RSD audit vehicles were 0.9%, 2.3% and 0.9% of fleet average initial emissions for HC and CO and NOx respectively. Average emissions reductions for the Hybrid RSD-LEI audit vehicl es were 1.0%, 0.4% and 0.0% of fleet average initial emissions for HC and CO and NOx respectively. These compared to station average reductions of 28.6%, 26.9% and 9.4% for HC , CO and NOx respectively. The Hybrid RSD-LEI audit vehicles had lowe r initial emissions of HC, CO and NOx and smaller reductions of CO and NOx than the 2- RSD audit vehicles. HC reductions were the
same.

### 35 Table IV-8 Average Emissions per Vehicle



## Figure IV-2 Average In itial IM240 Emissions Vehicle IM240 Tailpipe Emissions Sample Vehicles HC g/mi CO g/mi NOx g/mi I/M vehicle initial mean emissions 0.299 3.980 0.655

2-RSD Audits 3,444 Mean Initial 0.121 1.991 0.388 Mean Final 0.118 1.899 0.383 Emissions reduction 0.003 0.092 0.006 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissions 0.9% 2.3% 0.9%
Hybrid Audits 1,237 Mean Initial 0.097 1.673 0.331 Mean Final 0.094 1.659 0.331 Emissions reduction 0.003 0.015 0.000 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissions 1.0% 0.4% 0.0%

All Station Tests 832,100 Mean Initial 0.354 4.599 0.739 Mean Final 0.269 3.530 0.678 Emissions reduction 0.085 1.070 0.061 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissions 28.6% 26.9% 9.4%

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40StationRSD-2RSDLEIg/mi 

### HC

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0StationRSD-2RSDLEI 

## CO

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80StationRSD-2RSDLEI 

## NOx

### 36 

## Figure IV-3 Average IM240 Emissions Reductions

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10StationRSD-2RSD-LEIg/mi 

### HC

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2StationRSD-2RSD-LEI 

## CO

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10StationRSD-2RSD-LEI 

## NOx

### 37 

# V. Estimate of Overall I/M Progr am Benefits and Clean Screen Impact
Overall I/M program emission reductions derive from two main components:

○ Reductions resulting directly from I/M inspections and consequent repairs;

○ Reductions from repair activities that ar e performed in anticipation of an I/M inspection. In previous years, it was assu med the vast majority of emi ssions reductions were directly measurable by comparing the initial and final I/ M inspection emissions results, i.e. the first component described above. This report uses the same methodology. However, it is acknowledged that by 2007 most vehicles were equipped with OBD-II malfunction indicator lights. It is believed that some repairs of these newer model vehicles are performed in response to warning lights before the initial inspection. The benefits of these repairs are not directly measurable in the program testing. The Clean Screen disbenefit can be projected dire ctly from the emissions testing of the audit sample. There may be unmeasured offsetti ng benefits if the Clean Screen program encourages owners to maintain malfunctio ning vehicles sooner than otherwise. For this report, measured I/M exhaust emissions benefits were project ed from the IM240 and Idle emissions tests. In the case of Idle tests, idle test emission concentrations were converted to equivalent IM240 g/mi emissions. For each model year, the IM240 g/mi emissions values were weighted by the annual vehicle miles traveled to project the emissions inventory for initial and final test and, hence, the direct program benefits. The following sections project the directly measured tons of emissions and reductions
A. Conversion of Idle Tests to IM240 Equivalent emissions On-road remote sensing emissions of vehicles in spected at I/M stations have been used to project IM240 equivalent valu es for Idle test emissions. The idle test procedure includes a low-speed id le and a high speed idle at 2500rpm. Vehicles model year 1980 and older are required to pa ss the low-speed idle while 1981 and newer models must pass both the low-sp eed and the high-speed tests. Figures V-1 and V-2 show the correlation be tween idle tests and on-road HC and CO emissions of the same vehicles. Results are averaged by model year. Average initial and final test emissions were used for vehicles that initially failed and were retested. Model years were grouped together for 1965-and-older, 1966 to 1970, 1971 to 1975, 1976 to 1981, 1982 to 1985, 1986 to 1990 and 2004-and-newer. Even with these groups, there we re less than 100 matching RSD measurements for Passenger vehi cles in groups from 1982 to 1998. There were several hundred matching RSD measuremen ts for each truck group. Trend lines were plotted with an intercept of zero to obtain RSD / Idle Test emissions ratios.

### 38 

## Similarly, Figure V-3 shows the correlation between IM240 and on-road emissions. Trend lines were plotted with an intercept of zero for HC and CO emissions to obtain IM240 / RSD emissions ratios. The results are summarized in Tables V-1 and V-2. Figure V-1 RSD vs. Idle Test Emissions

Table V-1 Low Speed Idle to IM240 Truck Idle Test and Matchin g Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=57,867)

y = 1.0336x R 2 = 0.9242

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 

### Idle HC ppmRSD HC ppm 

### Passen g er Idle Test and Matchin g Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=8,843)

y = 1.1007x R 2 = 0.8169
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

- 100 200 300 400 500 600 

### Idle HC ppmRSD HC ppm 

### Passen g er Idle Test and Matchin g Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=8,843)

y = 1.3267x R 2 = 0.712

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

### Idle CO %RSD CO %



### Truck Idle Test Test and Matchin g Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=57,867)

y = 1.5121x R 2 = 0.7963 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 

### Idle CO %RSD CO %



## Low Speed Idle test to IM240 Projection Passenger HC HC R2 CO CO R2 RSD / Idle 1.1007 0.81 1.3267 0.71 IM240 / RSD 0.0087 0.98 15.947 0.92 IM240 / Idle 0.0096 21.1569 Truck HC HC R2 CO CO R2 RSD / Idle 1.0336 0.92 1.5121 0.8 IM240 / RSD 0.0111 0.98 18.765 0.94 IM240 / Idle 0.0115 28.3746

### 39 

## Figure V-2 RSD vs. 2500 Idle Test Emissions

Table V-2 High Speed Idle to IM240



## Using the ratios derived above, IM240 g/mi equivalent emissi ons were projected for the vehicles tested with the idle test procedure. The low speed idle results were used to estimate emissions reductions as all model year vehicles tested at idle were required to pass the low speed idle test. Model Year Average Truck Idle 2500 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=57,867)

y = 1.548x R 2 = 0.927 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 

### Idle HC ppmRSD HC ppm Model Year Average Passenger Idle 2500 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=8,843)

y = 1.5353x R 2 = 0.8565
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

### Idle HC ppmRSD HC ppm Model Year Average Passenger Idle 2500 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=8,843)

y = 1.1789x R 2 = 0.8169
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

### Idle CO %RSD CO %

Model Year Average Truck Idle 2500 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=57,867)

y = 1.4699x R 2 = 0.8185

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 

### Idle CO %RSD CO %



## 2500 RPM Idle test to IM240 Projection Passenger HC HC R2 CO CO R2 RSD / 2500 1.5353 0.86 1.1789 0.82 IM240 / RSD 0.0087 0.98 15.947 0.92 IM240 / 2500 0.0134 18.7999 Truck HC HC R2 CO CO R2 RSD / 2500 1.548 0.93 1.4699 0.82 IM240 / RSD 0.0111 0.98 18.765 0.94 IM240 / 2500 0.0172 27.5827

### 40 

## Figure V-3 RSD vs. IM240 Test Emissions

Model Year Average Pa ssenger IM240 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=449,842)

y = 0.0087x R 2 = 0.9812
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 

### RSD HC ppmIM240 HC g/mi

Model Year Average Pa ssenger IM240 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=449,842)

y = 15.947x R 2 = 0.9229 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 

### RSD CO %IM240 CO g/mi

Model Year Average Pa ssenger IM240 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=449,842)

y = 0.0016x + 0.1754 R 2 = 0.9885
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 

### RSD NO ppmIM240 NOx g/mi Model Year Average Truck IM240 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=423,746)

y = 0.0111x R 2 = 0.9756

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 

### RSD HC ppmIM240 HC g/mi

Model Year Average Truck IM240 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=423,746)

y = 18.765x R 2 = 0.9368

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 

### RSD CO %IM240 CO g/mi

Model Year Average Truck IM240 Test and Matching Vehicle RSD Emissions (RSD N=423,746)

y = 0.0016x + 0.3013 R 2 = 0.9785

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0 500 1000 1500 2000 

### RSD NO ppmIM240 NOx g/mi

### 41 

## B. Annual Mileage Weighting Because of data entry errors and odometer rollo ver on older, high mileage vehicles, obtaining estimates of annual mileage from the I/M Pr ogram odometer readings for each model year and type of vehicle is not recommended. To avoid these problems, annual mileages for vehicles were taken from the 2008 ERG repor t on Colorado mileage accumulation rates 7



## . The estimated annual mileages are shown in Ta ble V-3 for LDGVs and LDGTs. In Table VI3 the mileage accumulation rates for LDGT2, 3 a nd 4 were weighted together to obtain a single LDGT value. This table i ndicates that newer model year ve hicles are driven more miles annually than older vehicles. It also indica tes that 1995 and newer model year LDGTs, which emit greater masses of pollution than LDGVs are driven more miles annually than 1995 and newer model year LDGVs.
`

Table V-3 Estimated Annual Mileage in 2011 Year LDGV LDGT 1982 4304 4,554 1983 4304 4,562 1984 4434 4,583 1985 4481 4,630 1986 4502 4,668 1987 4552 4,741 1988 4,780 4,851 1989 5,088 5,019 1990 5,430 5,256 1991 5,672 5,519 1992 6,002 5,824 1993 6,331 6,135 1994 6,653 6,471 1995 6,974 6,940 1996 7,369 7,437 1997 7,764 7,863 1998 8,188 8,345 1999 8,613 8,900 2000 9,032 9,502 2001 9,450 10,087 2002 9,905 10,727 2003 10,360 11,245 2004 10,746 11,817 2005 11,132 12,303 2006 11,870 12,834 2007 12,023 13,215 2008 12,307 13,433 2009 12,357 13,514 2010 11,600 12,428 2011 9,650 8,995

### 42 

## C. Annual Emissions Reductions Annual tons of emissions were projected for vehicle type and model year by multiplying the numbers of vehicles by annual mileage and av erage g/mi emission levels. Results were projected for initial tests and final tests to determ ine the initial and final tons of emissions and, therefore, the tons of reducti on. The results are listed in Appe ndix B for IM240 and Idle tests.
Table V-4 first shows the reductions from the Cl ean Screen audit tests. Based on the audit tests, the second part of the table projects the potential re ductions from the Clean Screen vehicles if all vehicles with redeemed Clean Sc reen notices had been tested at a station. The third part of the table shows the reductions from the vehicles that were tested at inspection stations, which includes the Clean Screen audit vehicles. The total pot ential reductions from the program are the combination of the potential reductions from the Clean Screened vehicles plus the actual reductions from th e vehicles tested at stations. In Table IV-4, Clean Screen effectiveness wa s expressed without re ference to the annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by each model year of vehicles. The more complete analysis in Table V-4 shows the Clean Screen program effectiveness when the VMT and Gas Cap 4 

## estimates are factored in. During 2011, the Cl ean Screen program retained 96.1%, 98.1% and 97.3% respectively of potential HC, CO and NOx emission reductions in vehicles subject to testing. For vehicles initially tested in calendar year 2011, the I/M Program is projected to have eliminated 851.8 tons of HC, 8,697.8 tons of CO and 443.9 tons of NOx for one year of vehicle travel – based on the IM240 driving cycle. Because the program is biennial, these reductio ns are approximately half of the reductions that would be measured over a full two-year cycle of the program.
The tons of reductions cited here do not relate di rectly to the total mobile emissions inventory. The reductions cited are for tailpipe emissions a nd are in terms of the IM240 driving cycle. State Implementation Plan reductions are based on different driving cycles, are subject to many adjustments for speed, road type, temperat ure, air conditioning loads, etc., and therefore are larger than the IM24 0 measured reductions. As noted earlier, the reductions shown do not include reducti ons from maintenance actions performed on vehicles before their initial in spection. These may be quite substantial, especially for OBD-II vehicles that turn on the ch eck engine light to alert owners to problems.

4 

### The evaporative emissions have not been adjusted for mileage but the effect of an adjustment would be small. Gas cap

failures are more evenly distributed by age than tailpipe failures and only part of the evaporative emissions are running losses dependent on miles traveled.

### 43 Table V-4 Estimated Annual Tons Of Redu ction (IM240 and Idle Tested Vehicles

* NOx is not reported for idle tests.



## Table V-4 also shows that, during for the calendar year 2011, 246,768 vehicles were exempted through Clean Screen, and 910,181 vehicles received a station test. Therefore, 21.3% of the 1,156,949 unique vehicles were Clean Screened.
If the fraction of Clean Screen vehicles had be en 30% of vehicles subject to inspection there would have been 347,085 Clean Screens and 809,864 St ation tests. Assuming this increase was achieved by increasing on-road fleet coverage rather than by relaxing the Clean Screen standards, the projected emissions reta ined would have been 94.5%, 97.1% and 95.7% respectively of potentia l HC, CO and NOx tailpipe emission reductions. Audit Vehicle Reductions (tons/yr)

Audit Tests Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx Enhanced IM240 4,681 0.14 3.24 0.23

Potential from RS Vehicles (tons/yr)
RapidScreen Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx Enhanced Area 246,768 7.2 170.9 12.4 Gas Cap estimate from Mobile6 27.6

Station Reductions (tons/yr)

Station I/M Vehicles Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx Enhanced IM240 832,100 519.7 6,535.1 443.9 Enhanced Idle* 78,081 169.7 2,162.7 Gas Cap estimate from Mobile6 162.4 910,181 851.8 8,697.8 443.9

Total Potential Reductions 886.7 8,868.7 456.2 RapidScreen Exhaust Impact 0.8% 1.9% 2.7% Rapidscreen Gas Cap Impact 3.1% Retained Reductions 96.1% 98.1% 97.3%

### 44 

# VI. Review of Clean Screen Standards and Procedures
The 2008 report 8 

## contained an extensive ‘what if’ anal ysis to determine how clean screen standards could be adjusted to match the May 5, 2008 changes in I/M standards. Since then the LEI table has been updated several times to reflect the results of those changes and an RSD NO standard of 1000 ppm was implemented. The changes have improved results and resulted in fewer lost emi ssions reductions in 2011. Clean screens using the RSD-LEI method have fallen from 45% of the total in 2008 to 29% in 2009 and 24% in 2011. This reduction is a combinat ion the effective tightening of the LEI to match the new standards and an increase in the fraction of vehicles with two RSD measurements. New factors will potentially be coming into play in future years:

 In September 2011, President Obama requested that EPA withdraw the draft National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The statement was in response to a draft final rule EPA submitted to the Office of Inform ation and Regulatory Affairs, (OIRA) for review in July 2011 th at was anticipated to tighten the ozone standard. Under the Clean Air Act, (CAA) NAAQS must be reviewed every five years. Since ozone standards were last revi ewed in 2008 EPA is required to review the NAAQS again in 2013, which may affect the Denver Metropolitan Area and Northern Front Range. A new ozone standard is possible before the CAA mandated 2013 review. The American Lung Association, al ong with others, filed a motion on August 8, 2011 asking the United States Court of App eals for the District of Columbia to order EPA to issue its final rule.

 EPA has introduced the MOVES model that will become the basis for future SIP modeling;

 CDPHE will be performing a further st udy of OBD-II system effectiveness. Consequently, it would be beneficial to continue to refine methods and procedures to ensure the clean screen program continues to provide convenience to as many vehicle owners as possible consistent with mainta ining air quality goals.

### 45 

# VII. IM240 Projected Emissions by Model Year Figures VII-1 through VII-6 show the annual em issions inventories and reductions by model year and vehicle type for the vehicles tested in 2011 at stations, ba sed on the IM240 driving cycle. The projected exhaust emissions invent ory for the Clean Screen vehicles and Idle tested vehicles are also shown. The biennial testing cycle of the E nhanced area causes the difference between the sizes of the bars for od d model year vehicles vs. even model year vehicles.
Not included in these charts:

 most 2008 and newer models that had not yet entered the testing program;

 any estimate of pre-inspection emission reductions;

 NOx emissions for 78,081 vehicles tested w ith the idle test: 1981 and older models 15,817 (20%), 1982 and newer trucks 58,124 (74%), and 1982 & newer passenger vehicles 4,140 (5%). The Figures VII-1 to 6 illustrate that older ve hicles, which are fewer in number and driven fewer miles each year, still contribute many t ons of excess emissions in the I/M area – especially old trucks.

### 46 

## Figure VII-1 LDGV HC Reducti ons and Remaining Emissions

Figure VII-2 LDGT HC Reductions and Remaining Emissions 0 50 100 150 200 250P 1965&olderP 1966-70P 1971-75P 1976-81P 1982P 1983P 1984P 1985P 1986P 1987P 1988P 1989P 1990P 1991P 1992P 1993P 1994P 1995P 1996P 1997P 1998P 1999P 2000P 2001P 2002P 2003P 2004P 2005P 2006P 2007P 2008P 2009P 2010P 2011 

### IM240 Equivalent 

### Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2011 Passenger HC
Idle Reduction HC IM240 Reduction HC Idle Final HC IM240 Final HC Clean Screen Vehicles HC



### 0 50 100 150 200 250T 1965&olderT 1966-70T 1971-75T 1976-81T 1982T 1983T 1984T 1985T 1986T 1987T 1988T 1989T 1990T 1991T 1992T 1993T 1994T 1995T 1996T 1997T 1998T 1999T 2000T 2001T 2002T 2003T 2004T 2005T 2006T 2007T 2008T 2009T 2010T 2011 

### IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2011 Light Truck HC
Idle Reduction HC IM240 Reduction HC Idle Final HC IM240 Final HC Clean Screen Vehicles HC

### 47 

## Figure VII-3 LDGV CO Reductions and Remaining Emissions

Figure VII-4 LDGT CO Reductions and Remaining Emissions 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500P 1965&olderP 1966-70P 1971-75P 1976-81P 1982P 1983P 1984P 1985P 1986P 1987P 1988P 1989P 1990P 1991P 1992P 1993P 1994P 1995P 1996P 1997P 1998P 1999P 2000P 2001P 2002P 2003P 2004P 2005P 2006P 2007P 2008P 2009P 2010P 2011 

### IM240 Equivalent 

### Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2011 Passenger CO
Idle Reduction CO IM240 Reduction CO Idle Final CO IM240 Final CO Clean Screen Vehicles CO



### 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500T 1965&olderT 1966-70T 1971-75T 1976-81T 1982T 1983T 1984T 1985T 1986T 1987T 1988T 1989T 1990T 1991T 1992T 1993T 1994T 1995T 1996T 1997T 1998T 1999T 2000T 2001T 2002T 2003T 2004T 2005T 2006T 2007T 2008T 2009T 2010T 2011 

### IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2011 Light Truck CO
Idle Reduction CO IM240 Reduction CO Idle Final CO IM240 Final CO Clean Screen Vehicles CO

### 48 

## Figure VII-5 LDGV NOx Reductions and Remaining Emissions

Figure VII-6 LDGT NOx Reductions and Remaining Emissions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500P 1965&olderP 1966-70P 1971-75P 1976-81P 1982P 1983P 1984P 1985P 1986P 1987P 1988P 1989P 1990P 1991P 1992P 1993P 1994P 1995P 1996P 1997P 1998P 1999P 2000P 2001P 2002P 2003P 2004P 2005P 2006P 2007P 2008P 2009P 2010P 2011 

### IM240 Equivalent 

### Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2011 Passenger NOx Idle Reduction NOx n/a IM240 Reduction NOx Idle Final NOx n/a IM240 Final NOx Clean Screen Vehicles NOx



### 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500T 1965&olderT 1966-70T 1971-75T 1976-81T 1982T 1983T 1984T 1985T 1986T 1987T 1988T 1989T 1990T 1991T 1992T 1993T 1994T 1995T 1996T 1997T 1998T 1999T 2000T 2001T 2002T 2003T 2004T 2005T 2006T 2007T 2008T 2009T 2010T 2011 

### IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2011 Light Truck NOx Idle Reduction NOx n/a IM240 Reduction NOx Idle Final NOx n/a IM240 Final NOx Clean Screen Vehicles NOx

### 49 

# References

1 

### “ 

## The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January – December 2010”, Envirotest report for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, June 2011

2 

## Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, “Re gulation Number 11, Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program”, http://www.cdphe.state .co.us/regulations/a irregs/5CCR1001-13.pdf

3 

## Colorado Department Of Public Health and Envi ronment, Air Pollution Control Division, Mobile Sources Section, “Colorado On-road Vehicle Em issions Remote Sensing System (COVERS) Specifications” Amended July 2010

4 

## Klausmeier R., “Technical Note: Estimating Fu ll IM240 Emissions Based on Fast Pass Emission Results”, November 2005

5 

## Wenzel, T. “Evaluation of Arizona’s Enhanced I/M Program”, Presented at the 9th CRC On-Road Vehicle Emissions Workshop. April 1999.

6 

## McClintock, P. “The Denver Remote Sensing Clean Screening Pilot”, Envirotest report for the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, December 1999.

7 

### “ 

## Colorado Mileage Accumulation Rates from VID Od ometer Readings Draft Report” for CDPHE by Eastern Research Group, Inc. June 30, 2008

8 

### “ 

## The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January – December 2008”, Envirotest report for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, February 2010

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1982 Pass - 275 1.64 19.26 2.09 1.64 19.26 2.09 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 44 12.4% 3.39 37.77 2.06 1.42 19.68 1.90 58.2% 47.9% 7.9% Fail Unresolv. 36 10.1% 8.10 79.73 2.00 2.26 25.03 0.58 72.1% 68.6% 70.8% Fail Waiver 1 0.3% 25.47 339.07 0.12 7.62 20.53 0.70 70.1% 93.9% -476.3% Total Fail% 356 22.8% 2.57 28.56 2.08 1.69 19.90 1.91 34.3% 30.3% 7.8%

1983 Pass - 601 1.31 16.42 1.95 1.31 16.42 1.95 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 147 17.9% 3.33 46.98 2.05 1.30 14.25 1.97 60.8% 69.7% 3.7% Fail Unresolv. 69 8.4% 5.75 77.48 1.93 1.81 26.15 0.61 68.6% 66.3% 68.5% Fail Waiver 6 0.7% 11.41 131.35 0.87 10.14 136.65 0.90 11.2% -4.0% -3.5% Total Fail% 823 27.0% 2.11 27.84 1.96 1.41 17.73 1.83 33.2% 36.3% 6.4%

1984 Pass - 777 1.30 14.54 1.98 1.30 14.54 1.98 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 183 17.3% 2.65 40.06 1.91 1.32 12.53 2.06 50.3% 68.7% -7.7% Fail Unresolv. 92 8.7% 6.85 88.17 1.79 2.29 29.20 0.57 66.6% 66.9% 68.3% Fail Waiver 3 0.3% 4.20 83.39 1.35 5.24 72.01 1.75 -24.8% 13.7% -29.8% Total Fail% 1,055 26.4% 2.03 25.58 1.95 1.40 15.64 1.87 30.9% 38.9% 4.1%

1985 Pass - 1,562 1.04 11.53 1.94 1.04 11.53 1.94 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 318 15.5% 2.82 37.80 1.90 1.08 9.63 1.91 61.6% 74.5% -0.2% Fail Unresolv. 153 7.5% 4.70 57.95 1.92 1.51 18.91 0.61 67.8% 67.4% 68.0% Fail Waiver 13 0.6% 3.11 49.33 1.74 3.74 64.16 1.36 -20.5% -30.1% 22.0% Total Fail% 2,046 23.7% 1.61 19.32 1.93 1.10 12.12 1.83 31.4% 37.3% 5.2%

1986 Pass - 1,553 0.87 9.99 1.79 0.87 9.99 1.79 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 260 13.5% 2.41 30.40 2.11 1.04 8.88 1.86 56.9% 70.8% 11.6% Fail Unresolv. 112 5.8% 3.89 52.60 2.02 1.37 18.79 0.63 64.8% 64.3% 68.9% Fail Waiver 2 0.1% 2.78 21.09 1.07 2.00 45.07 0.85 28.1% -113.7% 20.9% Total Fail% 1,927 19.4% 1.25 15.23 1.85 0.92 10.39 1.73 26.5% 31.8% 6.2%

1987 Pass - 2,825 0.83 9.27 1.71 0.83 9.27 1.71 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 401 11.9% 2.37 30.46 1.99 0.94 8.15 1.70 60.5% 73.2% 14.9% Fail Unresolv. 148 4.4% 4.26 58.36 1.99 1.29 18.13 0.64 69.8% 68.9% 68.0% Fail Waiver 6 0.2% 2.45 47.58 2.03 3.17 73.63 1.40 -29.2% -54.7% 30.8% Total Fail% 3,380 16.4% 1.17 14.00 1.76 0.87 9.64 1.66 25.6% 31.1% 5.4%

1988 Pass - 2,383 0.76 8.99 1.59 0.76 8.99 1.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 369 12.7% 2.13 28.43 1.94 0.90 8.23 1.73 57.7% 71.0% 10.7% Fail Unresolv. 158 5.4% 4.62 52.02 1.88 1.48 17.27 0.56 68.0% 66.8% 70.3% Fail Waiver 4 0.1% 3.41 70.78 1.48 3.18 71.71 1.22 6.7% -1.3% 17.3% Total Fail% 2,914 18.2% 1.15 13.87 1.65 0.82 9.43 1.55 28.4% 32.0% 5.9%

1989 Pass - 4,690 0.67 8.22 1.48 0.67 8.22 1.48 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 640 11.5% 2.15 29.27 1.75 0.84 8.15 1.67 61.0% 72.1% 4.6% Fail Unresolv. 205 3.7% 4.39 45.57 1.98 1.51 16.29 0.62 65.7% 64.3% 68.6% Fail Waiver 9 0.2% 1.99 38.18 1.71 2.51 47.82 1.59 -26.3% -25.2% 6.9% Total Fail% 5,544 15.4% 0.98 12.08 1.53 0.72 8.57 1.47 26.2% 29.0% 3.9%

A1-1

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1990 Pass - 5,233 0.65 7.79 1.44 0.65 7.79 1.44 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 663 10.8% 2.19 26.91 2.07 0.78 7.79 1.69 64.4% 71.0% 18.3% Fail Unresolv. 224 3.7% 3.57 44.43 2.62 1.19 14.11 0.85 66.6% 68.2% 67.7% Fail Waiver 7 0.1% 2.24 25.92 3.67 2.00 18.28 2.84 11.0% 29.5% 22.7% Total Fail% 6,127 14.6% 0.92 11.22 1.56 0.68 8.03 1.45 26.0% 28.4% 6.9%

1991 Pass - 8,804 0.55 6.82 1.35 0.55 6.82 1.35 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,065 10.4% 1.90 25.52 1.90 0.73 7.34 1.63 61.8% 71.2% 14.3% Fail Unresolv. 358 3.5% 3.71 40.46 2.27 1.26 13.86 0.76 66.1% 65.8% 66.4% Fail Waiver 4 0.0% 5.53 71.08 1.77 3.63 55.03 1.98 34.3% 22.6% -11.9% Total Fail% 10,231 13.9% 0.80 9.97 1.44 0.60 7.14 1.35 25.9% 28.4% 5.7%

1992 Pass - 7,591 0.51 6.25 1.28 0.51 6.25 1.28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 994 11.1% 1.90 25.85 1.83 0.66 6.43 1.49 65.2% 75.1% 18.6% Fail Unresolv. 379 4.2% 4.00 39.28 2.33 1.28 12.66 0.76 68.1% 67.8% 67.3% Fail Waiver 7 0.1% 3.30 38.78 1.81 3.76 25.89 1.85 -14.2% 33.3% -2.0% Total Fail% 8,971 15.4% 0.81 9.84 1.39 0.56 6.55 1.28 31.1% 33.4% 7.5%

1993 Pass - 12,042 0.49 5.69 1.27 0.49 5.69 1.27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,461 10.5% 1.83 22.56 1.98 0.65 6.30 1.57 64.4% 72.1% 20.7% Fail Unresolv. 423 3.0% 3.50 38.03 2.42 1.13 12.37 0.81 67.8% 67.5% 66.6% Fail Waiver 8 0.1% 2.83 19.13 2.54 4.89 17.04 1.80 -72.9% 10.9% 29.2% Total Fail% 13,934 13.6% 0.72 8.45 1.38 0.53 5.97 1.29 26.9% 29.4% 6.7%

1994 Pass - 11,519 0.38 4.89 0.99 0.38 4.89 0.99 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,224 9.3% 1.56 16.81 1.73 0.52 5.45 1.30 66.9% 67.6% 25.1% Fail Unresolv. 376 2.9% 4.01 34.30 2.19 1.31 11.02 0.72 67.5% 67.9% 67.3% Fail Waiver 10 0.1% 1.76 13.98 3.41 1.12 11.10 3.49 36.3% 20.6% -2.4% Total Fail% 13,129 12.3% 0.59 6.85 1.09 0.42 5.13 1.01 29.7% 25.2% 7.6%

1995 Pass - 18,784 0.36 4.30 0.92 0.36 4.30 0.92 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,861 8.8% 1.50 16.36 1.60 0.48 4.89 1.18 67.7% 70.1% 26.2% Fail Unresolv. 509 2.4% 3.34 29.71 2.33 1.03 9.48 0.76 69.2% 68.1% 67.5% Fail Waiver 11 0.1% 3.97 34.87 2.10 3.19 31.76 1.99 19.6% 8.9% 5.0% Total Fail% 21,165 11.2% 0.53 5.99 1.01 0.39 4.49 0.94 27.3% 25.0% 7.4%

1996 Pass - 15,085 0.28 3.64 0.75 0.28 3.64 0.75 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,415 8.4% 1.02 14.00 1.46 0.36 4.09 0.95 64.7% 70.8% 35.1% Fail Unresolv. 399 2.4% 2.22 21.26 2.45 0.76 7.14 0.80 65.9% 66.4% 67.4% Fail Waiver 6 0.0% 2.73 29.00 1.66 1.95 19.25 1.38 28.5% 33.6% 17.0% Total Fail% 16,905 10.8% 0.39 4.93 0.85 0.30 3.77 0.77 23.1% 23.6% 9.6%

1997 Pass - 23,668 0.26 3.51 0.70 0.26 3.51 0.70 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2,132 8.1% 0.91 12.89 1.37 0.32 3.94 0.87 64.8% 69.4% 36.4% Fail Unresolv. 416 1.6% 2.53 21.49 2.21 0.71 6.86 0.75 71.8% 68.1% 66.0% Fail Waiver 12 0.0% 2.41 12.99 3.45 2.64 10.80 3.65 -9.2% 16.8% -5.9% Total Fail% 26,228 9.8% 0.35 4.56 0.78 0.27 3.60 0.71 22.0% 21.1% 8.2%

A1-2

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1998 Pass - 19,918 0.22 3.28 0.59 0.22 3.28 0.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,714 7.8% 0.78 11.63 1.26 0.26 3.73 0.68 66.9% 68.0% 46.0% Fail Unresolv. 348 1.6% 1.68 19.21 2.12 0.54 5.98 0.72 67.9% 68.9% 66.3% Fail Waiver 15 0.1% 1.10 18.22 3.07 1.03 15.19 2.76 6.5% 16.6% 9.9% Total Fail% 21,995 9.4% 0.29 4.19 0.66 0.23 3.36 0.60 20.5% 19.7% 10.2%

1999 Pass - 28,705 0.19 3.01 0.55 0.19 3.01 0.55 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2,514 8.0% 0.70 10.07 1.24 0.21 3.10 0.66 69.8% 69.2% 47.3% Fail Unresolv. 337 1.1% 1.61 18.63 2.29 0.53 6.10 0.76 66.9% 67.3% 67.0% Fail Waiver 4 0.0% 11.27 89.82 1.27 2.32 26.85 2.24 79.4% 70.1% -76.7% Total Fail% 31,560 9.0% 0.25 3.75 0.62 0.20 3.05 0.56 20.7% 18.6% 10.1%

2000 Pass - 24,854 0.15 2.78 0.47 0.15 2.78 0.47 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2,137 7.8% 0.63 8.77 1.34 0.18 2.92 0.55 71.5% 66.6% 58.7% Fail Unresolv. 319 1.2% 1.77 17.24 2.43 0.53 5.22 0.81 70.0% 69.7% 66.5% Fail Waiver 17 0.1% 3.07 15.52 2.75 3.11 13.98 3.16 -1.3% 9.9% -14.6% Total Fail% 27,327 9.0% 0.21 3.42 0.56 0.16 2.82 0.48 23.7% 17.5% 14.3%

2001 Pass - 32,605 0.12 2.51 0.38 0.12 2.51 0.38 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,822 5.3% 0.58 8.07 1.10 0.13 2.32 0.39 77.6% 71.3% 64.7% Fail Unresolv. 194 0.6% 1.55 19.42 2.80 0.49 5.53 0.94 68.7% 71.5% 66.5% Fail Waiver 4 0.0% 0.49 9.81 3.43 0.50 9.36 4.21 -2.1% 4.6% -22.8% Total Fail% 34,625 5.8% 0.15 2.90 0.43 0.12 2.52 0.38 19.3% 13.1% 11.1%

2002 Pass - 23,363 0.11 2.37 0.34 0.11 2.37 0.34 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,439 5.8% 0.43 6.75 1.06 0.11 1.92 0.33 74.2% 71.6% 68.7% Fail Unresolv. 151 0.6% 1.24 13.33 2.45 0.45 4.79 0.82 63.4% 64.1% 66.5% Fail Waiver 3 0.0% 0.09 0.88 5.81 0.04 0.58 3.90 56.7% 34.5% 32.9% Total Fail% 24,956 6.4% 0.14 2.69 0.40 0.11 2.36 0.35 16.9% 12.3% 13.1%

2003 Pass - 31,254 0.09 2.17 0.31 0.09 2.17 0.31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,352 4.1% 0.45 5.85 0.79 0.09 1.63 0.26 80.9% 72.1% 67.8% Fail Unresolv. 92 0.3% 1.07 13.16 2.55 0.32 4.09 0.80 70.0% 68.9% 68.7% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 32,698 4.4% 0.11 2.35 0.34 0.09 2.15 0.31 15.3% 8.5% 8.0%

2004 Pass - 18,169 0.09 2.12 0.28 0.09 2.12 0.28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 949 4.9% 0.37 6.30 0.68 0.07 1.47 0.18 81.2% 76.7% 73.0% Fail Unresolv. 55 0.3% 1.50 13.71 2.35 0.49 4.27 0.74 67.4% 68.9% 68.4% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 19,173 5.2% 0.11 2.36 0.30 0.09 2.10 0.28 16.6% 11.3% 9.6%

2005 Pass - 31,789 0.08 2.02 0.27 0.08 2.02 0.27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,292 3.9% 0.26 4.41 0.57 0.05 1.10 0.15 79.1% 75.0% 73.7% Fail Unresolv. 41 0.1% 1.27 25.45 2.11 0.42 7.75 0.71 66.8% 69.5% 66.1% Fail Waiver 2 0.0% 0.40 9.23 2.30 0.26 11.09 1.50 35.7% -20.2% 34.8% Total Fail% 33,124 4.0% 0.09 2.14 0.29 0.08 1.99 0.27 10.0% 7.0% 6.3%

A1-3

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

2006 Pass - 19,526 0.08 1.98 0.25 0.08 1.98 0.25 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 566 2.8% 0.32 5.35 0.91 0.05 1.19 0.14 83.2% 77.8% 84.2% Fail Unresolv. 29 0.1% 1.95 17.09 2.72 0.67 6.91 0.90 65.7% 59.6% 67.0% Fail Waiver 2 0.0% 1.29 28.29 1.68 1.41 25.70 3.77 -9.8% 9.1% -123.9% Total Fail% 20,123 3.0% 0.09 2.10 0.27 0.08 1.97 0.25 10.4% 6.3% 8.8%

2007 Pass - 33,352 0.08 1.88 0.24 0.08 1.88 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 653 1.9% 0.25 4.69 0.84 0.05 1.26 0.10 79.0% 73.1% 87.5% Fail Unresolv. 16 0.0% 2.61 18.81 2.81 0.74 5.64 0.90 71.5% 70.0% 68.1% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 34,021 2.0% 0.08 1.94 0.25 0.08 1.87 0.24 5.8% 3.7% 5.9%

2008 Pass - 7,899 0.07 1.91 0.23 0.07 1.91 0.23 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 137 1.7% 0.18 3.18 0.69 0.04 1.12 0.08 78.9% 64.7% 88.7% Fail Unresolv. 12 0.1% 1.50 19.26 1.88 0.43 7.14 0.46 71.2% 62.9% 75.7% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 8,048 1.9% 0.08 1.95 0.25 0.07 1.90 0.23 5.0% 2.7% 5.1%

2009 Pass - 2,297 0.07 1.93 0.23 0.07 1.93 0.23 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 30 1.3% 0.14 3.55 0.39 0.03 0.74 0.07 81.7% 79.2% 82.2% Fail Unresolv. 3 0.1% 1.61 16.61 4.84 0.47 4.93 1.60 70.5% 70.3% 66.9% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 2,330 1.4% 0.08 1.97 0.24 0.07 1.92 0.23 3.8% 2.6% 3.4%

2010 Pass - 1,889 0.07 1.97 0.22 0.07 1.97 0.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 20 1.0% 0.18 3.39 0.69 0.07 1.16 0.06 59.2% 65.7% 91.9% Fail Unresolv. 3 0.2% 1.30 23.83 3.29 0.39 7.69 1.02 69.8% 67.7% 68.9% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1,912 1.2% 0.08 2.02 0.23 0.07 1.97 0.22 3.3% 2.4% 4.5%

2011 Pass - 502 0.07 1.93 0.22 0.07 1.93 0.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 0.2% 0.07 1.92 0.48 0.02 0.77 0.28 78.2% 59.8% 42.1% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.2% 0.35 3.66 0.30 0.11 1.21 0.10 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 504 0.4% 0.08 1.93 0.22 0.07 1.92 0.22 0.8% 0.4% 0.4%

2012 Pass - 12 0.09 1.92 0.21 0.09 1.92 0.21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 12 0.0% 0.09 1.92 0.21 0.09 1.92 0.21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Passenger Vehicles All Pass - 393,526 0.21 3.28 0.57 0.21 3.28 0.57 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% P Fail Pass 27,803 6.5% 1.07 14.17 1.37 0.36 4.13 0.86 66.1% 70.8% 37.2% Fail Unresolv. 5,658 1.3% 3.10 32.97 2.28 1.00 10.76 0.75 67.9% 67.3% 67.2% Fail Waiver 156 0.0% 3.26 36.73 2.43 2.94 33.31 2.34 9.9% 9.3% 3.5% Total Fail% 427,143 7.9% 0.31 4.40 0.65 0.24 3.45 0.59 23.9% 21.6% 8.3%

A1-4

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1982 Pass - 245 2.80 31.83 2.70 2.80 31.83 2.70 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 120 29.7% 4.75 63.86 2.66 2.51 29.28 2.65 47.2% 54.1% 0.5% Fail Unresolv. 39 9.7% 7.67 101.37 2.21 2.56 35.32 0.74 66.7% 65.2% 66.5% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 404 39.4% 3.85 48.06 2.64 2.69 31.41 2.49 30.1% 34.6% 5.5%

1983 Pass - 535 2.77 31.44 2.72 2.77 31.44 2.72 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 284 31.5% 4.54 57.64 2.86 2.58 29.84 2.79 43.1% 48.2% 2.4% Fail Unresolv. 83 9.2% 8.23 99.74 2.35 2.44 31.13 0.79 70.4% 68.8% 66.3% Fail Waiver 1 0.1% 0.39 2.49 10.28 1.52 10.58 9.71 -293.3% -324.4% 5.5% Total Fail% 903 40.8% 3.82 45.93 2.74 2.68 30.88 2.57 30.0% 32.8% 6.0%

1984 Pass - 672 2.21 26.21 2.75 2.21 26.21 2.75 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 302 27.4% 4.11 59.88 2.74 2.21 24.86 2.79 46.2% 58.5% -1.6% Fail Unresolv. 121 11.0% 7.08 92.23 2.57 2.48 31.50 0.80 65.0% 65.8% 68.9% Fail Waiver 6 0.5% 3.31 71.26 3.16 3.71 82.32 2.98 -12.3% -15.5% 5.6% Total Fail% 1,101 39.0% 3.28 42.95 2.73 2.25 26.73 2.55 31.3% 37.8% 6.7%

1985 Pass - 1,341 1.99 22.26 2.74 1.99 22.26 2.74 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 567 26.5% 3.82 55.28 2.69 1.92 22.20 2.90 49.8% 59.8% -7.9% Fail Unresolv. 221 10.3% 6.32 95.23 2.48 2.12 31.54 0.83 66.5% 66.9% 66.7% Fail Waiver 10 0.5% 7.44 93.58 3.98 6.09 81.47 3.09 18.1% 12.9% 22.3% Total Fail% 2,139 37.3% 2.95 38.88 2.70 2.00 23.48 2.59 32.1% 39.6% 4.4%

1986 Pass - 1,345 1.73 17.42 2.69 1.73 17.42 2.69 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 418 21.5% 3.51 46.49 2.78 1.74 18.59 2.65 50.3% 60.0% 4.8% Fail Unresolv. 183 9.4% 5.75 79.59 2.71 1.77 25.86 0.88 69.3% 67.5% 67.4% Fail Waiver 2 0.1% 1.33 46.63 1.14 1.33 46.63 1.14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Fail% 1,948 31.0% 2.49 29.53 2.71 1.74 18.49 2.51 30.2% 37.4% 7.4%

1987 Pass - 2,278 1.37 13.50 2.30 1.37 13.50 2.30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 649 20.7% 2.89 35.65 2.64 1.44 13.60 2.47 50.1% 61.8% 6.4% Fail Unresolv. 200 6.4% 4.98 74.47 2.37 1.69 24.40 0.78 66.0% 67.2% 66.9% Fail Waiver 11 0.4% 6.38 88.72 2.40 4.24 81.70 1.13 33.5% 7.9% 53.0% Total Fail% 3,138 27.4% 1.93 22.23 2.37 1.41 14.46 2.23 26.8% 35.0% 5.9%

1988 Pass - 2,260 1.26 12.42 2.08 1.26 12.42 2.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 538 17.9% 3.24 32.12 2.73 1.33 12.00 2.31 58.9% 62.6% 15.6% Fail Unresolv. 204 6.8% 6.22 61.35 2.89 2.10 20.14 0.94 66.2% 67.2% 67.4% Fail Waiver 8 0.3% 4.27 80.27 2.32 3.11 78.83 2.28 27.1% 1.8% 1.9% Total Fail% 3,010 24.9% 1.96 19.44 2.25 1.34 13.05 2.04 31.8% 32.9% 9.2%

1989 Pass - 4,025 1.17 11.47 2.05 1.17 11.47 2.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 901 17.4% 2.96 33.00 2.73 1.39 12.13 2.44 53.0% 63.2% 10.9% Fail Unresolv. 249 4.8% 5.48 56.24 2.87 1.73 18.44 0.94 68.4% 67.2% 67.2% Fail Waiver 15 0.3% 7.82 68.73 3.26 5.10 59.54 2.46 34.9% 13.4% 24.6% Total Fail% 5,190 22.4% 1.71 17.52 2.21 1.25 12.06 2.06 27.0% 31.2% 6.6%

A1-5

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1990 Pass - 3,119 1.08 10.74 2.05 1.08 10.74 2.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 660 16.6% 2.71 28.35 2.87 1.32 11.81 2.43 51.3% 58.3% 15.3% Fail Unresolv. 184 4.6% 4.70 49.98 2.94 1.55 16.63 0.96 67.0% 66.7% 67.5% Fail Waiver 4 0.1% 3.76 85.96 3.48 3.66 63.95 1.38 2.6% 25.6% 60.2% Total Fail% 3,967 21.4% 1.53 15.57 2.23 1.15 11.25 2.06 24.8% 27.8% 7.5%

1991 Pass - 5,809 0.89 9.46 1.70 0.89 9.46 1.70 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 992 14.1% 2.38 27.36 2.32 1.11 10.64 2.05 53.5% 61.1% 12.0% Fail Unresolv. 231 3.3% 4.80 54.54 2.76 1.54 19.42 0.87 67.8% 64.4% 68.6% Fail Waiver 7 0.1% 6.04 40.90 3.54 4.66 26.08 3.04 22.8% 36.2% 14.0% Total Fail% 7,039 17.5% 1.23 13.49 1.83 0.95 9.97 1.72 23.4% 26.1% 5.6%

1992 Pass - 4,706 0.87 9.46 1.78 0.87 9.46 1.78 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 857 14.9% 2.62 28.01 2.60 1.14 11.12 2.18 56.6% 60.3% 16.1% Fail Unresolv. 191 3.3% 4.68 48.78 3.37 1.48 16.58 1.05 68.3% 66.0% 68.8% Fail Waiver 8 0.1% 4.59 61.47 3.62 2.81 38.47 3.62 38.8% 37.4% 0.1% Total Fail% 5,762 18.3% 1.26 13.59 1.96 0.93 9.98 1.82 26.0% 26.6% 7.1%

1993 Pass - 9,307 0.87 8.74 1.74 0.87 8.74 1.74 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,497 13.4% 2.34 23.29 2.62 1.10 10.25 2.19 52.7% 56.0% 16.3% Fail Unresolv. 327 2.9% 5.24 45.90 2.95 1.75 14.82 0.97 66.7% 67.7% 67.1% Fail Waiver 14 0.1% 6.82 48.14 3.93 5.88 46.45 3.54 13.9% 3.5% 9.9% Total Fail% 11,145 16.5% 1.20 11.83 1.90 0.93 9.17 1.78 22.4% 22.5% 6.1%

1994 Pass - 9,952 0.65 7.04 1.46 0.65 7.04 1.46 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,669 13.8% 2.16 22.84 2.77 0.87 8.84 1.92 59.9% 61.3% 30.9% Fail Unresolv. 421 3.5% 4.14 39.53 3.63 1.29 12.55 1.19 68.7% 68.3% 67.0% Fail Waiver 14 0.1% 7.25 38.25 3.63 6.85 36.94 3.67 5.5% 3.4% -1.0% Total Fail% 12,056 17.5% 0.99 10.40 1.72 0.71 7.52 1.51 28.3% 27.7% 11.8%

1995 Pass - 14,573 0.61 6.15 1.54 0.61 6.15 1.54 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,518 14.3% 2.12 20.88 2.66 0.87 8.66 1.94 58.9% 58.5% 27.0% Fail Unresolv. 503 2.9% 4.72 38.46 3.38 1.43 11.86 1.11 69.7% 69.2% 67.2% Fail Waiver 12 0.1% 3.90 38.03 2.80 3.79 29.84 3.06 2.8% 21.5% -9.2% Total Fail% 17,606 17.2% 0.95 9.20 1.75 0.68 6.69 1.58 28.8% 27.3% 9.6%

1996 Pass - 11,737 0.36 4.27 1.23 0.36 4.27 1.23 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,654 12.1% 1.20 14.90 2.22 0.44 5.37 1.51 63.2% 64.0% 31.8% Fail Unresolv. 306 2.2% 2.64 23.92 3.59 0.87 8.65 1.17 67.3% 63.8% 67.4% Fail Waiver 6 0.0% 2.30 56.53 3.23 2.01 42.82 3.05 12.7% 24.3% 5.6% Total Fail% 13,703 14.3% 0.51 6.01 1.40 0.38 4.51 1.26 25.6% 24.9% 9.9%

1997 Pass - 20,353 0.32 4.17 1.16 0.32 4.17 1.16 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,971 12.5% 0.91 13.21 1.96 0.41 5.49 1.39 55.5% 58.5% 29.3% Fail Unresolv. 370 1.6% 2.77 27.93 3.38 0.91 9.56 1.10 67.1% 65.8% 67.4% Fail Waiver 19 0.1% 2.15 28.91 2.98 2.02 25.41 2.46 6.0% 12.1% 17.6% Total Fail% 23,713 14.2% 0.43 5.69 1.29 0.34 4.43 1.19 21.3% 22.1% 8.3%

A1-6

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1998 Pass - 18,675 0.26 3.45 0.99 0.26 3.45 0.99 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,266 10.6% 0.86 11.68 2.15 0.34 4.57 1.27 60.5% 60.8% 40.9% Fail Unresolv. 367 1.7% 2.27 24.38 3.35 0.71 8.08 1.14 69.0% 66.8% 66.0% Fail Waiver 14 0.1% 1.68 34.62 3.51 1.24 28.41 3.47 26.3% 17.9% 1.1% Total Fail% 21,322 12.4% 0.36 4.70 1.15 0.28 3.66 1.02 23.0% 22.1% 11.4%

1999 Pass - 28,102 0.22 2.76 0.79 0.22 2.76 0.79 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,909 9.3% 0.79 9.69 1.90 0.31 3.77 1.06 60.4% 61.1% 44.4% Fail Unresolv. 368 1.2% 2.34 23.37 3.12 0.73 7.80 1.01 68.6% 66.6% 67.6% Fail Waiver 24 0.1% 2.19 17.91 3.20 1.60 16.43 2.99 27.1% 8.3% 6.7% Total Fail% 31,403 10.5% 0.30 3.66 0.92 0.24 2.92 0.82 20.9% 20.0% 11.2%

2000 Pass - 21,630 0.18 2.41 0.66 0.18 2.41 0.66 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,070 8.7% 0.71 10.19 1.55 0.24 3.29 0.87 66.1% 67.7% 44.1% Fail Unresolv. 215 0.9% 1.33 16.67 3.00 0.43 5.63 0.96 67.6% 66.3% 68.0% Fail Waiver 11 0.0% 1.84 50.64 2.71 1.00 34.56 2.46 45.8% 31.8% 9.4% Total Fail% 23,926 9.6% 0.23 3.23 0.76 0.18 2.53 0.68 21.0% 21.8% 10.2%

2001 Pass - 29,189 0.12 1.90 0.48 0.12 1.90 0.48 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,195 7.0% 0.40 6.49 1.09 0.16 2.70 0.58 59.6% 58.4% 47.0% Fail Unresolv. 128 0.4% 1.97 20.09 2.78 0.52 6.26 0.94 73.7% 68.8% 66.4% Fail Waiver 9 0.0% 0.91 21.61 3.26 1.48 32.48 3.16 -62.9% -50.3% 3.1% Total Fail% 31,521 7.4% 0.15 2.30 0.54 0.12 1.98 0.49 15.2% 13.8% 8.1%

2002 Pass - 20,649 0.10 1.66 0.43 0.10 1.66 0.43 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,331 6.0% 0.42 9.04 1.04 0.13 2.53 0.53 68.4% 72.0% 49.1% Fail Unresolv. 89 0.4% 1.04 20.99 2.77 0.35 6.70 0.91 66.2% 68.1% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 22,069 6.4% 0.12 2.18 0.48 0.10 1.73 0.44 17.0% 20.7% 8.0%

2003 Pass - 30,485 0.08 1.38 0.37 0.08 1.38 0.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,558 4.9% 0.34 6.75 0.75 0.11 1.98 0.37 68.6% 70.7% 50.7% Fail Unresolv. 49 0.2% 1.70 27.68 2.18 0.53 9.36 0.71 69.2% 66.2% 67.5% Fail Waiver 1 0.0% 2.86 17.33 4.46 1.53 17.01 3.59 46.6% 1.9% 19.5% Total Fail% 32,093 5.0% 0.10 1.69 0.39 0.08 1.43 0.37 13.7% 15.4% 5.3%

2004 Pass - 20,128 0.07 1.25 0.26 0.07 1.25 0.26 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 861 4.1% 0.24 4.70 0.63 0.08 1.88 0.22 67.1% 60.0% 65.1% Fail Unresolv. 21 0.1% 1.53 34.65 1.88 0.46 11.89 0.59 69.9% 65.7% 68.4% Fail Waiver 1 0.0% 1.85 20.01 5.12 1.94 23.74 5.25 -5.2% -18.6% -2.6% Total Fail% 21,011 4.2% 0.08 1.43 0.28 0.07 1.29 0.26 9.8% 9.7% 6.5%

2005 Pass - 35,166 0.06 1.08 0.22 0.06 1.08 0.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 950 2.6% 0.18 3.81 0.47 0.06 1.48 0.18 63.1% 61.3% 62.0% Fail Unresolv. 27 0.1% 1.63 17.63 2.37 0.55 5.32 0.86 66.1% 69.8% 63.5% Fail Waiver 1 0.0% 0.62 9.63 3.32 0.61 9.45 3.32 1.9% 1.8% 0.0% Total Fail% 36,144 2.7% 0.06 1.17 0.23 0.06 1.10 0.22 5.8% 6.1% 3.9%

A1-7

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

2006 Pass - 20,391 0.06 1.00 0.21 0.06 1.00 0.21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 702 3.3% 0.14 2.64 0.35 0.05 1.01 0.14 63.5% 61.6% 58.5% Fail Unresolv. 10 0.0% 0.43 5.98 1.58 0.15 2.06 0.53 66.2% 65.5% 66.6% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 21,103 3.4% 0.06 1.06 0.22 0.06 1.00 0.21 5.2% 5.3% 3.3%

2007 Pass - 37,592 0.05 0.90 0.19 0.05 0.90 0.19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,149 3.0% 0.10 2.09 0.28 0.04 0.99 0.09 62.3% 52.6% 68.8% Fail Unresolv. 10 0.0% 0.20 2.22 0.70 0.06 0.73 0.23 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 38,751 3.0% 0.05 0.94 0.19 0.05 0.90 0.19 3.7% 3.5% 3.0%

2008 Pass - 8,311 0.04 0.89 0.19 0.04 0.89 0.19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 274 3.2% 0.05 1.51 0.23 0.04 1.13 0.07 34.5% 25.2% 69.4% Fail Unresolv. 2 0.0% 0.18 22.60 0.63 0.06 7.46 0.21 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 8,587 3.2% 0.04 0.91 0.19 0.04 0.90 0.18 1.4% 1.7% 2.7%

2009 Pass - 1,790 0.04 0.91 0.18 0.04 0.91 0.18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 34 1.9% 0.05 0.83 0.16 0.02 0.77 0.04 54.7% 7.5% 74.2% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.1% 0.23 38.96 0.01 0.08 12.86 0.00 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1,825 1.9% 0.04 0.93 0.18 0.04 0.92 0.18 1.4% 1.7% 1.2%

2010 Pass - 1,758 0.04 0.86 0.17 0.04 0.86 0.17 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 22 1.2% 0.04 0.84 0.18 0.01 0.40 0.03 65.7% 52.9% 82.3% Fail Unresolv. 4 0.2% 0.05 0.89 0.16 0.02 0.29 0.05 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1,784 1.5% 0.04 0.86 0.17 0.04 0.85 0.17 1.0% 0.8% 1.2%

2011 Pass - 571 0.04 0.95 0.17 0.04 0.95 0.17 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 7 1.2% 0.05 1.00 0.21 0.01 0.58 0.02 76.2% 41.4% 89.9% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 578 1.2% 0.04 0.95 0.17 0.04 0.95 0.17 1.1% 0.5% 1.4%

2012 Pass - 15 0.06 1.02 0.14 0.06 1.02 0.14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1 6.3% 0.09 2.15 0.11 0.05 0.70 0.11 46.9% 67.2% 2.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 16 6.3% 0.06 1.09 0.14 0.06 1.00 0.14 4.5% 8.2% 0.1%

Total Trucks All Pass - 366,709 0.26 3.17 0.71 0.26 3.17 0.71 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% T Fail Pass 32,926 8.1% 1.36 16.62 1.87 0.60 6.58 1.34 56.1% 60.4% 28.4% Fail Unresolv. 5,124 1.3% 4.09 44.59 3.05 1.31 14.72 1.00 67.9% 67.0% 67.3% Fail Waiver 198 0.0% 4.15 47.97 3.26 3.35 42.23 2.90 19.3% 12.0% 11.1% Total Fail% 404,957 9.4% 0.40 4.81 0.84 0.30 3.62 0.77 24.3% 24.9% 8.3%

Fleet Total All Pass - 760,235 0.24 3.23 0.64 0.24 3.23 0.64 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All Fail Pass 60,729 7.3% 1.23 15.50 1.64 0.49 5.46 1.12 60.1% 64.8% 31.8%
A1-8

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2011 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX Fail Unresolv. 10,782 1.3% 3.57 38.49 2.65 1.15 12.64 0.87 67.9% 67.2% 67.3% Fail Waiver 354 0.0% 3.76 43.01 2.90 3.17 38.30 2.66 15.7% 11.0% 8.3% Total Fail% 832,100 8.6% 0.35 4.60 0.74 0.27 3.53 0.68 24.1% 23.3% 8.3%

A1-9

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1982 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1983 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1984 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1985 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1986 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1987 Pass - 1 0.60 8.11 0.81 0.60 8.11 0.81 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1 0.0% 0.60 8.11 0.81 0.60 8.11 0.81 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1988 Pass - 1 0.96 7.78 1.00 0.96 7.78 1.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1 0.0% 0.96 7.78 1.00 0.96 7.78 1.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1989 Pass - 5 0.64 7.49 1.60 0.64 7.49 1.60 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 16.7% 0.61 7.49 0.69 0.23 2.82 0.33 61.8% 62.4% 53.0% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 6 16.7% 0.63 7.49 1.45 0.57 6.71 1.39 9.9% 10.4% 4.2%

A1-1

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1990 Pass - 8 0.37 7.03 1.05 0.37 7.03 1.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 11.1% 0.18 6.31 0.67 0.23 5.84 0.67 -27.0% 7.6% 0.7% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 9 11.1% 0.35 6.95 1.01 0.35 6.89 1.00 -1.5% 0.8% 0.1%

1991 Pass - 7 0.36 5.68 0.98 0.36 5.68 0.98 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 22.2% 0.62 5.44 1.72 0.80 8.09 2.31 -28.3% -48.7% -33.9% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 9 22.2% 0.41 5.63 1.15 0.45 6.22 1.28 -9.4% -10.5% -11.3%

1992 Pass - 5 0.77 6.83 1.48 0.77 6.83 1.48 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 5 0.0% 0.77 6.83 1.48 0.77 6.83 1.48 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1993 Pass - 14 0.48 4.96 1.22 0.48 4.96 1.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 14 0.0% 0.48 4.96 1.22 0.48 4.96 1.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1994 Pass - 14 0.39 4.89 0.74 0.39 4.89 0.74 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 6.7% 0.29 2.88 0.74 0.39 5.20 0.74 -34.7% -80.9% -0.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 15 6.7% 0.38 4.76 0.74 0.39 4.91 0.74 -1.8% -3.3% 0.0%

1995 Pass - 32 0.24 3.10 0.68 0.24 3.10 0.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 32 0.0% 0.24 3.10 0.68 0.24 3.10 0.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1996 Pass - 39 0.25 3.19 0.63 0.25 3.19 0.63 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 39 0.0% 0.25 3.19 0.63 0.25 3.19 0.63 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1997 Pass - 73 0.25 2.74 0.62 0.25 2.74 0.62 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 3 3.9% 1.30 3.03 0.56 0.41 1.74 0.50 68.4% 42.7% 10.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 76 3.9% 0.30 2.75 0.62 0.26 2.70 0.62 11.9% 1.9% 0.4%

A1-2

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1998 Pass - 52 0.25 3.54 0.53 0.25 3.54 0.53 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 3.7% 0.29 4.85 1.07 0.16 1.65 0.26 44.6% 65.9% 75.7% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 54 3.7% 0.25 3.59 0.55 0.25 3.47 0.52 1.9% 3.3% 5.4%

1999 Pass - 132 0.19 2.89 0.48 0.19 2.89 0.48 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 5 3.6% 0.33 2.22 1.19 0.22 2.58 0.77 32.6% -16.3% 35.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 137 3.6% 0.19 2.87 0.51 0.19 2.88 0.49 2.0% -0.5% 3.0%

2000 Pass - 105 0.13 2.61 0.42 0.13 2.61 0.42 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 1.9% 0.10 1.68 0.55 0.13 0.44 0.75 -35.6% 73.8% -36.6% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 107 1.9% 0.13 2.59 0.42 0.13 2.57 0.43 -0.5% 0.9% -0.9%

2001 Pass - 198 0.11 2.26 0.36 0.11 2.26 0.36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 6 2.9% 0.14 2.53 0.47 0.07 1.19 0.26 47.5% 52.9% 44.1% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.5% 0.09 1.99 0.30 0.09 1.99 0.30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 205 3.4% 0.11 2.27 0.37 0.11 2.23 0.36 1.7% 1.7% 1.6%

2002 Pass - 165 0.11 2.28 0.34 0.11 2.28 0.34 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 6 3.5% 0.06 2.07 0.25 0.04 0.87 0.23 29.3% 57.8% 8.1% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 171 3.5% 0.11 2.27 0.34 0.11 2.23 0.33 0.6% 1.8% 0.2%

2003 Pass - 299 0.09 2.17 0.30 0.09 2.17 0.30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 8 2.6% 0.27 1.89 0.36 0.02 0.45 0.13 91.3% 76.2% 63.4% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 307 2.6% 0.10 2.16 0.30 0.09 2.13 0.29 6.7% 1.7% 2.0%

2004 Pass - 100 0.08 2.00 0.26 0.08 2.00 0.26 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 4 3.8% 0.20 1.19 0.26 0.03 0.43 0.11 83.9% 63.8% 58.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 104 3.8% 0.09 1.97 0.26 0.08 1.94 0.25 7.3% 1.5% 2.2%

2005 Pass - 303 0.08 1.93 0.26 0.08 1.93 0.26 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 11 3.5% 0.08 2.16 0.27 0.02 0.78 0.14 73.2% 63.8% 47.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 314 3.5% 0.08 1.93 0.26 0.08 1.89 0.26 2.7% 2.5% 1.7%

A1-3

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

2006 Pass - 102 0.08 1.87 0.24 0.08 1.87 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 1.0% 0.07 2.26 0.43 0.01 0.48 0.04 89.9% 79.0% 91.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 103 1.0% 0.08 1.87 0.25 0.08 1.85 0.24 0.8% 0.9% 1.6%

2007 Pass - 317 0.08 1.95 0.23 0.08 1.95 0.23 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 3 0.9% 0.07 2.05 0.21 0.01 0.56 0.03 86.7% 72.4% 87.1% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 320 0.9% 0.08 1.95 0.23 0.08 1.94 0.23 0.8% 0.7% 0.8%

2008 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2009 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2010 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2011 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2012 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Passenger Vehicles All Pass - 1,972 0.12 2.36 0.36 0.12 2.36 0.36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% P Fail Pass 56 2.8% 0.25 2.51 0.51 0.12 1.44 0.35 52.4% 42.5% 30.8% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.0% 0.09 1.99 0.30 0.09 1.99 0.30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 2,029 2.8% 0.13 2.36 0.36 0.12 2.33 0.36 2.8% 1.2% 1.2%

A1-4

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1982 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1983 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1984 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1985 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1986 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1987 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1988 Pass - 1 1.19 18.51 1.30 1.19 18.51 1.30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1 0.0% 1.19 18.51 1.30 1.19 18.51 1.30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1989 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A1-5

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1990 Pass - 2 0.56 7.64 0.48 0.56 7.64 0.48 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 2 0.0% 0.56 7.64 0.48 0.56 7.64 0.48 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1991 Pass - 1 2.07 13.87 2.40 2.07 13.87 2.40 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1 0.0% 2.07 13.87 2.40 2.07 13.87 2.40 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1992 Pass - 1 1.60 10.16 0.65 1.60 10.16 0.65 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1 0.0% 1.60 10.16 0.65 1.60 10.16 0.65 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1993 Pass - 6 0.82 8.60 1.64 0.82 8.60 1.64 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 3 33.3% 0.80 8.29 1.73 0.60 7.23 1.75 25.3% 12.8% -1.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 9 33.3% 0.82 8.49 1.67 0.75 8.14 1.68 8.3% 4.1% -0.5%

1994 Pass - 8 0.60 6.23 1.29 0.60 6.23 1.29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 8 0.0% 0.60 6.23 1.29 0.60 6.23 1.29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1995 Pass - 23 0.43 3.70 1.12 0.43 3.70 1.12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2 7.7% 1.38 9.93 4.85 1.13 8.69 4.34 18.0% 12.5% 10.4% Fail Unresolv. 1 3.8% 11.92 182.47 0.20 11.83 62.89 0.21 0.8% 65.5% -4.5% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 26 11.5% 0.94 11.06 1.37 0.92 6.36 1.33 2.4% 42.5% 2.8%

1996 Pass - 24 0.36 3.72 0.93 0.36 3.72 0.93 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 24 0.0% 0.36 3.72 0.93 0.36 3.72 0.93 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1997 Pass - 56 0.20 3.00 0.90 0.20 3.00 0.90 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 7 11.1% 0.15 2.77 0.78 0.26 3.05 1.01 -80.4% -10.2% -28.6% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 63 11.1% 0.20 2.98 0.88 0.21 3.01 0.91 -6.6% -1.1% -2.8%

A1-6

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1998 Pass - 61 0.25 3.17 1.05 0.25 3.17 1.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 3 4.7% 0.12 1.33 0.60 0.25 2.62 1.00 -110.4% -96.8% -68.2% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 64 4.7% 0.24 3.08 1.03 0.25 3.14 1.05 -2.5% -2.0% -1.8%

1999 Pass - 142 0.17 2.16 0.68 0.17 2.16 0.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 8 5.3% 0.08 1.38 0.65 0.06 0.88 0.71 21.3% 36.2% -10.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 150 5.3% 0.16 2.12 0.68 0.16 2.09 0.68 0.5% 1.3% -0.5%

2000 Pass - 113 0.16 2.00 0.60 0.16 2.00 0.60 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 8 6.6% 0.63 20.60 1.87 0.20 2.21 0.87 68.2% 89.3% 53.4% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 121 6.6% 0.19 3.23 0.68 0.17 2.02 0.62 14.6% 37.6% 9.7%

2001 Pass - 283 0.11 1.61 0.49 0.11 1.61 0.49 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 7 2.4% 0.06 1.26 0.77 0.10 1.57 0.50 -58.9% -24.6% 35.0% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.3% 3.03 14.46 1.28 3.03 14.46 1.28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 1 0.3% 0.61 21.44 0.80 1.68 21.77 2.46 -175.5% -1.6% -208.3% Total Fail% 292 3.1% 0.12 1.71 0.50 0.12 1.72 0.50 -3.8% -0.5% 0.1%

2002 Pass - 169 0.08 1.31 0.39 0.08 1.31 0.39 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 9 5.1% 0.34 2.16 0.50 0.07 2.34 0.42 78.3% -8.3% 16.4% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 178 5.1% 0.10 1.35 0.40 0.08 1.36 0.39 14.2% -0.7% 1.1%

2003 Pass - 387 0.07 1.25 0.35 0.07 1.25 0.35 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 17 4.2% 0.12 2.49 0.50 0.10 2.69 0.37 11.5% -8.3% 25.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 404 4.2% 0.07 1.30 0.36 0.07 1.31 0.35 0.8% -0.7% 1.5%

2004 Pass - 151 0.06 0.95 0.24 0.06 0.95 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2 1.3% 0.08 2.61 0.12 0.01 1.08 0.06 85.4% 58.5% 50.2% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 153 1.3% 0.06 0.97 0.24 0.06 0.95 0.24 1.5% 2.1% 0.3%

2005 Pass - 462 0.06 0.99 0.19 0.06 0.99 0.19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 4 0.9% 0.10 1.36 0.26 0.04 0.42 0.09 63.3% 69.1% 65.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 466 0.9% 0.06 0.99 0.19 0.06 0.98 0.19 1.0% 0.8% 0.8%

A1-7

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

2006 Pass - 162 0.05 0.95 0.20 0.05 0.95 0.20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 3 1.8% 0.06 0.79 0.14 0.08 0.60 0.07 -23.6% 24.2% 54.2% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 165 1.8% 0.05 0.95 0.20 0.05 0.95 0.20 -0.5% 0.4% 0.7%

2007 Pass - 513 0.05 0.85 0.18 0.05 0.85 0.18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 11 2.1% 0.05 0.90 0.19 0.02 0.44 0.04 57.9% 51.6% 76.9% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 524 2.1% 0.05 0.86 0.18 0.05 0.85 0.18 1.3% 1.1% 1.6%

2008 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2009 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2010 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2011 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2012 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Trucks All Pass - 2,565 0.09 1.40 0.37 0.09 1.40 0.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% T Fail Pass 84 3.2% 0.23 4.02 0.77 0.15 2.16 0.61 34.3% 46.3% 20.2% Fail Unresolv. 2 0.1% 7.47 98.46 0.74 7.43 38.68 0.74 0.6% 60.7% -0.6% Fail Waiver 1 0.0% 0.61 21.44 0.80 1.68 21.77 2.46 -175.5% -1.6% -208.3% Total Fail% 2,652 3.3% 0.10 1.56 0.38 0.10 1.46 0.38 2.0% 6.7% 1.1%

A1-8

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2011 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

Fleet Total All Pass - 4,537 0.11 1.81 0.36 0.11 1.81 0.36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All Fail Pass 140 3.0% 0.24 3.41 0.66 0.14 1.87 0.51 42.0% 45.2% 23.5% Fail Unresolv. 3 0.1% 5.01 66.31 0.59 4.98 26.45 0.59 0.6% 60.1% -0.5% Fail Waiver 1 0.0% 0.61 21.44 0.80 1.68 21.77 2.46 -175.5% -1.6% -208.3% Total Fail% 4,681 3.1% 0.11 1.91 0.37 0.11 1.84 0.37 2.4% 3.8% 1.2%

A1-9

### Appendix B Colorado 2011 Enhanced IM240 Test Reduction Tons Initial Tons/Yr Final Tons/Yr Reduction Tons/Yr
Type Annual Miles Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx HC CO NOx HC CO NOx P 1982 4,304 356 4.3 48.2 3.5 2.9 33.6 3.2 1.5 14.6 0.3 P 1983 4,304 823 8.3 108.7 7.6 5.5 69.2 7.2 2.7 39.5 0.5 P 1984 4,434 1,055 10.4 131.9 10.1 7.2 80.6 9.7 3.2 51.3 0.4 P 1985 4,481 2,046 16.2 195.3 19.5 11.1 122.5 18.5 5.1 72.8 1.0 P 1986 4,502 1,927 12.0 145.7 17.7 8.8 99.4 16.6 3.2 46.3 1.1 P 1987 4,552 3,380 19.8 237.5 29.8 14.7 163.5 28.2 5.1 74.0 1.6 P 1988 4,780 2,914 17.7 213.0 25.4 12.7 144.8 23.9 5.0 68.2 1.5 P 1989 5,088 5,544 30.4 375.6 47.5 22.5 266.6 45.7 8.0 109.0 1.9 P 1990 5,430 6,127 33.9 411.4 57.0 25.1 294.5 53.1 8.8 116.8 3.9 P 1991 5,672 10,231 51.5 637.9 91.9 38.1 456.9 86.7 13.4 181.0 5.2 P 1992 6,002 8,971 48.1 584.1 82.2 33.2 389.0 76.0 15.0 195.0 6.2 P 1993 6,331 13,934 70.4 821.8 134.2 51.4 580.2 125.3 18.9 241.6 9.0 P 1994 6,653 13,129 56.9 660.0 105.4 40.0 493.5 97.4 16.9 166.4 8.0 P 1995 6,974 21,165 86.3 974.1 164.8 62.7 730.6 152.7 23.6 243.5 12.2 P 1996 7,369 16,905 53.4 677.2 117.2 41.0 517.2 105.9 12.4 160.1 11.3 P 1997 7,764 26,228 78.3 1023.1 174. 5 61.1 807.5 160.3 17.2 215.6 14.3 P 1998 8,188 21,995 56.7 832.1 131.9 45.1 667.8 118.4 11.7 164.3 13.4 P 1999 8,613 31,560 74.5 1123.2 186. 3 59.1 914.5 167.4 15.4 208.7 18.9 P 2000 9,032 27,327 56.9 931.1 151.9 43.4 768.4 130.1 13.5 162.7 21.8 P 2001 9,450 34,625 55.2 1046.1 155. 9 44.5 908.9 138.7 10.7 137.2 17.2 P 2002 9,905 24,956 37.3 733.3 108.7 31.0 643.3 94.5 6.3 90.0 14.2 P 2003 10,360 32,698 41.7 877.0 126.5 35.3 802.4 116.4 6.4 74.6 10.1 P 2004 10,746 19,173 24.3 537.1 69.2 20.3 476.6 62.6 4.0 60.5 6.6 P 2005 11,132 33,124 37.0 869.5 117.4 33.4 808.3 110.0 3.7 61.2 7.4 P 2006 11,870 20,123 23.3 553.8 71.9 20.9 519.0 65.6 2.4 34.8 6.3 P 2007 12,023 34,021 36.4 875.5 114.8 34.3 843.0 108.0 2.1 32.5 6.8 P 2008 12,307 8,048 8.6 213.4 26.8 8.2 207.6 25.4 0.4 5.8 1.4 P 2009 12,357 2,330 2.4 62.6 7.7 2.3 60.9 7.4 0.1 1.6 0.3 P 2010 11,600 1,912 1.9 49.4 5.5 1.8 48.2 5.3 0.1 1.2 0.2 P 2011 9,650 504 0.4 10.3 1.2 0.4 10.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2012 9,650 12 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P Total 427,143 1054.6 15959.9 2364.0 817.9 12929.0 2161.2 236.7 3030.9 202.8 T 1982 4,554 404 7.8 97.5 5.4 5.5 63.7 5.1 2.4 33.8 0.3 T 1983 4,562 903 17.4 208.5 12.4 12.2 140.2 11.7 5.2 68.3 0.8 T 1984 4,583 1,101 18.2 238.9 15.2 12.5 148.6 14.2 5.7 90.2 1.0 T 1985 4,630 2,139 32.2 424.5 29.5 21.8 256.3 28.2 10.3 168.2 1.3 T 1986 4,668 1,948 25.0 295.9 27.2 17.4 185.3 25.2 7.5 110.6 2.0 T 1987 4,741 3,138 31.7 364.6 38.9 23.2 237.1 36.6 8.5 127.5 2.3 T 1988 4,851 3,010 31.5 312.9 36.3 21.5 210.0 32.9 10.0 102.9 3.4 T 1989 5,019 5,190 49.0 503.1 63.5 35.8 346.2 59.2 13.2 156.9 4.2 T 1990 5,256 3,967 35.1 357.8 51.2 26.4 258.5 47.4 8.7 99.3 3.8 T 1991 5,519 7,039 52.8 577.7 78.2 40.5 426.8 73.8 12.3 150.9 4.4 T 1992 5,824 5,762 46.8 502.8 72.4 34.6 369.1 67.3 12.2 133.6 5.1 T 1993 6,135 11,145 90.6 891.8 143.2 70.3 690.9 134.4 20.3 200.9 8.7 T 1994 6,471 12,056 84.9 894.3 147.8 60.9 646.4 130.3 24.0 247.9 17.5 T 1995 6,940 17,606 127.8 1238.9 235. 7 91.0 900.4 213.1 36.7 338.5 22.5 T 1996 7,437 13,703 57.7 675.3 157.5 42.9 507.0 141.9 14.8 168.3 15.6 T 1997 7,863 23,713 89.2 1169.9 265. 8 70.2 911.4 243.6 19.0 258.4 22.2 T 1998 8,345 21,322 70.6 922.6 225.8 54.4 718.7 200.1 16.2 203.9 25.8 T 1999 8,900 31,403 93.0 1126.1 283. 5 73.6 900.5 251.7 19.5 225.6 31.8 T 2000 9,502 23,926 58.2 809.5 189.7 45.9 633.3 170.3 12.2 176.2 19.4 T 2001 10,087 31,521 51.3 804.7 187.5 43.5 693.5 172.4 7.8 111.1 15.2 T 2002 10,727 22,069 31.1 568.9 125.3 25.8 451.3 115.3 5.3 117.6 10.0 T 2003 11,245 32,093 38.7 670.4 155.6 33.4 567.1 147.3 5.3 103.3 8.3 T 2004 11,817 21,011 21.3 390.0 76.9 19.2 352.2 72.0 2.1 37.8 5.0 T 2005 12,303 36,144 31.5 572.0 111.4 29.7 537.4 107.1 1.8 34.6 4.3 T 2006 12,834 21,103 17.4 315.2 65.4 16.5 298.5 63.3 0.9 16.7 2.2 T 2007 13,215 38,751 27.8 528.4 108.8 26.8 509.7 105.5 1.0 18.6 3.3 T 2008 13,433 8,587 5.7 115.9 24.1 5.6 113.9 23.4 0.1 2.0 0.7 T 2009 13,514 1,825 1.2 25.3 4.9 1.1 24.9 4.9 0.0 0.4 0.1 T 2010 12,428 1,784 1.0 21.1 4.1 1.0 20.9 4.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 T 2011 8,995 578 0.3 5.4 1.0 0.3 5.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2012 8,995 16 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T Total 404,957 1246.6 15630.0 2944.2 963.6 12125.8 2703.2 283.0 3504.2 241.0 Total 832,100 2301.2 31590.0 5308.3 1781.5 25054.8 4864.4 519.7 6535.1 443.9 23% 21% 8%

B-1

### Appendix B - Colorado 2011 RapidScreen Audit IM 240 Test Reduction Tons
Initial Tons/Yr Final Tons/Yr Reduction Tons/Yr

Type Annual Miles Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx HC CO NOx HC CO NOx P 1982 4,304 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1983 4,304 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1984 4,434 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1985 4,481 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1986 4,502 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1987 4,552 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1988 4,780 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1989 5,088 6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1990 5,430 9 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1991 5,672 9 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1992 6,002 5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1993 6,331 14 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1994 6,653 15 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1995 6,974 32 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1996 7,369 39 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1997 7,764 76 0.2 1.8 0.4 0.2 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1998 8,188 54 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.1 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 1999 8,613 137 0.3 3.7 0.7 0.2 3.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2000 9,032 107 0.1 2.8 0.5 0.1 2.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2001 9,450 205 0.2 4.8 0.8 0.2 4.8 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 2002 9,905 171 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 2003 10,360 307 0.3 7.6 1.0 0.3 7.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 2004 10,746 104 0.1 2.4 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2005 11,132 314 0.3 7.5 1.0 0.3 7.3 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 P 2006 11,870 103 0.1 2.5 0.3 0.1 2.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2007 12,023 320 0.3 8.3 1.0 0.3 8.2 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 2008 12,307 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2009 12,357 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P Total 2,029 2.7 51.4 7.7 2.6 50.7 7.6 0.1 0.7 0.1 T 1982 4,554 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1983 4,562 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1984 4,583 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1985 4,630 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1986 4,668 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1987 4,741 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1988 4,851 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1989 5,019 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1990 5,256 2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1991 5,519 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1992 5,824 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1993 6,135 9 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1994 6,471 8 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1995 6,940 26 0.2 2.2 0.3 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 T 1996 7,437 24 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1997 7,863 63 0.1 1.6 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1998 8,345 64 0.1 1.8 0.6 0.1 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1999 8,900 150 0.2 3.1 1.0 0.2 3.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2000 9,502 121 0.2 4.1 0.9 0.2 2.6 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.1 T 2001 10,087 292 0.4 5.5 1.6 0.4 5.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2002 10,727 178 0.2 2.8 0.8 0.2 2.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2003 11,245 404 0.4 6.5 1.8 0.4 6.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2004 11,817 153 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2005 12,303 466 0.4 6.3 1.2 0.3 6.2 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 2006 12,834 165 0.1 2.2 0.5 0.1 2.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2007 13,215 524 0.3 6.5 1.4 0.3 6.5 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 2008 13,433 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2009 13,514 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T Total 2,652 3.0 46.6 11.4 3.0 44.1 11.3 0.1 2.6 0.1 Total 4,681 5.7 98.0 19.1 5.5 94.8 18.9 0.1 3.2 0.2

B-2