### 1 Environmental Systems Products, Inc. 2002 N. Forbes Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85745



# The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January – December 2009

July 2010

Prepared for: 

# The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Prepared by:

Peter M McClintock, Ph.D. Applied Analysis 891 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon CA 94920 peter.mcclintock@att.net

### 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. Rodney Johnson and Drew Rau, ESP Program Oper ations Division and the Remote Sensing unit of ESP, Tucson for providing data access and operational information.

### 3 

## Table of Contents

I. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... ............................. 5
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE DENVER CLEAN SCREENING PROGRAM ........................................... 7

A. G ENERAL



### .............................................................................................................................. .................... 7 1. I/M Program Overview .......................................................................................................... .................. 7 2. Contractor .................................................................................................................... ............................ 9 3. Description of RSD ............................................................................................................ ...................... 9 B. M EASUREMENT 

### S ITES



### ............................................................................................................................. 15 1. Description of Sample Site Charac teris tics .................................................................................... ....... 15 C. S OURCES OF 

### D ATA AND 

### D ESCRIPTION OF 

### E LEMENTS 

### ............................................................................. 20
III. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................ 22

A. M ONTHLY 

### C OLLECTION 

### A CTIVITY 

### ......................................................................................................... 22 B. M EASUREMENTS BY 

### H OUR OF 

### D AY 

### ........................................................................................................ 22 C. C OMPOSITION OF 

### V EHICLES 

### M EASURED 

### ................................................................................................. 23
IV. CLEAN SCREENING PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ....................................................................... 26

A. V EHICLES 

### S ELECTED 

### , N OTICES AND 

### R EDEMPTIONS 

### ............................................................................... 26 B. C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### P ROGRAM 

### E FFECTIVENESS 

### ............................................................................................ 28 1. Pass / Fail St atistics ........................................................................................................ ....................... 28 2. Tailpipe Emissions ............................................................................................................ ..................... 30 C. G AS 

### C AP 

### E VAPORATIVE 

### E MISSIONS 

### ....................................................................................................... 33 D. H YBRID 

### RSD-LEI VS



### . 2- HIT 

### RSD ........................................................................................................... 36
V. ESTIMATE OF OVERALL I/M PROGRAM BENEFITS AND CLEAN SCREEN IMPACT ....... 39
A. C ONVERSION OF 

### I DLE 

### T ESTS TO 

### IM240 E QUIVALENT EMISSIONS 

### ........................................................... 39 B. A NNUAL 

### M ILEAGE 

### W EIGHTING 

### .............................................................................................................. 43 C. A NNUAL 

### E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

### .......................................................................................................... 44
VI. PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO CLEAN SCREEN STANDARDS ............................................... 46
VII. IM240 PROJECTED EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR ..................................................................... 47

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

A1 COLORADO 2008 TRANSIENT TEST EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS A2 COLORADO 2008 CLEAN SCREEN AUDI T TRANSIENT TEST EMISSION REDUCTIONS B COLORADO 2008 TRANSIENT TEST REDUCTION TONS

### 4 

## List of Tables

T ABLE 

### II-1 C OLORADO 

### S PRINGS AND 

### N ORTHERN 

### F RONT 

### R ANGE 

### RSD S ITES 

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

### II-2 D ENVER 

### RSD S ITES 

### ............................................................................................................................. 1 7 T ABLE 

### II-3 V EHICLE 

### M EASUREMENT 

### I NFORMATION 

### ............................................................................................. 20 T ABLE 

### III-1 C OLLECTION 

### S UMMARY 

### ...................................................................................................................... 22 T ABLE 

### III-2 S OURCE OF 

### V EHICLE 

### R EGISTRATIONS 

### M EASURED BY 

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

### III-3 R EGISTERED 

### J URISDICTION AND 

### A GE OF 

### V EHICLES 

### M EASURED BY 

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

### IV-1 V EHICLES 

### Q UALIFIED 

### A S 

### M EETING 

### C LEAN 

### S CREENING 

### C RITERIA BY 

### S TATUS 

### ................................... 28 T ABLE 

### IV-2 N OTIFICATIONS 

### T RANSMITTED TO 

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

### IV-3 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### A UDIT 

### T EST 

### P ASS 

### / F AIL 

### S TATISTICS 

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

### IV-5 T RANSIENT 

### T EST 

### E MISSION 

### R EDUCTIONS FOR 

### 1982-1985 P ASSENGER 

### V EHICLES 

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

### IV-6 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### E MISSIONS 

### I MPACT FOR 

### T AILPIPE 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### IV-7 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### I MPACT ON 

### E VAPORATIVE 

### HC E MISSIONS 

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

### IV-8 G AS 

### C AP 

### R ELATED 

### B ENEFIT 

### T ONS 

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

### IV-9 A VERAGE 

### E MISSIONS PER 

### V EHICLE 

### ................................................................................................... 37 T ABLE 

### V-1 L OW 

### S PEED 

### I DLE TO 

### IM240 ................................................................................................................. 40 T ABLE 

### V-2 L OW 

### S PEED 

### I DLE TO 

### IM240 ................................................................................................................. 41 T ABLE 

### V-3 E STIMATED 

### A NNUAL 

### M ILEAGE IN 

### 2009 ............................................................................................... 43 T ABLE 

### V-4 E STIMATED 

### A NNUAL 

### T ONS 

### O F 

### R EDUCTION 

### (IM240 AND 

### I DLE 

### T ESTED 

### V EHICLES 

### .............................. 45



## List of Figures

F IGURE 

### I-1 A VERAGE 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

### ............................................................................................ 6 F IGURE 

### II-1: T AG 

### E DIT TM 

### S CREEN 

### ........................................................................................................................... 14 F IGURE 

### II-2 A 

### : S ITE 

### L OCATIONS 

### N ORTHERN 

### F RONT 

### R ANGE 

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

### II-2 B 

### : S ITE 

### L OCATIONS



### – D ENVER 

### M ETRO 

### A REA 

### ...................................................................................... 19 F IGURE 

### III-1 M ONTHLY 

### RSD M EASUREMENTS 

### ...................................................................................................... 23 F IGURE 

### III-2 M EASUREMENTS BY 

### T IME OF 

### D AY 

### ................................................................................................... 23 F IGURE 

### IV-7 G AS 

### C AP 

### P RESSURE 

### F AILURE 

### R ATES 

### ................................................................................................ 34 F IGURE 

### IV-2 A VERAGE 

### I NITIAL 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

### ................................................................................................ 37 F IGURE 

### IV-3 A VERAGE 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

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

### V-1 RSD VS



### . I DLE 

### T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### V-2 RSD VS



### . 2500 I DLE 

### T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

### ................................................................................................. 41 F IGURE 

### V-3 RSD VS



### . 2500 I DLE 

### T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

### ................................................................................................. 42 F IGURE 

### VII-1 LDGV HC R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### VII-2 LDGT HC R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### VII-3 LDGV CO R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### .................................................................... 49 F IGURE 

### VII-4 LDGT CO R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### ..................................................................... 49 F IGURE 

### VII-5 LDGV NO X 

### R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### .................................................................. 50 F IGURE 

### VII-6 LDGT NO X 

### R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

### .................................................................. 50

### 5 

## I. Summary The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) and the Department of Revenue (DOR) have operated an Enhanced I/M program in the Denver metropolitan area since 1995. Operations for a remote sensing clean screening element commenced in 2003. Previous reports, “The Colorado Clean Scr eening Program’ reports for July 2003 – December 2004 and annual reports for 2005-2008 1 

### described on-road measur ement activities and the vehicles exempted from inspection. Th is report covers ca lendar year 2009. 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 the co nvenience of the I/M program for vehicle
owners. In order to exempt vehicles from inspection, it was necessary to develop computer systems and procedures for administering the program and notifying vehicle owners of their inspection exemption. These were put in place in 2004. The I/M program is registration enforced; therefore the administration of the clean scre ening program requires the transmission of information among the contractor, CDPH E and DOR who manage motor vehicle registrations. Collection Activity In 2009, eighteen RSD 4000 series vans were de ployed. Twenty-three different RSD systems were used as some units were rotated for preventive or corrective maintenance. Van’s deployed at 59 locations in the Denver area, 2 sites in the Northern Front Ranges and 4 sites in Colorado Springs for a total of 23,000 active collec tion hours. Over eight million emission measurements were collected an d successfully matched to Colo rado registered vehicles. Additional remote sensing productivity in formation is provided in Section IV. Vehicle Exemptions More than 236,000 vehicles met the clean screeni ng criteria and their owners were issued notices granting exemption from the I/ M test at an inspection station. 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 qualified were not issued exemption notices and 4,103 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 of the vehicles passing the cl ean screen gas criteria might have failed if inspected at an inspection station. Therefore, it is expect ed that a Clean Screen

### 6 

### program, while greatly improving convenience fo r vehicle owners, would reduce the overall effectiveness of an I/M program. On May 5 th 

### 2008, IM240 station test standards were tig htened – especially for HC and NOx. In December 2008, and periodically during 2009, the LEI table was updated with recent IM240 results. The RSD screen standards, however, remained unchanged and a NOx cutpoint had not yet been introduced. As a conseq uence, in 2009 the Hybrid RSD-LEI method performed better than the 2- RSD method. Figure I-1 compares the average IM240 exhaust reductions per vehicle for normal vehicles inspecte d at stations to the 2-RSD audit sample and the Hybrid RSD-LEI audit sample emissions re ductions. For all pollutants the RSD-LEI audit sample showed the smallest reductions meani ng that the impact of exempting these vehicles was the smallest. Figure I-1 Average IM240 Emissions Reductions

In 2009, based on the IM240 test results of 4,000 ra ndom audit vehicles, it is projected that 98.6%, 98.1% and 92.9% 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 4.0% of HC reductions. Clean screen prog ram performance in 2009 showed improvement over 2008. The methodology for estimating clean screen effectiv eness 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 is greater than projected. 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12StationRSD-2RSDLEIg/mi 

### HC

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4StationRSD-2RSDLEI 

### CO

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10StationRSD-2RSDLEI 

### NOx

### 7 

## II. Description of the Denver Clean Screening Program
A. General 1. I/M Program Overview The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) operates an enhanced I/M program in the Denver metropolitan area. The clean screening 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 I/M inspection. Operating rules for the Clean Screening progr am are contained in CDPHE Regulation 11. The Regulation defines the maximum percentages of vehicles that may be evaluated by the clean screen program in the enhanced I/M area: In 2006, the percentage of vehicles allowed to be evaluated using remote sensing was decreased from 80% to 50% as part of an Ea rly Action Compact (EAC) to achieve an earlier attainment designation for ozone. Clean Screeni ng regulations were expanded to allow use of a single RSD measurement combined with an index of low emitting model vehicles to evaluate exemption candidates Excerpt from Colorado Regulation 11 Part A (last update 1/30/09)

II. DEFINITIONS

16. “Clean Screened Vehicle” is a vehicle that is e ligible for inspection, has at least two consecutive passing remote sensing emissions readings performed on different days or at different approved Clean Screen Inspection Sites prior to it s registration renewal date, or for vehicles identified as low emitters on the low emitting vehicle index, one passing remote sensing reading prior to its registration date, and has othe rwise complied with the provisions of section IV of this Part A, section XII of Part C and section VI of Part F. Although this language is in Reg. 11, the SIP restricts clean screen observations to 50% as mentioned above. This could confuse some people.



### Regulation 11 established a fee collection system for the clean screen program in the enhanced area: Excerpt from Colorado Regulation 11 Part A (last update 1/30/09)

IV.E.2. Beginning with motor vehicle registration renewals coming due in April 2003, the clerks and recorders for the c ounties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Je fferson shall collect an emissions inspection fee in the amount specified pursuant to Section42-3-304(19)(a)(I), C.R.S. at the time of registration of a motor vehicle that the Department of Revenue has determined to have been clean screened, unless a valid certification of emissions compliance has already been issued for the vehicle being registered indicating that the v ehicle passed the applicable emissions test at an enhanced inspection center, motor vehicle dealer test facility or fleet inspection station.

### 8 This Section IV.E.2. shall not apply until t he Colorado Department of Revenue and the Air Pollution Control Division determine that: I. All requisite computer-programming c hanges necessary for the functioning of the pay-upon-registration system have been completed; II. The test equipment is in place and its reliability has been verified; and III. A test run demonstrates that the syst em will accurately send notices to the correct vehicles.



### Regulation 11 establishes requirements fo r Clean Screen Emissions Inspectors: Excerpt from Colorado Regulation 11 Part D (last update 1/30/09)

V. QUALIFICATION OF CLEAN S CREEN EMISSIONS INSPECTORS V.A. Clean Screen Emissions Inspector applicants shall apply for letters of qualification on forms provided by the Division. The Divisi on shall issue letters of qualification to applicants who comply with the requirements of this section V. The Division will notify applicants of the evaluation requirements specified in subsection B. below prior to testing. V.B. An applicant for a letter of qualificati on or requalification must demonstrate knowledge, skill, and competence concerning the operation of Clean Screen emissions inspections. Such knowledge, skill and competence will be demonstrated on actual Clean Screen equipment and by passing a skills proficiency qualification test including, but not limited to, knowledge of the following: V.B.1. Operation of and proper use, ca re, maintenance, calibration and gas span checking of the Division-approved Cl ean Screen Test Analyzer System. V.B.2. Safety procedures for the Clean Screen Inspection Site. V.B.3. Proper setup and breakdown of the Clean Screen equipment



### Regulation 11 establishes the crite ria vehicles must meet to obtain a Certificate of Emissions Control through the Clean Screen Program:

Excerpt from Colorado Regulation 11 Part C (last update 1/30/09)

Part C XII. CLEAN SCREEN IN SPECTION PROGRA M PROCEDURES XII.A. Eligibility to participate XII.A.1. Vehicles specified in Part A, Section IV.B., are eligible for participation in the Clean Screen Program.

XII.E.2. The most recent two consecutive emissions readings we re observed within twelve months of the registration renewa l date provided that the most recent

### 9 passing emissions reading must have occurred on a different day or at a different site location from the prior reading. XII.E.3. No non-complying emissions readi ngs are observed bet ween or subsequent to the last pair of complying readings.

XII.E.4. For vehicles that are identified as low emitters on the low emitting index the most recent emission reading was ob served within 12-months of the registration renewal date. For these vehi cles, identification as a low emitter on the low emitting vehicle index shall take the place of the second remote sensing reading otherwise require d under Section XII.E.2., above.



### Excerpt from Colorado Regulation 11 Part F (last update 1/30/09)

VI. CLEAN SCREEN PROGRAM MAXIMU M ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS LIMITS

VI.A. In order to obtain a Certificate of Emi ssions Control through the Clean Screen Program, vehicles must not exceed maximum emission s concentrations of 0.50 percent carbon monoxide (CO) and 200 parts per million hydrocarbon (HC) as reflected in remote sensing emissions readings. VI.B. Vehicle owners who participate in the Cl ean Screen Program shall not be subject to the provisions of this Part F other than this section VI.
VI.B.1. On or before July 1 st 

### of each year the Air Pollution Control Division shall develop a low emitting vehicle index ba sed on a tabulation of the previous calendar year’s IM240 inspection program results for specified make, model and model year of vehicles. VI.B.2. A 98% passing rate for exhaust emissions shall be set as the minimum allowable passing criteria for the low emitting vehicle index. VI.B.3. In developing the low emitting vehi cle index, the Division may use passing criteria greater than 98% if necessary to ensure that the use of the low emitting vehicle index is equivalent to or better than the use of a second remote sensing measurement in terms of air quality benefits.



### 2. Contractor Environmental Systems Products was contracted to operate the enhanced program by a competitive bid process and the contract was subsequently amended to include clean screening in the Denver area. Headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, the Remote Sensing division of ESP is th e largest provider of on-road remo te sensing services. ESP uses technology derived from that orig inally developed at Denver University with whom ESP has a royalty agreement.

3. Description of RSD 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 ultra-violet beam emitted and reflected

### 10 

### approximately 10 to 18 inches above ground preferably across a single lane road. Gasoline, diesel, or other fossil fuel power ed vehicles drive through this beam and the exha ust interferes with this transmission of the beam. Quantifying the interference enables the calculation of tailpipe concentrations of CO, HC, CO2, NO and partic ulate 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 are based on a technical platform developed at the Univer sity 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. The following elements comprise a complete RSD4000 unit:

 RSD4000-L3 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

 Two spare rechargeable battery packs

 Battery charger

 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

 RSD4000-L3 operation (data collection) software

 RSD4000-L3 compatible license plate tag-editing software

### 11 

###  Calibration subsystem consisting of:

 Calibration tube

 Calibration gas bottle

 Pressure regulator

 Hoses with quick disconnects

 RSD4000-L3 shipping container for SDM, TMM, quick disconnect and on/off switch fuse



### The following elements comprise an upgraded 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

 Easy access side door

 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 RSD4000 units meet the fo llowing performance criteria:

○ AccuScan measures the exha ust of a passing motor vehi cle in less than 0.7 seconds. Non-dispersive infrared (IR ) spectroscopy, the same analytical technique used in garage based two-speed idle and ASM equipmen t is used to measure concentrations of CO, HC, and CO 2 

### . Dispersive ultraviolet (UV) spect roscopy is used to measure NOx. The system is based on the original de signs and patents of Dr. Donald Stedman, professor emeritus at the University of Denver.

○ CDPHE has adapted BAR performance specifi cations for remote sensing technology. ESP previously provided an audit ga s vehicle pursuant to the BAR OREMS specifications. As such, ESP asserts the AccuScan TM 

### RSD4000, which has previously and consistently met BAR detector accuracy specifications, will meet the Colorado RSD specifications.

### 12 

### ○ Detector accuracy that meets the California BAR OREMS Specification: 1



### o OREMS detector accuracy, including speed and acceleration, shall meet or exceed 97% (i.e., 39/40 runs for each gas within limits) during controlled testing.

o OREMS detector accuracy, including speed and acceleration, shall meet or exceed 90% (i.e., 36/40 runs for each gas within limit s) during routine daily on-road testing.
1. The carbon monoxide (CO %) reading shall be within  10% of the Certified Gas Sample, or an absolute value of  0.25% CO (whichever is greater), for a gas range less than or equal to 3.00% CO. Negative values shall be incl uded and shall not be rounded to

zero. The CO % reading shall be within  15% of the Certified Gas Sample for a gas range greater than 3.00% CO. Negative values shall be included and shall not be rounded to zero.
2. The hydrocarbon recorded in (HC ppm hexane) reading shall be within  15% of the Certified Gas Sample, or an absolute value of  250 ppm HC, (whichever is greater). Negative values shall be included and shall not be rounded to zero.
3. The nitric oxide (NO ppm) reading shall be within  15% of the Certified Gas Sample, or an absolute value of  250 ppm NO, (whichever is greater). Negative values shall be included and shall not be rounded to zero.
4. Since any gasoline combustion engine should not exceed certain theoretical emission levels, contractors shall not submit readings outside the following limits: CO + CO2  21.0 %, HC  35,000 ppm hexane, CO2  16.0 %, and NO  7000 ppm.
5. The vehicle speed measurement sha ll be accurately recorded within  1.0 mile per hour.
6. The vehicle acceleration measurement shall be accurately recorded within  0.5 mile per hour / second.

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.

### 13 

### 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. ESP’s TagEdit TM 

### software is used to transcribe vehicl e 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 emissions da ta 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.

### 14 

### Figure II-1: TagEdit TM 

### Screen

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. A system adding a TXID was instit uted by the DOR to allow their system to provide up-to-date data and a ve hicle history. This Clean Scre en 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 County Clerks Offices to the DOR database. The sepa rate Clean Screen Registration Database on the ESP Arvada host contains all vehicle registra tion records statewide, even though only certain counties are expected to participate in the Cl ean Screen program. The future growth of registration could require some housekeeping, but there is plenty of hardware scalability to handle this growth.

### 15 

### B. Measurement Sites 1. Description of Sample Site Characteristics 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 citing of the remote sensing equipment
(7) Adequate median space for safe operation of the RSD equipment.



### Sites must also meet requirements of Regulation 11: Excerpt from Colorado Regulation 11 (last update 10/18/2007)

IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEAN S CREEN/REMOTE SENSING SITES IV.A. Applicability Clean Screen Inspection Sites must meet all app licable standards pursuant to this Part D and the Department of Revenue's regulations in orde r to qualify for operating in Colorado's Clean Screen Program. IV.B. Standards for emissions inspection sites All sites shall comply with all applicable state and local codes/ordinances and maintain appropriate permits for that spec ific municipality and location. IV.C. All Clean Screen Sites must provide reas onable access in order for Department of Revenue (and if applicable, Division) staff to conduct periodic quality control and audit functions as necessary. IV.D. Applicants for a license as a Clean Scre en Emissions Inspector shall complete forms approved by the Department of Revenue whic h shall include, but not be limited to, a declaration of any past violations of AI R Program statute Sections 42-4-301 through 42-4-316, C.R.S., as amended or any rule or regulation pursuant to such law.


### A small number of measurements were made in Colorado Springs and in the Northern Front Range at the sites shown in Table II-1. Table II-2 lists the Denve r area site locations used for the clean screening program, the number of da ys each site was used, the total hours during

### 16 

### which measurements were collected and the nu mber 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. Denver site locations are illustrated in Figure II-2. Blue sites have been approved for more than six months. Green sites are new additions over the last 6 months and Red sites are no longer permitted. The X's represent HQ and ot her stations where RSD vans are housed.

Table II-1 Colorado Springs and Northern Front Range RSD Sites

Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Registered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 2518 ONRAMP TO E.PLATTE AVE FROM NB ACADEMY BLVD COLORADO SPRINGS 3 21 3,318 156 2519 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM FILLMORE ST COLORADO SPRINGS 8 56 15,332 272 2520 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM N.ACADEMY BLVD COLORADO SPRINGS 2 12 1,846 158 2521 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM S.ACADEMY BLVD COLORADO SPRINGS 4 22 4,666 210

3017 EB TRILBY ROAD EAST OF SHIELDS STREET FORT COLLINS 17 95 24,211 254 2989 EB US 34 BYPASS FROM 23RD AVE GREELEY 7 43 5,257 121 Total 41 250 54,630 218

### 17 Table II-2 Denver RSD Sites

Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Registered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 2808 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM 136TH AVE THORNTON 12 91 19,280 212 2819 ONRAMP TO SB 121 FROM WB 287 WESTMINSTER 33 292 89,722 307 2821 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 120TH AVE WESTMINSTER 19 127 22,937 181 2967 EB SH-2 JUST NORTH OF QUEBEC PKWY/ROEMARY ST COMMERCE CITY 2 15 1,112 73 2971 EB DILLON RD EAST OF US-287 BROOMFIELD 43 315 85,941 273 8089 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM 96TH AVE COMMERCE CITY 26 183 49,651 272 8090 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM PECOS ST. DENVER 2 13 1,034 79 8091 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM BROMLEY LN. BRIGHTON 8 62 11,704 190 8093 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM NB I-25 DENVER 224 2,576 1,549,220 601 8107 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM BROADWAY DENVER 121 1,227 370,051 302 8115 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM FEDERAL BLVD DENVER 3 14 2,020 143 8129 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM PECOS ST DENVER 6 41 7,656 185 2969 WB DELMAR PKWY AT OSWEGO AURORA 21 161 20,754 129 8095 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM ILLIFF AVE. AURORA 26 167 13,645 82 8098 ONRAMP TO NB I-225 FROM ILLIFF AVE AURORA 26 173 27,022 156 8120 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM ALAMEDA AVE AURORA 1 6 1,015 177 8121 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM MISSISSIPPI AVE AURORA 81 567 159,457 281 2826 ONRAMP TO EB US-36 FROM MCCASLIN LOUISVILLE 6 41 7,854 194 8057 ON-RAMP TO SB SH 157 FROM PEARL ST. BOULDER 64 451 86,849 192 8064 ONRAMP TO NB SH 157 FROM EB TABLE MESA BOULDER 48 352 73,310 209 8079 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM WADSWORTH PKWY BROOMFIELD 191 1,792 629,218 351 2811 ONRAMP TO I-25 FROM WB SPEER DENVER 79 672 258,393 384 2970 EB 48TH AVE EAST OF CHAMBERS RD DENVER 12 90 12,495 138 8062 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM FEDERAL BLVD DENVER 55 560 138,293 247 8097 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM NB I-25 DENVER 143 958 724,903 757 8122 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM PARK AVE DENVER 77 806 289,815 360 8123 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 58TH AVE. DENVER 52 425 122,953 289 2167 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WILCOX ST. CASTLE ROCK 6 44 9,892 224 2320 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM BROADWAY HIGHLANDS RANCH 140 1,071 545,419 509 2322 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM UNIVERSITY BLVD HIGHLANDS RANCH 20 115 17,641 154 2574 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 5 41 4,389 106 2576 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM EB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 44 312 66,540 214 2577 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM EB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 174 1,366 552,255 404 2807 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WB LINCOLN AVE LITTLETON 28 197 81,194 413 8063 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM SANTA FE DR HIGHLANDS RANCH 158 1,168 511,081 438 8077 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM QUEBEC ST. HIGHLANDS RANCH 153 1,194 658,158 551 8083 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM FOUNDERS PARKWAY (EXIT 184) CASTLE ROCK 3 26 4,235 166 8084 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM LINCOLN AVE. LITTLETON 9 67 8,651 130 8085 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WOLFENSBERGER RD. (EXIT 182) CASTLE ROCK 60 392 124,873 319 8086 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM FOUNDERS PARKWAY (EXIT 184) CASTLE ROCK 69 505 178,276 353 2173 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FOM KEN CARYL AVE. LAKEWOOD 51 420 51,800 123 2175 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM KIPLING ST. LAKEWOOD 51 543 60,791 112 2458 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM SIMMS ST LAKEWOOD 50 400 116,084 290 2460 ONRAMP TO EB US-6TH AVE FROM SB WADSWORTH BLVD LAKEWOOD 24 215 25,259 117 2461 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM NB WADSWORTH BLVD LAKEWOOD 9 58 11,055 192 2813 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM COLFAX LAKEWOOD 1 2 570 264 8058 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM SHERIDAN BLVD. ARVADA 99 871 216,359 248 8069 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM KIPLING ST. WHEATRIDGE 55 594 157,586 265 8100 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM SB KIPLING ST. LAKEWOOD 17 129 29,545 229 8106 ONRAMP TO NB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) FROM KIPLING BLVD. DENVER 61 431 130,368 302 8130 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM SHERIDAN BLVD ARVADA 49 441 91,226 207 Total 2,717 22,777 8,429,551 370

### 18 

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

### 19 

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

### 20 

### 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

 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, ESP. Using the vehicle plate identified by RSD, the registration file is accessed to determine the vehicle identifica tion number (VIN) and vehicle registration information. ESP uses the Polk VIN Decoder to add additional information about each vehicle. The combined data fiel ds are shown in Table II-3.

Table II-3 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

### 21 

### Field Name Description 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 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

### 22 

## III. Summary of Data Collection Up to 18 remote sensing units were deploye d for 2,758 days during the one-year period to collect 54,000 measurements in Colorado Springs and the north ern Front Range and 8,429,000 measurements in the enha nced I/M area that have a visible plate and valid HC, CO, speed and acceleration values. Plates were matched to regist rations to determine model and owner information. Almost seven million of the measurements were on vehicles registered in the Denver area, 116,000 measurements were vehicles register ed in Colorado Springs and 204,000 in the North Front Range. Another 266,00 0 measurements were of vehi cles registered in other Colorado counties. Clean screen exemption notices were issued to 236,400 Denver vehicles due to renew their registration in 2009. These results are summarized in Table III-1 to II-3.

Table III-1 Collection Summary



### A. Monthly Collection Activity Figure III-1 shows the monthly RSD measurem ents. Data collection increased through the year as additional vans were added. Collection rates were lower during winter months.

B. Measurements by Hour of Day Figure III-2 ‘Measurements by Hour of Day’ shows the number of vehicles measured during each hour of the day. The sh ape of the curve is indicative of when measurements were collected and does not re present the level of traffic during the day. Most measurements were collected between 8:00am and 6:00pm. Collection Summary

Statistic Colorado Springs & NFR Denver Total Sites Used 6 59 65 Collection Van Days 41 2,717 2,758 Active Collection Van Hours 250 22,777 23,027 Matched to Registration 54,630 8,429,551 8,484,181 Notices Generated for 2009 renewals 236,400 236,400

### 23 

### Figure III-1 Monthly RSD Measurements

Figure III-2 Measurements by Time of Day

C. Composition of Vehicles Measured Table III-2 Source of Vehicl e Registrations shows that 2.4% of vehicles measured were registered to the Nort h Front Range, 1.4% were regi stered in El Paso County (Colorado Springs), 3.1% were registered in other non-I/M counties, and 12.4% were not 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecMeasurements 

### Measurements by Month

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



### Hour 

### Measurements by Time of Day

### 24 

### matched. Almost 80% of the unmatched plates were classified as unmatched because they were matched to more than one vehicl e record. This can occur when plates are transferred by an owner to a new vehicle. These numbers are indicative of on-road activity – not unique regi strations. The same vehicle may be measured more than once.
Table III-3 shows the distribution of ve hicle measurements by vehicle type, age group and registration jurisdiction. The vehi cle types were identified by the Polk VIN decoder, which classified 97% of all models . The model years of 1980 and older vehicles and some of the newest 2006 through 2009 models were determined from the registration information but the vehicle type was not available. These we re classified as Unknown in Table III-3. Nine hundred measurements of motorcycles were also included as Unknown.

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



### Program County Pass Truck Unknown Total % Enhanced Adams 405,320 575,660 16,023 997,003 11.8% Enhanced Arapahoe 443,754 613,558 35,280 1,092,592 12.9% Enhanced Boulder 182,662 186,395 7,614 376,671 4.4% Enhanced Broomfield 117,000 132,584 5,429 255,013 3.0% Enhanced Denver 446,707 584,747 56,675 1,088,129 12.8% Enhanced Douglas 501,643 853,344 31,602 1,386,589 16.3% Enhanced Jefferson 667,501 920,673 30,199 1,618,373 19.1% Enhanced State of Colorado 9,754 18,285 2,027 30,066 0.4% Subtotal Enhanced 2,774,341 3,885,246 184,849 6,844,436 80.7% North Front Range Larimer 35,459 42,820 2,414 80,693 1.0% North Front Range Weld 49,070 71,853 2,822 123,745 1.5% Subtotal North Front Range 84,529 114,673 5,236 204,438 2.4% El Paso El Paso 47,044 65,980 3,451 116,475 1.4% Non I/M 94,346 164,013 7,596 265,955 3.1% Not Matched 1,052,877 12.4% Total 3,000,260 4,229,912 201,132 8,484,181 100.0%

### 25 Table III-3 Registered Jurisdiction and Age of Vehicles Measured by RSD



### Vehicle

Type Model Year Enhanced Northern Front Range El Paso NonI/M Total Pass 1981 & older 879 45 9 48 981 1982-1985 10,691 591 191 904 12,377 1986-1990 73,432 3,144 1,306 4,217 82,099 1991-1995 284,475 10,887 4,968 10,659 310,989 1996-2000 730,189 22,691 11,814 23,885 788,579 2001-2005 1,067,774 30,095 18,529 36,100 1,152,498 2006 & newer 606,901 17,076 10,227 18,533 652,737 Light Truck 1981 & older 718 53 21 151 943 1982-1985 9,107 700 155 1,049 11,011 1986-1990 53,471 2,464 1,005 4,098 61,038 1991-1995 228,492 9,149 3,959 11,963 253,563 1996-2000 871,784 25,452 14,099 37,249 948,584 2001-2005 1,661,053 45,402 28,630 67,748 1,802,833 2006 & newer 1,060,621 31,453 18,111 41,755 1,151,940 Unknown 1981 & older 18,812 1,046 565 2,036 22,459 1982-1985 378 26 24 76 504 1986-1990 339 42 23 66 470 1991-1995 724 68 40 119 951 1996-2000 2,624 112 74 281 3,091 2001-2005 3,073 217 177 350 3,817 2006 & newer 158,551 3,725 2,548 4,668 169,492 Total 6,844,088 204,438 116,475 265,955 7,430,956

### 26 

## IV. Clean Screening Program Performance

A. Vehicles Selected, Notices and Redemptions

The conditions for a vehicle to obtain a clean sc reen exemption are defined in Regulation 11. Extracts describing the measuremen ts required and the vehicle em ission standards to be applied are reproduced here for convenience: Excerpt from Colorado Regulation 11 Part C (last update 1/30/09)

XII. CLEAN SCREEN INSPECTI ON PROGRAM PROCEDURES XII.A. Eligibility to participate XII.A.1. Vehicles specified in Part A, Section IV.B., are eligible for participation in the Clean Screen Program. 

### Regulation No. 11 Page 28 Appendices XII.A.2. Clean Screen inspection s applicable to the program are those performed within twelve months prior to an individual vehicle's registration renewal date. XII.A.3. Vehicles are eligible for participa tion in the Clean Scr een Program when the two most recent consecutive emissions readings observed during the 12-months prior to its registration date comply with the standards specified in Part F (VI) and: the most recent passing emissions r eading occurred on a different day or at a different site location from the prior reading. Additionally, vehicles that are identified as low emitters on the low emitting vehicle index are eligible for participation in the clean screen prog ram when the most recent emissions reading observed during the 12-months prior to their registration date complies with the standard specified in Part F, Section VI. XII.A.4. The following vehicles are ineligib le for participation in the Clean Screen Program: XII.A.4.a. New Vehicles as specified in Section 42-4-310(b) (II)(A), C.R.S. XII.A.4.b. Vehicles involved in a change of ownership. XII.A.4.c. Vehicles owned by the United States government or any agency thereof or by the State of Colorado or any agency or political subdivision thereof, pursuant to Section 42-4-310(l)(b)(I), C.R.S.

In order to obtain a Certificate of Emissions Control the following conditions must be met:

XII.E.1. The vehicle emissions levels are the sa me as or less than the limits specified in Part F(VI).

XII.E.2. The most recent two consecutive emissions readings we re observed within twelve months of the registration renewa l date provided that the most recent passing emissions reading must have occurred on a different day or at a different site location from the prior reading.

### 27 XII.E.3. No non-complying emissions reading s are observed betwe en or subsequent to the last pair of complying readings.

XII.E.4. For vehicles that are identified as lo w emitters on the low emitting index the most recent emission reading was observed wi thin 12-months of the registration renewal date. For these vehicles, ident ification as a low emitter on the low emitting vehicle index shall take the place of the second remote sensing reading otherwise required under Section XII.E.2., above



### Excerpt from Colorado Regulation 11 Part F (last update 1/30/09)

VI. CLEAN SCREEN PROGRAM MAXIMU M ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS LIMITS

VI.A. In order to obtain a Certificate of Emi ssions Control through the Clean Screen Program, vehicles must not exceed maximum emission s concentrations of 0.50 percent carbon monoxide (CO) and 200 parts per million hydrocarbon (HC) as reflected in remote sensing emissions readings. VI.B. Vehicle owners who participate in the Cl ean Screen Program shall not be subject to the provisions of this Part F other than this section VI.
VI.B.1. On or before July 1 st 

### of each year the Air Pollution Control Division shall develop a low emitting vehicle index based on a tabulation of the previous calendar year’s IM240 inspection program results for specified make, model and model year of vehicles. VI.B.2. A 98% passing rate for exhaust emissi ons shall be set as the minimum allowable passing criteria for the low emitting vehicle index. VI.B.3. In developing the low emitting vehicle in dex, the Division may use passing criteria greater than 98% if necessary to ensure that the use of the low emitting vehicle index is equivalent to or better than the use of a second remote sensing measurement in terms of air quality benefits.



### Table IV-1 summarizes the monthly number of vehi cles meeting screening criteria each month, the number withheld for the random sample, the number rejected through QA checks, and the number notified. 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 insp ection. Compared to the 236,400 vehicles notified in 2009, fewer vehicles 199,344 (84%) obt ained a clean screen.

### 28 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. 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.
1. Pass / Fail Statistics Matching initial tests for audit vehicles were limited to those occurring after the second RSD measurement and before expiration of the assigne d Clean Screen period. Matching tests were sought through the end of February 2010. The tests identified for a udit sample vehicles and their I/M results are tabulated in Table IV-3. As noted earlier, some of the anticipated random vehicles did not obtain a test wi thin the Clean Screen period. In a ggregate, 1.2% of the tested audit vehicles failed their tailpipe emissions inspecti on, and 3.0% of the tested audit vehicles failed their gas cap pressure test 2



### . The 1.2% of emissions failures in 2009 increas ed from 0.6% in 2007 but lower than the 1.6% rate that followed the May 5 th 

### , 2008 tightening of IM240 standards 1 

### . The LEI table was updated for 2009 but the HC and CO RSD clean screening cutpoints we re left unchanged and no RSD cutpoint for NOx was introduced. The overall rate of gas cap failures in the program was also higher in 2009 than in 2008.

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. Reg Year Reg Month Random Sample QA failed Notified Total Qualified Random % of Qualified 2009 Jan 444 341 21,224 22,009 2.0% 2009 Feb 422 461 20,302 21,185 2.0% 2009 Mar 430 345 20,636 21,411 2.0% 2009 Apr 357 291 17,082 17,730 2.0% 2009 May 355 351 16,837 17,543 2.0% 2009 Jun 399 362 18,935 19,696 2.0% 2009 Jul 389 366 18,448 19,203 2.0% 2009 Aug 457 369 21,576 22,402 2.0% 2009 Sep 455 417 22,011 22,883 2.0% 2009 Oct 487 381 23,186 24,054 2.0% 2009 Nov 344 278 16,528 17,150 2.0% 2009 Dec 405 300 19,635 20,340 2.0% Total 4,944 4,262 236,400 245,606 2.0%

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

Table IV-3 Clean Screen Audit Test Pass / Fail Statistics Registration Renewal Month Cit y Jan Feb Mar A pr Ma y Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total DENVER 3,939 3,773 3,878 3,426 3,355 3,905 3,590 4,083 4,242 4,457 3,279 3,811 45,738 AURORA 1,796 1,767 1,811 1,394 1,498 1,565 1,602 1,765 1,842 1,909 1,532 1,750 20,231 LITTLETON 1,548 1,472 1,487 1,208 1,205 1,371 1,332 1,486 1,624 1,788 1,336 1,413 17,270 ARVADA 1,233 1,129 1,200 1,008 979 1,150 959 1,365 1,397 1,464 1,124 1,205 14,213 LAKEWOOD 1,122 1,087 1,129 914 937 1,045 905 1,235 1,283 1,364 1,035 1,119 13,175 CENTENNIAL 986 931 1,001 804 719 846 829 997 978 1,064 822 886 10,863 WESTMINSTER 1,141 1,032 1,102 849 788 958 968 1,078 1,180 1,138 752 1,014 12,000 BOULDER 886 794 759 630 589 711 718 902 881 834 644 670 9,018 HIGHLAND RCH 1,064 1,041 1,076 948 1,000 1,029 1,119 1,128 1,176 1,271 644 1,029 12,525 THORNTON 1,052 969 931 797 757 868 915 1,001 960 967 562 849 10,628 BROOMFIELD 669 702 660 501 574 609 512 759 762 793 561 661 7,763 PARKER 771 794 750 666 648 640 684 731 724 838 493 742 8,481 GOLDEN 518 464 494 381 396 475 408 590 530 607 468 534 5,865 CASTLE ROCK 781 741 740 652 613 686 767 766 810 735 464 560 8,315 ENGLEWOOD 447 467 428 353 366 345 331 436 387 469 344 405 4,778 LONGMONT 333 313 328 252 223 262 312 299 279 309 249 248 3,407 WHEAT RIDGE 229 254 244 185 200 211 197 269 280 319 216 256 2,860 BRIGHTON 284 227 275 195 198 233 239 267 256 267 191 257 2,889 COMMERCE CITY 257 284 265 234 199 236 236 265 260 254 189 223 2,902 LOUISVILLE 207 193 181 167 160 168 192 240 195 201 175 142 2,221 NORTHGLENN 298 277 281 243 238 242 240 300 309 283 149 266 3,126 LAFAYETTE 169 187 172 126 137 172 172 201 195 201 128 134 1,994 EVERGREEN 174 134 167 106 108 130 128 158 170 174 127 182 1,758 MORRISON 127 117 127 91 93 89 99 97 125 127 124 120 1,336 GREENWOOD VLG 193 169 165 149 116 133 132 164 141 194 113 146 1,815 CASTLE PNS N 2 2 1 1 5 7 24 119 92 95 348 SUPERIOR 121 117 121 80 84 95 138 148 115 113 82 110 1,324 CONIFER 45 65 51 45 41 43 35 68 46 80 73 64 656 LONE TREE 123 105 123 96 88 112 89 124 121 130 55 136 1,302 CHERRY HL VLG 73 62 57 60 35 54 35 55 54 66 48 48 647 ERIE 52 61 59 36 37 41 55 46 54 60 48 48 597 FRANKTOWN 55 48 53 43 38 39 65 35 54 50 48 48 576 FEDERAL HTS 58 68 61 38 60 49 66 62 76 66 42 68 714 HENDERSON 73 59 45 36 40 36 40 52 65 35 39 48 568 LARKSPUR 75 64 56 54 62 65 67 57 52 70 36 54 712 SEDALIA 36 58 54 49 43 40 48 50 47 60 36 31 552 EDGEWATER 23 21 36 25 18 24 18 26 26 41 24 35 317 GLENDALE 13 15 17 13 16 20 19 13 25 14 18 15 198 NIWOT 19 15 17 12 12 20 20 14 23 16 14 13 195 OTHER 234 224 233 215 166 218 162 237 243 239 152 200 2,523 T o t a l 21 , 224 20 , 302 20 , 636 17 , 082 16 , 837 18 , 935 18 , 448 21 , 576 22 , 011 23 , 186 16 , 528 19 , 635 236 , 400

Vehicle Type Vehicles Fail Emissions Fail Gas Cap / Pressure Fail Inspection Passenger 1,803 22 54 74 Light Truck 2,300 26 70 97 Total 4,103 48 124 171 Percentage 1.2% 3.0% 4.2%

### 30 

### Following sections describe in detail how these resu lts are used to evaluate the emissions impact of the Clean Screen program.

2. Tailpipe Emissions The vast majority of vehicles were tested us ing IM240 tailpipe tests and IM240 testing provides a more accurate estimate of vehicle emissions than th e idle tailpipe test. Therefore, the results of the 95% of the clean screen audi t sample vehicles tested using IM240 were used to evaluate the exhaust emissions effectiveness of the clean screen program. The em ission reductions from vehicles inspected using the idle test procedure have been included in the overall estimate of program benefits. Models inspected using the id le test procedure are 1981-and-older models and 1982-and-newer trucks over 8500 lbs GWWR plus some four-wheel drive and traction control vehicles.
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 )

 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 1995 2 

### 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 2009 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.

### 31 

### 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 3 

### and Colorado 4 

### 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 2010 and the audit ve hicles were all assumed to remain in the area.

First and Final Emissions Results Table IV-5 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 1,618 1985 model year passenge r vehicles tested using the IM240 transient test, 16.6% of vehicles initially failed inspection and were repair ed (Pass) with HC, CO and NOx reductions of 56.0%, 71.6% and 12.6% respectively. Anothe r 8.3% of vehicles failed their initial inspection and had not successfully passed a retest by end February 2010 (Unresolved). Reductions from these vehicles are estimated to be approximat ely 67% for HC, CO and NOx, because two thirds are assumed to have left the area. Finally, 0.3% of vehicles were waived (Waiver) with HC, CO and NOx reductions of 0.2%, 1.2% and -70.0% respectively. In aggregate, including vehicles that passed thei r initial inspection, em ission reductions for 1985 passenger vehicles were 32.7% for HC, 38.8% for CO and 8.5% 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 for the Clean Screen audit sample vehicles. The aggregate results from these tables are used to estimate the impact of the Clean Screen program.

Audit Sample Reductions and Projected Impact Table IV-6 shows the aggregate fi rst and final results for the 95% of the inspected audit sample vehicles that were tested using IM240. The av erage 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 achieved if the cl ean screen vehicles had instead been inspected at the stations. This amount is then compared to the total em ission 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 IM 240 test, the Clean Screen progra m retained approximately 93-98% of the exhaust HC, CO and NOx reductions. Thes e reductions assume all vehicles are driven the same number of miles each year. Mileage adjust ed emission reductions are calculated in section V.32Table IV-5 Transient Test Emission Reductions for 1982-1985 Passenger VehiclesColorado 2009 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 - 331 1.70 19.88 2.01 1.70 19.88 2.01 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 76 17.6% 4.11 46.78 2.52 1.67 17.90 2.08 59.4% 61.7% 17.1%Fail Unresolv. 25 5.8% 8.41 68.27 2.01 2.51 21.78 0.65 70.1% 68.1% 67.9%Fail Waiver 1 0.2% 14.28 142.04 0.59 14.28 142.04 0.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Total Fail% 433 23.6% 2.54 27.68 2.10 1.77 19.92 1.94 30.3% 28.0% 7.4%1983 Pass - 655 1.40 16.53 1.96 1.40 16.53 1.96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 170 18.9% 3.33 48.56 2.11 1.44 15.10 2.15 56.8% 68.9% -2.1%Fail Unresolv. 69 7.7% 5.52 80.48 1.91 1.59 24.10 0.62 71.2% 70.1% 67.4%Fail Waiver 4 0.4% 2.62 80.42 1.74 2.57 75.79 1.03 2.1% 5.8% 40.9%Total Fail% 898 27.1% 2.09 27.79 1.98 1.43 17.10 1.89 31.6% 38.5% 4.7%1984 Pass - 985 1.33 14.69 1.98 1.33 14.69 1.98 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 238 17.9% 3.36 43.74 2.09 1.44 13.19 2.07 57.2% 69.9% 1.0%Fail Unresolv. 107 8.0% 5.20 67.97 2.10 1.67 22.53 0.69 67.8% 66.9% 67.1%Fail Waiver 3 0.2% 3.16 49.06 1.71 3.91 65.91 1.84 -23.8% -34.3% -7.5%Total Fail% 1,333 26.1% 2.01 24.23 2.01 1.38 15.17 1.89 31.1% 37.4% 5.8%1985 Pass - 1,618 1.04 11.45 1.93 1.04 11.45 1.93 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 359 16.6% 2.53 35.25 2.26 1.11 10.00 1.97 56.0% 71.6% 12.6%Fail Unresolv. 179 8.3% 4.97 59.49 2.28 1.44 18.86 0.75 71.0% 68.3% 66.9%Fail Waiver 6 0.3% 2.56 53.21 1.11 2.56 52.61 1.88 -0.2% 1.1% -70.0%Total Fail% 2,162 25.2% 1.61 19.50 2.01 1.09 11.94 1.84 32.7% 38.8% 8.5%

### 33 Table IV-6 Clean Screen Emissions Impact for Tailpipe Emissions



### 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-7 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 vehi cles tested at stati ons. The failure rate of vehicles exempted via Clean Screen met hods was 18% lower than the failure rate of vehicles that received a station-based test (See Figure IV-7). 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.

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. 

### IM240 Tailpipe Emissions Vehicles HC g/mi CO g/mi NOx g/mi Audit Sample 3,887 Mean Initial 0.182 2.396 0.569 Mean Final 0.176 2.316 0.551 Emissions reduction 0.007 0.079 0.018

Clean Screens 199,344 Potential Reductions 1,297 15,825 3,595

Station Vehicles 636,923 Mean Initial 0.444 5.227 0.872 Mean Final 0.333 3.946 0.790 Emissions reduction 0.111 1.281 0.082

In station reductions 70,760 815,703 52,175

Combined CS & Stn 836,267 72,058 831,528 55,770 Clean Screen Impact 1.8% 1.9% 6.4% Retained Reductions 98.2% 98.1% 93.6%

### 34 

### Figure IV-7 Gas Cap Pressure Failure Rates

Using the fail rates identified in the audit sample, Table IV-7 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. Vehicles with a redeemed Clean Screen notice account for 18 .5% of the total possi ble gas cap failures. Therefore, 81.5% 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 2009. The projected average reduction in HC emissions of the area fleet was 0.095 g/mi. This was comprised of 0.074 g/mi resulting from exhaus t emissions inspections and 0.021 g/mi from the Gas Cap testing. The measured I/M exhaus t reductions (see secti on V) were 691.8 tons. Assuming the 0.074 g/mi corresponded to 691.8 tons , the Gas Cap related HC reductions were projected to be 196.3 tons. Thes e results are shown in Table IV -8. The RapidScreen impact was projected as 35.9 tons or 4.0% of the I/M program reductions. 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0%

Pressure Failure Missing Cap Nature of Failure 

## 2009 Gas Cap Pressure Failure Rates

Clean Screen Station

### 35 Table IV-7 Clean Screen Impact on Evaporative HC Emissions

Table IV-8 Gas Cap Related Benefit Tons 

### Initial Tests Pressure Failure Missing Cap Total Fails RapidScreen Audit 4,103 122 2 124 3.0% 0.0% 3.0%


### Projected RapidScreen 199,344 5,927 97 6,025

Station GC Tests 715,137 26,031 897 26,928 3.6% 0.1% 3.8% 

### Total Program 914,481 31,958 994 32,953 RapidScreen Impact 21.8% 18.5% 9.8% 18.3% Retained Reductions 78.2% 81.5% 90.2% 81.7%



## Mobile6 Estimates (from CDPHE) 2009 M6 g/mi HC I/M 2009 HC tons I/M Exhaust emission reductions 0.074 691.8 Projected Gas Cap Evap Emissions reductions 0.021 196.3 I/M Program total HC reductions 0.095 888.1
Gas Cap Evap RapidScreen impact 18% 0.004 35.9 % of I/M program HC benefit 4.0%

### 36 

### D. Hybrid RSD-LEI vs. 2-hit RSD
ESP compared the effectiveness of the ‘Hybrid ’ and ‘2-RSD’ screeni ng 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 2,774 ve hicles screened using the 2- RSD method and 1,113 vehicles screened using Hybrid RSD-LEI method. Table IV-9 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 52%, 55% and 77% of the overall I/M fleet average for HC and CO and NOx respectively. The relatively higher average for NOx in part reflects the absence of an RSD NO cutpoint. The Hybrid RSD-LEI method audit vehicles had lower initial emissions that were 38%, 45% and 62% of the I/M fleet average for HC and CO and NOx respectively. Average emissions reductions for the 2-RSD audit vehicles were 2.0%, 1.8% and 2.7% of fleet average initial emissions for HC and CO and NOx respectively. Average emissions reductions for the Hybrid RSD-LEI audit vehicl es were 0.9%, 1.6% and 1.1% of fleet average initial emissions for HC and CO and NOx respectively. These compared to station average reductions of 29.1%, 28.1% and 10.2% for HC, CO and NOx respectively. The Hybrid RSDLEI audit vehicles had lower initial emissions and lower reductions than the 2-RSD audit vehicles.

### 37 Table IV-9 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 0.382 4.552 0.800

2-RSD Audits 2,774 Mean Initial 0.197 2.535 0.599 Mean Final 0.189 2.453 0.578 Emissions reduction 0.008 0.083 0.022 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissions 2.0% 1.8% 2.7%
Hybrid Audits 1,113 Mean Initial 0.146 2.047 0.492 Mean Final 0.142 1.976 0.484 Emissions reduction 0.004 0.071 0.009 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissions 0.9% 1.6% 1.1%

All Station Tests 636,923 Mean Initial 0.444 5.227 0.872 Mean Final 0.333 3.946 0.790 Emissions reduction 0.111 1.281 0.082 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissions 29.1% 28.1% 10.2%

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50StationRSD-2RSDLEIg/mi 

### HC

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0StationRSD-2RSDLEI 

### CO

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00StationRSD-2RSDLEI 

### NOx

### 38 

### Figure IV-3 Average IM240 Emissions Reductions

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12StationRSD-2RSDLEIg/mi 

### HC

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4StationRSD-2RSDLEI 

### CO

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10StationRSD-2RSDLEI 

### NOx

### 39 

## 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 idle and a high speed idle at 2500rpm. 1980 and older vehicle models are required to pass the low-speed idle. 1981 and newer models must pass both the low-speed 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.

### 40 

### 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

### 41 

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

Table V-2 Low Speed Idle to IM240



### Using the ratios derived above, IM240 g/mi e quivalent emissions were projected for the vehicles tested with the idle te st 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

### 42 

### Figure V-3 RSD vs. 2500 Idle 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

### 43 

### 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 5



### . 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 2009 Year LDGV LDGT 1980 4304 4,554 1981 4304 4,562 1982 4434 4,583 1983 4481 4,630 1984 4502 4,668 1985 4552 4,741 1986 4,780 4,851 1987 5,088 5,019 1988 5,430 5,256 1989 5,672 5,519 1990 6,002 5,824 1991 6,331 6,135 1992 6,653 6,471 1993 6,974 6,940 1994 7,369 7,437 1995 7,764 7,863 1996 8,188 8,345 1997 8,613 8,900 1998 9,032 9,502 1999 9,450 10,087 2000 9,905 10,727 2001 10,360 11,245 2002 10,746 11,817 2003 11,132 12,303 2004 11,870 12,834 2005 12,023 13,215 2006 12,307 13,433 2007 12,357 13,514 2008 11,600 12,428 2009 9,650 8,995

### 44 

### 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 2009, the Cl ean Screen program retained 94.6%, 98.1% and 92.9% respectively of potential HC, CO and NOx emission reductions in vehicles subject to testing. For vehicles initially tested in calendar year 2009, the I/M Program is projected to have eliminated 840.1 tons of HC, 7,485.7 tons of CO and 463.7 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.

### 45 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 ca lendar year 2009, 199,344 unique vehicles were exempted through Clean Screen, and 700,302 vehicles received a station test. Therefore, 22% of the 899,646 unique vehicles were Clean Screened.
If the fraction of Clean Screen vehicles had be en 30% of vehicles subject to inspection there would have be 269,894 Clean Scre ens and 629,752 Station 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 92.7%, 97.1% and 89.6% 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 3,887 0.24 2.87 0.69

Potential from RS Vehicles (tons/yr)
RapidScreen Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx Enhanced Area 199,344 12.2 147.4 35.4 Gas Cap estimate from Mobile6 35.9

Station Reductions (tons/yr)

Station I/M Vehicles Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx Enhanced IM240 636,923 542.9 6,212.5 463.7 Enhanced Idle* 63,379 136.7 1,273.2 Gas Cap estimate from Mobile6 160.4 700,302 840.1 7,485.7 463.7

Total Potential Reductions 888.1 7,633.1 499.2 RapidScreen Exhaust Impact 1.4% 1.9% 7.1% Rapidscreen Gas Cap Impact 4.0% Retained Reductions 94.6% 98.1% 92.9%

### 46 

## VI. Proposed Adjustments to Clean Screen Standards
The 2008 report 1 

### contained an extensive ‘what if’ analysis to de termine how clean screen standards should be adjusted to match th e May 5, 2008 changes in I/M standards. Conclusions from that analysis were:
1. As a result of the tightening of the I/M st andards in 2008, it would be appropriate to also adjust the clean screening standards.
2. The 2-RSD method was relativel y insensitive to tightening RSD standards for HC and CO. Tighter cutpoints would reduce NOx losses.
3. The application of the LEI2008 table with a 2% fail rate cutpoint was projected to substantially reduce the lost emissions reductions from the RSD-LEI sample but to also reduce the number of RSD-LEI clean screens by 30%.
4. The addition of an RSD NO cutpoint of 1500ppm in combination with a 7.5% LEI2008 fail rate cutpoint was projected to produce similar results to the 2% LEI cutpoint noted above while retaini ng 87% of the 2008 clean screens.
5. The same combination of RSD NO cutpoint of 1500ppm in combination with a 7.5% LEI2008 fail rate cutpoint applied to the 2-RS D clean screen sample was projected to achieve similar results to those from the RSD-LEI sample while retaining 86% of the 2008 clean screens.
6. If the combination of an added RSD NO cutpoint of 1500ppm and a 7.5% LEI2008 fail rate cutpoint had been applied to bot h 2-RSD and RSD-LEI cl ean screen vehicles in 2008 then 98%, 96% and 97% of HC, CO and NOx exha ust reductions would have been retained. This combination of cutpoints was recommended for implementation. In 2009, the LEI table was tightened and, as show n earlier in the report, the lost emissions reductions from the Hybrid RSD-LEI method were substantially reduced as anticipated in 3) above. The implementation of the NOx cutpoint is still pending and is anticipated in 2010. The application of a loose LEI standard to 2-RSD results is under review.

### 47 

## 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 2009 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 2006 and newer models that had not yet entered the testing program;

 any estimate of pre-inspection emission reductions;

 NOx emissions for 63,000 vehicles tested w ith the idle test: 1981 and older models 17,400 (27%), 1982 and newer trucks 42,600 (67%), and 1982 & newer passenger vehicles 3,300 (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 tons of excess emissions in the Denver metropolitan area.

### 48 

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

Figure VII-2 LDGT HC Reductions and Remaining Emissions

0 50 100 150 200 250 300P 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 2010 IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2009 Passenger HC
Idle Reduction HC IM240 Reduction HC Idle Final HC IM240 Final HC Clean Screen Vehicles HC

0 50 100 150 200 250 300T 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 2010 IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2009 Light Truck HC
Idle Reduction HC IM240 Reduction HC Idle Final HC IM240 Final HC Clean Screen Vehicles HC

### 49 

### 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 2010 IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2009 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 2010 IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2009 Light Truck CO
Idle Reduction CO IM240 Reduction CO Idle Final CO IM240 Final CO Clean Screen Vehicles CO

### 50 

### 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 2010 IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2009 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 2010 IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2009 Light Truck NOx
Idle Reduction NOx n/a IM240 Reduction NOx Idle Final NOx n/a IM240 Final NOx Clean Screen Vehicles NOx

### 51 

# References

1 

### “ 

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

2 

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

3 

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

4 

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

5 

### “ 

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

### Appendix A1 Colorado 2009 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 - 331 1.70 19.88 2.01 1.70 19.88 2.01 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 76 17.6% 4.11 46.78 2.52 1.67 17.90 2.08 59.4% 61.7% 17.1% Fail Unresolv. 25 5.8% 8.41 68.27 2.01 2.51 21.78 0.65 70.1% 68.1% 67.9% Fail Waiver 1 0.2% 14.28 142.04 0.59 14.28 142.04 0.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Fail% 433 23.6% 2.54 27.68 2.10 1.77 19.92 1.94 30.3% 28.0% 7.4%

1983 Pass - 655 1.40 16.53 1.96 1.40 16.53 1.96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 170 18.9% 3.33 48.56 2.11 1.44 15.10 2.15 56.8% 68.9% -2.1% Fail Unresolv. 69 7.7% 5.52 80.48 1.91 1.59 24.10 0.62 71.2% 70.1% 67.4% Fail Waiver 4 0.4% 2.62 80.42 1.74 2.57 75.79 1.03 2.1% 5.8% 40.9% Total Fail% 898 27.1% 2.09 27.79 1.98 1.43 17.10 1.89 31.6% 38.5% 4.7%

1984 Pass - 985 1.33 14.69 1.98 1.33 14.69 1.98 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 238 17.9% 3.36 43.74 2.09 1.44 13.19 2.07 57.2% 69.9% 1.0% Fail Unresolv. 107 8.0% 5.20 67.97 2.10 1.67 22.53 0.69 67.8% 66.9% 67.1% Fail Waiver 3 0.2% 3.16 49.06 1.71 3.91 65.91 1.84 -23.8% -34.3% -7.5% Total Fail% 1,333 26.1% 2.01 24.23 2.01 1.38 15.17 1.89 31.1% 37.4% 5.8%

1985 Pass - 1,618 1.04 11.45 1.93 1.04 11.45 1.93 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 359 16.6% 2.53 35.25 2.26 1.11 10.00 1.97 56.0% 71.6% 12.6% Fail Unresolv. 179 8.3% 4.97 59.49 2.28 1.44 18.86 0.75 71.0% 68.3% 66.9% Fail Waiver 6 0.3% 2.56 53.21 1.11 2.56 52.61 1.88 -0.2% 1.1% -70.0% Total Fail% 2,162 25.2% 1.61 19.50 2.01 1.09 11.94 1.84 32.7% 38.8% 8.5%

1986 Pass - 1,847 0.96 10.04 1.95 0.96 10.04 1.95 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 315 13.6% 2.62 34.48 2.05 1.05 8.82 1.89 59.8% 74.4% 7.8% Fail Unresolv. 158 6.8% 4.51 52.03 2.33 1.33 16.50 0.75 70.6% 68.3% 67.8% Fail Waiver 3 0.1% 1.21 23.21 2.85 1.66 24.66 2.36 -37.0% -6.3% 17.5% Total Fail% 2,323 20.5% 1.43 16.22 1.99 1.00 10.33 1.86 30.1% 36.3% 6.5%

1987 Pass - 2,898 0.89 9.29 1.76 0.89 9.29 1.76 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 482 13.4% 2.53 29.69 2.28 1.04 8.49 1.91 59.0% 71.4% 16.3% Fail Unresolv. 217 6.0% 4.07 50.91 2.33 1.30 15.91 0.80 68.1% 68.7% 65.9% Fail Waiver 4 0.1% 2.32 39.85 1.59 2.57 53.15 1.54 -11.0% -33.4% 3.5% Total Fail% 3,601 19.5% 1.30 14.56 1.86 0.94 9.63 1.72 28.1% 33.9% 7.6%

1988 Pass - 3,048 0.82 9.06 1.69 0.82 9.06 1.69 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 504 13.3% 2.41 28.83 2.02 0.92 8.40 1.73 61.7% 70.9% 14.4% Fail Unresolv. 226 6.0% 4.11 44.32 2.28 1.27 14.96 0.75 69.0% 66.2% 67.0% Fail Waiver 9 0.2% 2.98 39.26 1.92 2.70 37.23 1.58 9.4% 5.2% 17.6% Total Fail% 3,787 19.5% 1.23 13.87 1.77 0.86 9.39 1.64 29.9% 32.3% 7.4%

1989 Pass - 4,905 0.72 8.54 1.54 0.72 8.54 1.54 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 676 11.5% 2.37 29.60 2.09 0.87 8.70 1.79 63.2% 70.6% 14.0% Fail Unresolv. 271 4.6% 4.55 45.85 2.32 1.51 15.04 0.75 66.8% 67.2% 67.8% Fail Waiver 5 0.1% 5.15 49.47 2.55 5.23 36.82 2.40 -1.7% 25.6% 5.8% Total Fail% 5,857 16.3% 1.09 12.73 1.64 0.78 8.88 1.53 28.7% 30.2% 6.5%

A1-1

### Appendix A1 Colorado 2009 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 - 6,197 0.71 7.92 1.55 0.71 7.92 1.55 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 851 11.5% 2.17 25.48 2.32 0.86 7.96 1.74 60.5% 68.8% 25.1% Fail Unresolv. 351 4.7% 4.35 44.92 2.70 1.35 14.26 0.87 68.9% 68.3% 67.7% Fail Waiver 7 0.1% 2.61 30.70 3.80 3.52 51.55 3.86 -34.6% -67.9% -1.4% Total Fail% 7,406 16.3% 1.06 11.71 1.69 0.76 8.26 1.54 27.6% 29.4% 9.1%

1991 Pass - 8,864 0.58 6.88 1.39 0.58 6.88 1.39 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,101 10.6% 2.01 22.15 2.20 0.70 6.96 1.58 65.1% 68.6% 28.4% Fail Unresolv. 447 4.3% 3.63 35.04 2.70 1.16 11.30 0.87 67.9% 67.8% 67.8% Fail Waiver 15 0.1% 3.69 44.57 2.84 3.24 36.11 2.60 12.4% 19.0% 8.3% Total Fail% 10,427 15.0% 0.87 9.75 1.53 0.62 7.12 1.39 28.1% 27.0% 9.5%

1992 Pass - 8,411 0.55 6.32 1.37 0.55 6.32 1.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,140 11.3% 1.97 23.72 2.08 0.66 6.26 1.57 66.6% 73.6% 24.4% Fail Unresolv. 492 4.9% 3.23 36.19 2.48 1.10 11.82 0.81 65.9% 67.3% 67.4% Fail Waiver 10 0.1% 2.46 37.79 2.17 2.39 33.68 1.82 3.0% 10.9% 15.9% Total Fail% 10,053 16.3% 0.84 9.79 1.50 0.59 6.61 1.36 30.0% 32.5% 9.3%

1993 Pass - 11,359 0.51 5.72 1.31 0.51 5.72 1.31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,394 10.5% 2.02 23.30 2.14 0.65 6.26 1.57 68.0% 73.1% 26.5% Fail Unresolv. 504 3.8% 3.53 31.75 2.78 1.11 10.05 0.92 68.5% 68.4% 66.9% Fail Waiver 9 0.1% 3.03 14.82 3.42 4.40 21.27 2.89 -45.4% -43.6% 15.6% Total Fail% 13,266 14.4% 0.78 8.56 1.45 0.55 5.95 1.32 30.1% 30.5% 9.0%

1994 Pass - 12,776 0.41 4.97 1.06 0.41 4.97 1.06 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,340 9.2% 1.91 19.12 1.98 0.51 5.36 1.35 73.5% 72.0% 31.8% Fail Unresolv. 482 3.3% 2.93 27.83 2.63 0.98 8.90 0.87 66.8% 68.0% 66.8% Fail Waiver 16 0.1% 4.08 25.36 2.87 3.62 21.70 2.79 11.2% 14.5% 2.8% Total Fail% 14,614 12.6% 0.63 7.05 1.19 0.44 5.16 1.08 30.6% 26.8% 9.7%

1995 Pass - 16,664 0.38 4.31 0.96 0.38 4.31 0.96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,660 8.8% 1.57 16.19 1.83 0.47 4.54 1.20 69.9% 72.0% 34.4% Fail Unresolv. 600 3.2% 2.97 24.86 2.54 0.91 8.06 0.84 69.4% 67.6% 66.8% Fail Waiver 15 0.1% 1.86 27.32 2.69 1.83 23.68 2.57 1.4% 13.3% 4.2% Total Fail% 18,939 12.0% 0.56 6.02 1.09 0.40 4.46 0.98 28.6% 25.9% 10.0%

1996 Pass - 15,310 0.31 3.68 0.81 0.31 3.68 0.81 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,305 7.7% 1.08 12.97 1.61 0.37 4.18 0.99 65.7% 67.8% 38.5% Fail Unresolv. 397 2.3% 2.29 21.47 2.41 0.74 6.94 0.78 67.9% 67.7% 67.5% Fail Waiver 11 0.1% 1.49 14.32 3.20 1.24 14.45 3.00 17.0% -0.9% 6.2% Total Fail% 17,023 10.1% 0.41 4.81 0.91 0.32 3.80 0.82 22.0% 21.0% 9.4%

1997 Pass - 20,310 0.29 3.48 0.75 0.29 3.48 0.75 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,425 6.5% 0.90 12.92 1.46 0.34 3.95 0.92 62.5% 69.4% 37.0% Fail Unresolv. 324 1.5% 2.25 20.40 2.58 0.67 6.46 0.85 70.2% 68.3% 67.0% Fail Waiver 5 0.0% 1.84 22.66 3.32 0.65 11.54 3.12 64.9% 49.1% 5.9% Total Fail% 22,064 7.9% 0.36 4.34 0.82 0.30 3.55 0.76 16.8% 18.1% 7.4%

A1-2

### Appendix A1 Colorado 2009 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 - 18,315 0.23 3.22 0.62 0.23 3.22 0.62 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,403 7.0% 0.87 12.43 1.39 0.26 3.52 0.70 70.1% 71.7% 50.0% Fail Unresolv. 292 1.5% 1.72 19.58 2.19 0.54 6.53 0.71 68.4% 66.6% 67.7% Fail Waiver 8 0.0% 2.17 35.25 3.35 1.85 36.38 2.59 14.5% -3.2% 22.7% Total Fail% 20,018 8.5% 0.30 4.11 0.70 0.24 3.30 0.63 20.1% 19.8% 10.1%

1999 Pass - 22,938 0.20 2.89 0.57 0.20 2.89 0.57 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,729 6.9% 0.66 10.25 1.25 0.21 2.74 0.65 68.2% 73.3% 48.5% Fail Unresolv. 293 1.2% 1.58 22.61 2.34 0.48 6.88 0.80 69.7% 69.6% 66.0% Fail Waiver 7 0.0% 1.08 7.69 3.34 0.89 6.08 3.30 18.0% 20.9% 1.2% Total Fail% 24,967 8.1% 0.25 3.63 0.64 0.21 2.93 0.58 17.6% 19.4% 9.5%

2000 Pass - 21,581 0.16 2.69 0.50 0.16 2.69 0.50 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,485 6.4% 0.62 8.17 1.42 0.18 2.76 0.56 71.1% 66.2% 60.9% Fail Unresolv. 269 1.2% 1.53 14.33 2.61 0.40 4.22 0.88 73.8% 70.5% 66.2% Fail Waiver 4 0.0% 0.84 5.95 3.64 0.84 16.22 2.07 -0.3% -172.5% 43.1% Total Fail% 23,339 7.5% 0.21 3.17 0.59 0.17 2.71 0.51 19.7% 14.5% 12.8%

2001 Pass - 26,531 0.13 2.38 0.41 0.13 2.38 0.41 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,051 3.8% 0.48 8.00 1.27 0.13 2.06 0.39 72.9% 74.2% 69.3% Fail Unresolv. 129 0.5% 1.48 21.89 2.51 0.50 6.69 0.85 66.1% 69.4% 66.3% Fail Waiver 2 0.0% 0.12 10.23 0.79 0.18 16.47 0.44 -44.9% -60.9% 44.8% Total Fail% 27,713 4.3% 0.15 2.69 0.45 0.13 2.39 0.41 12.1% 11.0% 9.2%

2002 Pass - 20,396 0.12 2.27 0.37 0.12 2.27 0.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 858 4.0% 0.41 6.15 1.08 0.11 2.34 0.34 73.6% 62.0% 68.4% Fail Unresolv. 97 0.5% 1.35 19.93 2.82 0.39 6.35 0.87 71.0% 68.1% 69.0% Fail Waiver 2 0.0% 0.19 8.27 2.57 0.48 6.27 3.44 -146.4% 24.2% -33.8% Total Fail% 21,353 4.5% 0.14 2.51 0.41 0.12 2.29 0.37 12.2% 8.6% 9.3%

2003 Pass - 26,513 0.10 2.01 0.33 0.10 2.01 0.33 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 764 2.8% 0.41 5.70 0.83 0.09 1.36 0.24 79.1% 76.1% 71.4% Fail Unresolv. 50 0.2% 2.15 13.77 2.63 0.56 4.51 0.87 73.8% 67.3% 66.9% Fail Waiver 2 0.0% 6.81 9.58 2.85 1.04 8.61 2.67 84.8% 10.2% 6.2% Total Fail% 27,329 3.0% 0.11 2.13 0.35 0.10 1.99 0.33 11.1% 6.5% 5.7%

2004 Pass - 14,333 0.09 2.03 0.30 0.09 2.03 0.30 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 623 4.2% 0.27 4.46 0.57 0.06 1.09 0.17 76.7% 75.6% 70.0% Fail Unresolv. 32 0.2% 1.59 16.84 2.55 0.47 4.85 0.80 70.3% 71.2% 68.7% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 14,988 4.4% 0.10 2.17 0.31 0.09 2.00 0.29 10.6% 7.6% 6.5%

2005 Pass - 29,578 0.09 1.86 0.28 0.09 1.86 0.28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 932 3.1% 0.25 3.82 0.56 0.05 0.92 0.13 81.2% 75.9% 77.2% Fail Unresolv. 31 0.1% 1.50 15.93 2.80 0.42 4.87 0.83 72.1% 69.4% 70.5% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 30,541 3.2% 0.09 1.94 0.29 0.09 1.84 0.27 7.8% 5.2% 5.3%

A1-3

### Appendix A1 Colorado 2009 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 - 8,185 0.08 1.86 0.26 0.08 1.86 0.26 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 240 2.8% 0.19 3.04 1.82 0.06 0.92 0.17 66.6% 69.8% 90.6% Fail Unresolv. 13 0.2% 0.69 6.38 2.47 0.23 2.10 0.90 66.7% 67.1% 63.4% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 8,438 3.0% 0.09 1.90 0.30 0.08 1.83 0.25 5.1% 3.5% 16.3%

2007 Pass - 3,797 0.08 1.74 0.24 0.08 1.74 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 118 3.0% 0.11 1.98 1.08 0.03 0.78 0.09 70.1% 60.6% 91.8% Fail Unresolv. 10 0.3% 0.80 5.23 2.46 0.15 2.54 0.69 81.1% 51.4% 72.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 3,925 3.3% 0.08 1.76 0.27 0.08 1.71 0.24 4.9% 2.4% 12.6%

2008 Pass - 2,943 0.08 1.85 0.23 0.08 1.85 0.23 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 118 3.8% 0.09 1.86 0.83 0.03 0.78 0.09 66.6% 58.2% 89.6% Fail Unresolv. 7 0.2% 0.06 1.42 1.12 0.02 0.47 0.37 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 3,068 4.1% 0.08 1.85 0.25 0.08 1.81 0.22 3.1% 2.4% 11.9%

2009 Pass - 718 0.08 1.75 0.25 0.08 1.75 0.25 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 17 2.3% 0.28 2.50 2.82 0.03 0.62 0.19 88.3% 75.1% 93.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 735 2.3% 0.08 1.76 0.31 0.08 1.72 0.25 6.8% 2.5% 19.8%

2010 Pass - 32 0.07 1.82 0.24 0.07 1.82 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 32 0.0% 0.07 1.82 0.24 0.07 1.82 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Passenger Vehicles All Pass - 312,038 0.27 3.57 0.68 0.27 3.57 0.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% P Fail Pass 22,374 6.6% 1.31 16.13 1.63 0.45 4.68 1.03 66.0% 71.0% 36.7% Fail Unresolv. 6,072 1.8% 3.14 32.68 2.50 0.99 10.46 0.82 68.6% 68.0% 67.1% Fail Waiver 148 0.0% 2.72 31.46 2.71 2.60 30.91 2.49 4.4% 1.8% 8.2% Total Fail% 340,632 8.4% 0.39 4.93 0.78 0.29 3.78 0.71 24.7% 23.3% 8.9%

A1-4

### Appendix A1 Colorado 2009 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 - 286 2.82 31.51 2.76 2.82 31.51 2.76 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 158 31.0% 4.79 56.94 3.22 2.60 30.91 2.70 45.7% 45.7% 16.1% Fail Unresolv. 66 12.9% 6.87 97.39 2.80 2.21 32.71 0.85 67.8% 66.4% 69.5% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 510 43.9% 3.95 47.92 2.91 2.67 31.48 2.49 32.4% 34.3% 14.2%

1983 Pass - 598 2.86 32.43 2.66 2.86 32.43 2.66 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 193 22.1% 4.14 54.95 3.29 2.54 27.65 2.86 38.6% 49.7% 13.1% Fail Unresolv. 84 9.6% 7.76 108.44 2.62 2.24 34.75 0.83 71.1% 68.0% 68.2% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 875 31.7% 3.61 44.70 2.80 2.73 31.60 2.53 24.4% 29.3% 9.5%

1984 Pass - 873 2.36 26.72 2.74 2.36 26.72 2.74 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 362 25.7% 4.36 61.34 2.93 2.31 25.22 3.09 47.0% 58.9% -5.6% Fail Unresolv. 167 11.9% 7.21 103.50 2.80 2.25 32.68 0.94 68.8% 68.4% 66.4% Fail Waiver 7 0.5% 6.04 83.03 2.73 4.84 89.72 2.09 19.9% -8.1% 23.6% Total Fail% 1,409 38.0% 3.47 45.00 2.80 2.35 27.35 2.61 32.3% 39.2% 6.5%

1985 Pass - 1,233 2.02 22.71 2.62 2.02 22.71 2.62 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 489 25.2% 3.72 49.13 3.00 1.99 20.48 2.92 46.5% 58.3% 2.6% Fail Unresolv. 212 10.9% 5.96 89.48 2.63 2.05 30.23 0.87 65.5% 66.2% 66.9% Fail Waiver 3 0.2% 5.74 57.48 5.39 3.45 36.29 5.11 39.8% 36.9% 5.2% Total Fail% 1,937 36.3% 2.88 36.74 2.72 2.02 22.99 2.51 30.1% 37.4% 7.8%

1986 Pass - 1,484 1.80 17.60 2.70 1.80 17.60 2.70 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 460 21.3% 3.93 48.36 3.02 1.89 19.45 2.77 52.0% 59.8% 8.1% Fail Unresolv. 211 9.8% 6.29 85.69 2.72 2.04 27.18 0.95 67.6% 68.3% 64.9% Fail Waiver 4 0.2% 4.61 59.28 3.50 6.48 71.32 3.41 -40.7% -20.3% 2.7% Total Fail% 2,159 31.3% 2.70 30.89 2.77 1.85 19.03 2.54 31.4% 38.4% 8.1%

1987 Pass - 2,195 1.48 14.22 2.32 1.48 14.22 2.32 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 479 16.7% 2.94 37.31 2.79 1.47 13.98 2.54 49.8% 62.5% 9.1% Fail Unresolv. 185 6.5% 4.79 61.17 2.80 1.60 20.18 0.94 66.7% 67.0% 66.2% Fail Waiver 2 0.1% 6.16 56.18 2.10 6.98 30.01 3.07 -13.4% 46.6% -46.2% Total Fail% 2,861 23.3% 1.94 21.15 2.43 1.49 14.58 2.27 23.2% 31.1% 6.7%

1988 Pass - 2,524 1.33 12.61 2.11 1.33 12.61 2.11 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 620 18.2% 3.36 30.79 3.01 1.40 12.22 2.40 58.3% 60.3% 20.2% Fail Unresolv. 255 7.5% 5.30 46.73 3.21 1.67 15.54 1.06 68.4% 66.7% 66.9% Fail Waiver 3 0.1% 2.32 54.92 1.52 2.17 53.97 3.09 6.8% 1.7% -102.5% Total Fail% 3,402 25.8% 2.00 18.52 2.36 1.37 12.80 2.09 31.5% 30.9% 11.5%

1989 Pass - 3,504 1.23 11.60 2.05 1.23 11.60 2.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 735 16.3% 2.88 29.29 2.91 1.39 12.23 2.43 51.6% 58.2% 16.5% Fail Unresolv. 254 5.6% 4.79 49.29 3.43 1.54 16.88 1.08 67.8% 65.7% 68.6% Fail Waiver 9 0.2% 3.72 50.54 4.00 2.95 48.37 3.72 20.8% 4.3% 7.1% Total Fail% 4,502 22.2% 1.70 16.69 2.27 1.27 12.07 2.06 25.1% 27.7% 9.3%

A1-5

### Appendix A1 Colorado 2009 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 - 3,408 1.18 10.99 2.11 1.18 10.99 2.11 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 689 16.0% 3.18 31.79 2.93 1.37 11.94 2.37 57.1% 62.4% 19.1% Fail Unresolv. 216 5.0% 4.73 47.14 3.54 1.51 15.35 1.19 68.2% 67.4% 66.3% Fail Waiver 3 0.1% 2.57 45.68 4.54 1.41 30.27 3.22 45.3% 33.7% 29.0% Total Fail% 4,316 21.0% 1.68 16.14 2.32 1.23 11.37 2.11 26.9% 29.6% 9.0%

1991 Pass - 5,041 0.90 9.33 1.70 0.90 9.33 1.70 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 882 14.2% 2.61 28.40 2.77 1.12 11.14 2.08 57.2% 60.8% 24.8% Fail Unresolv. 280 4.5% 4.84 46.53 3.46 1.70 16.52 1.10 64.8% 64.5% 68.1% Fail Waiver 4 0.1% 7.27 50.01 2.08 3.71 46.55 2.97 49.0% 6.9% -42.6% Total Fail% 6,207 18.8% 1.32 13.74 1.93 0.97 9.93 1.73 26.9% 27.7% 10.5%

1992 Pass - 5,065 0.93 9.69 1.87 0.93 9.69 1.87 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 905 14.4% 2.87 28.35 2.87 1.15 10.63 2.09 60.2% 62.5% 27.0% Fail Unresolv. 311 4.9% 4.89 41.71 3.45 1.52 13.73 1.14 68.9% 67.1% 66.9% Fail Waiver 5 0.1% 5.21 53.80 2.80 2.53 40.14 3.03 51.6% 25.4% -8.0% Total Fail% 6,286 19.4% 1.41 14.00 2.09 0.99 10.05 1.86 29.7% 28.2% 10.8%

1993 Pass - 7,770 0.88 8.87 1.79 0.88 8.87 1.79 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,276 13.6% 2.71 26.18 3.11 1.09 10.48 2.25 59.7% 60.0% 27.8% Fail Unresolv. 349 3.7% 4.90 45.13 3.76 1.58 14.08 1.24 67.7% 68.8% 66.9% Fail Waiver 14 0.1% 6.86 59.13 2.95 5.68 47.88 2.84 17.1% 19.0% 3.7% Total Fail% 9,409 17.4% 1.29 12.63 2.04 0.95 9.34 1.83 26.7% 26.1% 10.3%

1994 Pass - 10,259 0.70 7.30 1.50 0.70 7.30 1.50 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,691 13.6% 2.37 22.10 2.99 0.87 8.33 1.88 63.4% 62.3% 36.9% Fail Unresolv. 495 4.0% 4.33 35.82 3.76 1.35 11.52 1.23 68.8% 67.8% 67.3% Fail Waiver 16 0.1% 2.45 18.84 5.97 2.18 15.84 5.25 11.2% 16.0% 12.1% Total Fail% 12,461 17.7% 1.07 10.45 1.79 0.75 7.61 1.54 30.2% 27.2% 14.0%

1995 Pass - 11,776 0.61 6.06 1.46 0.61 6.06 1.46 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,943 13.6% 2.31 20.73 2.83 0.83 8.05 1.82 64.0% 61.2% 35.7% Fail Unresolv. 498 3.5% 3.79 28.54 3.70 1.24 9.54 1.21 67.2% 66.6% 67.4% Fail Waiver 21 0.1% 3.58 23.44 4.15 2.83 19.93 3.84 20.9% 15.0% 7.6% Total Fail% 14,238 17.3% 0.96 8.87 1.73 0.67 6.47 1.50 30.4% 27.1% 13.0%

1996 Pass - 11,022 0.37 4.26 1.27 0.37 4.26 1.27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,543 12.0% 1.18 14.74 2.51 0.42 5.15 1.52 64.3% 65.0% 39.5% Fail Unresolv. 336 2.6% 2.75 28.07 3.98 0.84 8.80 1.32 69.4% 68.7% 66.9% Fail Waiver 10 0.1% 2.04 19.31 3.50 2.14 20.22 3.14 -5.0% -4.7% 10.1% Total Fail% 12,911 14.6% 0.53 6.14 1.49 0.39 4.49 1.30 26.4% 26.8% 12.6%

1997 Pass - 15,797 0.31 3.85 1.11 0.31 3.85 1.11 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,049 11.2% 1.01 13.91 2.20 0.38 4.87 1.35 62.4% 65.0% 38.8% Fail Unresolv. 396 2.2% 2.45 25.30 3.53 0.82 8.65 1.17 66.6% 65.8% 66.8% Fail Waiver 12 0.1% 1.19 32.81 3.51 0.98 33.49 3.36 17.5% -2.1% 4.3% Total Fail% 18,254 13.5% 0.44 5.46 1.29 0.33 4.09 1.14 24.2% 25.2% 11.4%

A1-6

### Appendix A1 Colorado 2009 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 - 16,789 0.29 3.28 0.96 0.29 3.28 0.96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,578 8.5% 0.94 10.94 2.09 0.36 4.18 1.18 62.1% 61.8% 43.8% Fail Unresolv. 287 1.5% 2.21 20.63 3.58 0.63 6.05 1.17 71.6% 70.7% 67.4% Fail Waiver 12 0.1% 1.35 22.76 3.28 1.94 25.36 3.14 -44.1% -11.4% 4.4% Total Fail% 18,666 10.1% 0.38 4.21 1.10 0.30 3.42 0.98 19.5% 18.9% 10.5%

1999 Pass - 21,730 0.21 2.39 0.72 0.21 2.39 0.72 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,816 7.6% 0.92 9.37 1.94 0.30 3.25 0.96 67.2% 65.3% 50.6% Fail Unresolv. 257 1.1% 1.94 18.08 3.33 0.65 5.66 1.07 66.6% 68.7% 68.0% Fail Waiver 8 0.0% 1.78 19.08 3.61 0.93 6.72 3.48 47.7% 64.8% 3.6% Total Fail% 23,811 8.7% 0.29 3.10 0.84 0.23 2.50 0.74 21.4% 19.5% 11.8%

2000 Pass - 19,209 0.20 2.25 0.67 0.20 2.25 0.67 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,363 6.6% 0.66 7.65 1.46 0.26 3.05 0.83 61.3% 60.1% 43.0% Fail Unresolv. 115 0.6% 2.62 23.84 3.02 0.70 7.67 1.00 73.4% 67.8% 67.1% Fail Waiver 5 0.0% 2.35 18.88 3.09 2.12 17.97 3.13 9.8% 4.9% -1.3% Total Fail% 20,692 7.2% 0.24 2.73 0.74 0.20 2.33 0.68 15.5% 14.4% 7.1%

2001 Pass - 23,784 0.12 1.65 0.49 0.12 1.65 0.49 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,231 4.9% 0.43 6.58 1.08 0.17 2.35 0.55 61.8% 64.3% 49.0% Fail Unresolv. 77 0.3% 1.56 18.09 2.52 0.60 5.54 0.87 61.6% 69.4% 65.5% Fail Waiver 1 0.0% 0.01 0.14 3.16 0.03 0.13 3.47 -136.5% 1.0% -9.8% Total Fail% 25,093 5.2% 0.14 1.94 0.53 0.13 1.70 0.49 11.2% 12.7% 5.9%

2002 Pass - 17,493 0.10 1.48 0.45 0.10 1.48 0.45 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 818 4.5% 0.28 6.14 0.90 0.13 2.11 0.47 55.8% 65.7% 48.0% Fail Unresolv. 46 0.3% 1.09 21.61 2.61 0.38 7.87 0.87 65.1% 63.6% 66.5% Fail Waiver 6 0.0% 1.68 33.42 3.16 1.34 30.01 2.91 20.1% 10.2% 7.7% Total Fail% 18,363 4.7% 0.12 1.75 0.47 0.11 1.53 0.45 7.7% 12.3% 5.0%

2003 Pass - 25,323 0.09 1.25 0.38 0.09 1.25 0.38 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 823 3.1% 0.26 4.28 0.71 0.10 1.51 0.35 62.2% 64.6% 49.8% Fail Unresolv. 23 0.1% 0.87 8.20 3.08 0.28 3.04 0.94 67.9% 63.0% 69.6% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 26,169 3.2% 0.10 1.36 0.39 0.09 1.26 0.38 5.8% 6.8% 3.3%

2004 Pass - 15,239 0.08 1.14 0.29 0.08 1.14 0.29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 493 3.1% 0.17 3.26 0.51 0.08 1.28 0.18 53.9% 60.8% 64.2% Fail Unresolv. 19 0.1% 1.21 15.83 1.67 0.39 5.17 0.53 67.6% 67.4% 68.4% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 15,751 3.3% 0.08 1.22 0.30 0.08 1.14 0.28 4.8% 6.1% 3.9%

2005 Pass - 31,394 0.06 0.98 0.22 0.06 0.98 0.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 596 1.9% 0.16 3.04 0.34 0.05 0.96 0.12 65.4% 68.6% 64.7% Fail Unresolv. 15 0.0% 0.18 5.39 0.54 0.06 1.80 0.18 67.1% 66.7% 67.2% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 32,005 1.9% 0.07 1.02 0.22 0.06 0.98 0.22 3.0% 4.0% 1.9%

A1-7

### Appendix A1 Colorado 2009 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 - 7,019 0.06 0.94 0.21 0.06 0.94 0.21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 163 2.3% 0.18 1.64 0.82 0.07 0.88 0.14 59.9% 46.5% 82.5% Fail Unresolv. 7 0.1% 0.50 3.59 1.66 0.16 1.19 0.55 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 7,189 2.4% 0.06 0.96 0.23 0.06 0.94 0.21 4.3% 2.1% 7.2%

2007 Pass - 3,400 0.05 0.85 0.19 0.05 0.85 0.19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 69 2.0% 0.06 0.88 0.62 0.05 0.85 0.11 18.7% 3.5% 82.9% Fail Unresolv. 3 0.1% 0.69 8.03 3.46 0.23 2.65 1.14 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 3,472 2.1% 0.05 0.86 0.20 0.05 0.85 0.19 1.1% 0.6% 6.0%

2008 Pass - 2,700 0.05 0.81 0.20 0.05 0.81 0.20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 56 2.0% 0.05 0.90 0.44 0.03 0.71 0.06 37.8% 21.2% 87.4% Fail Unresolv. 4 0.1% 0.17 1.43 0.41 0.06 0.47 0.14 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 2,760 2.2% 0.05 0.81 0.20 0.05 0.81 0.19 1.1% 0.6% 4.1%

2009 Pass - 567 0.05 0.87 0.18 0.05 0.87 0.18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 8 1.4% 0.04 0.77 0.19 0.02 0.46 0.03 58.2% 40.5% 86.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 575 1.4% 0.05 0.87 0.18 0.05 0.86 0.18 0.6% 0.5% 1.3%

2010 Pass - 8 0.05 0.50 0.15 0.05 0.50 0.15 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% 0.05 0.50 0.15 0.05 0.50 0.15 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Trucks All Pass - 267,490 0.33 3.64 0.82 0.33 3.64 0.82 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% T Fail Pass 23,488 7.9% 1.73 19.01 2.23 0.72 7.42 1.52 58.1% 61.0% 32.1% Fail Unresolv. 5,168 1.7% 4.17 43.59 3.38 1.34 14.26 1.11 67.9% 67.3% 67.1% Fail Waiver 145 0.0% 3.39 36.26 3.70 2.80 32.63 3.50 17.4% 10.0% 5.5% Total Fail% 296,291 9.7% 0.51 5.57 0.98 0.38 4.14 0.89 25.3% 25.7% 9.8%

Fleet Total All Pass - 579,528 0.30 3.60 0.75 0.30 3.60 0.75 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All Fail Pass 45,862 7.2% 1.52 17.61 1.94 0.59 6.08 1.28 61.4% 65.5% 34.0% Fail Unresolv. 11,240 1.8% 3.61 37.70 2.90 1.15 12.21 0.95 68.2% 67.6% 67.1% Fail Waiver 293 0.0% 3.05 33.84 3.20 2.69 31.76 2.99 11.6% 6.1% 6.7% Total Fail% 636,923 9.0% 0.44 5.23 0.87 0.33 3.95 0.79 25.0% 24.5% 9.4%

A1-8

### Appendix A2 Colorado 2009 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 - 1 0.75 7.40 1.19 0.75 7.40 1.19 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% 0.75 7.40 1.19 0.75 7.40 1.19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1984 Pass - 1 1.18 10.90 2.85 1.18 10.90 2.85 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% 1.18 10.90 2.85 1.18 10.90 2.85 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 - 5 0.67 9.02 1.74 0.67 9.02 1.74 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% 0.67 9.02 1.74 0.67 9.02 1.74 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1987 Pass - 4 0.83 9.59 2.68 0.83 9.59 2.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 16.7% 0.31 6.64 1.89 0.37 8.58 0.79 -18.1% -29.2% 58.0% Fail Unresolv. 1 16.7% 2.01 14.10 4.24 0.53 2.20 4.18 73.6% 84.4% 1.4% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 6 33.3% 0.94 9.85 2.81 0.70 8.19 2.62 25.2% 16.9% 6.9%

1988 Pass - 3 0.48 8.22 1.78 0.48 8.22 1.78 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Unresolv. 1 25.0% 2.71 10.93 3.74 2.69 11.04 3.23 0.6% -1.0% 13.5% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 4 25.0% 1.04 8.89 2.27 1.03 8.92 2.14 0.4% -0.3% 5.6%

1989 Pass - 8 0.96 8.36 1.99 0.96 8.36 1.99 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 8 0.0% 0.96 8.36 1.99 0.96 8.36 1.99 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A2-1

### Appendix A2 Colorado 2009 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 - 13 0.64 7.56 1.63 0.64 7.56 1.63 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 13 0.0% 0.64 7.56 1.63 0.64 7.56 1.63 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1991 Pass - 17 0.46 6.15 1.28 0.46 6.15 1.28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 5.6% 2.41 49.71 2.11 0.61 2.94 1.82 74.9% 94.1% 13.4% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 18 5.6% 0.57 8.57 1.32 0.47 5.98 1.31 17.5% 30.3% 1.2%

1992 Pass - 13 0.48 5.48 1.36 0.48 5.48 1.36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 3 17.6% 0.70 17.17 0.95 0.51 6.54 1.31 27.5% 61.9% -37.1% Fail Unresolv. 1 5.9% 0.26 5.36 4.08 2.09 47.38 0.38 -713.7% -784.6% 90.7% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 17 23.5% 0.51 7.54 1.45 0.58 8.13 1.29 -14.5% -7.9% 10.7%

1993 Pass - 33 0.45 4.99 1.41 0.45 4.99 1.41 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 33 0.0% 0.45 4.99 1.41 0.45 4.99 1.41 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1994 Pass - 38 0.33 3.70 1.02 0.33 3.70 1.02 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 38 0.0% 0.33 3.70 1.02 0.33 3.70 1.02 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1995 Pass - 40 0.30 3.63 0.82 0.30 3.63 0.82 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 2.4% 0.23 7.28 3.02 1.00 3.05 2.33 -324.0% 58.1% 22.8% Fail Unresolv. 1 2.4% 7.41 10.20 1.54 7.41 10.20 1.54 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 42 4.8% 0.47 3.87 0.89 0.48 3.77 0.88 -3.9% 2.6% 1.8%

1996 Pass - 55 0.26 2.93 0.79 0.26 2.93 0.79 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 3.5% 0.82 4.05 2.61 0.14 2.38 0.79 82.7% 41.3% 69.7% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 57 3.5% 0.28 2.97 0.85 0.26 2.91 0.79 8.4% 2.0% 7.5%

1997 Pass - 79 0.22 2.76 0.62 0.22 2.76 0.62 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 2.5% 0.12 2.14 0.32 0.34 1.78 1.00 -179.2% 17.1% -217.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 81 2.5% 0.22 2.75 0.61 0.22 2.74 0.63 -2.5% 0.3% -2.8%

A2-2

### Appendix A2 Colorado 2009 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 - 94 0.23 2.80 0.63 0.23 2.80 0.63 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 2.1% 0.25 10.33 2.30 0.48 3.19 1.07 -93.6% 69.1% 53.8% Fail Unresolv. 1 1.0% 0.06 0.22 3.11 0.06 0.22 3.11 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 97 3.1% 0.23 2.93 0.69 0.23 2.78 0.66 -2.1% 5.0% 3.7%

1999 Pass - 151 0.23 2.70 0.61 0.23 2.70 0.61 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 8 5.0% 0.53 3.80 0.82 0.27 1.99 0.65 48.2% 47.6% 21.7% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.6% 1.54 74.71 1.66 1.54 74.71 1.66 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 160 5.6% 0.25 3.21 0.63 0.24 3.12 0.62 5.1% 2.8% 1.4%

2000 Pass - 165 0.17 2.74 0.49 0.17 2.74 0.49 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 9 5.1% 0.35 5.60 1.98 0.12 2.54 0.46 66.3% 54.7% 76.5% Fail Unresolv. 2 1.1% 1.83 13.35 1.76 1.85 13.76 1.89 -1.1% -3.1% -7.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 176 6.3% 0.20 3.01 0.58 0.18 2.86 0.50 5.9% 5.1% 13.1%

2001 Pass - 179 0.11 2.17 0.37 0.11 2.17 0.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 7 3.8% 0.09 2.31 0.25 0.07 0.77 0.26 21.1% 66.9% -4.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 186 3.8% 0.11 2.18 0.36 0.11 2.12 0.37 0.6% 2.7% -0.1%

2002 Pass - 136 0.11 2.20 0.36 0.11 2.20 0.36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 5 3.5% 0.32 3.58 1.05 0.08 2.18 0.61 74.5% 39.2% 41.9% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 141 3.5% 0.12 2.24 0.38 0.11 2.19 0.37 7.2% 2.2% 4.1%

2003 Pass - 264 0.10 1.96 0.31 0.10 1.96 0.31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 10 3.6% 0.09 2.14 0.32 0.03 0.76 0.29 65.7% 64.7% 11.0% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 274 3.6% 0.10 1.97 0.31 0.10 1.92 0.31 2.2% 2.6% 0.4%

2004 Pass - 94 0.09 2.13 0.31 0.09 2.13 0.31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 2.1% 0.04 1.02 0.86 0.03 0.10 0.01 39.0% 90.5% 98.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 96 2.1% 0.09 2.11 0.32 0.09 2.09 0.31 0.4% 0.9% 5.4%

2005 Pass - 315 0.08 1.90 0.27 0.08 1.90 0.27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 12 3.7% 0.09 1.46 0.43 0.02 0.23 0.09 71.2% 84.5% 77.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 327 3.7% 0.08 1.88 0.28 0.08 1.84 0.27 2.6% 2.4% 4.4%

2006 Pass - 3 0.10 2.27 0.29 0.10 2.27 0.29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 3 0.0% 0.10 2.27 0.29 0.10 2.27 0.29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A2-3

### Appendix A2 Colorado 2009 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

2007 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%

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%
Total Passenger Vehicles All Pass - 1,711 0.17 2.59 0.50 0.17 2.59 0.50 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% P Fail Pass 65 3.6% 0.29 4.68 0.95 0.16 1.76 0.50 46.2% 62.4% 46.9% Fail Unresolv. 8 0.4% 2.21 17.78 2.74 2.25 21.66 2.23 -2.1% -21.8% 18.3% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 1,784 4.1% 0.18 2.73 0.53 0.18 2.65 0.51 2.6% 3.3% 3.5%

A2-4

### Appendix A2 Colorado 2009 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 - 2 2.13 31.73 2.57 2.13 31.73 2.57 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% 2.13 31.73 2.57 2.13 31.73 2.57 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 1 100.0% 0.33 3.18 6.20 0.38 4.00 4.98 -17.7% -25.7% 19.7% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 1 100.0% 0.33 3.18 6.20 0.38 4.00 4.98 -17.7% -25.7% 19.7%

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 - 6 1.00 11.40 2.00 1.00 11.40 2.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 6 0.0% 1.00 11.40 2.00 1.00 11.40 2.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1988 Pass - 1 0.98 10.91 2.32 0.98 10.91 2.32 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1 50.0% 1.57 11.73 5.23 1.80 12.44 4.06 -14.6% -6.1% 22.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 2 50.0% 1.28 11.32 3.78 1.39 11.67 3.19 -9.0% -3.2% 15.4%

1989 Pass - 2 1.64 11.40 2.14 1.64 11.40 2.14 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% 1.64 11.40 2.14 1.64 11.40 2.14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1990 Pass - 3 0.62 8.95 1.28 0.62 8.95 1.28 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1 25.0% 2.52 33.29 13.25 1.33 10.13 1.78 47.3% 69.6% 86.6% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 4 25.0% 1.09 15.04 4.27 0.80 9.25 1.40 27.2% 38.5% 67.1%

A2-5

### Appendix A2 Colorado 2009 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

1991 Pass - 8 0.68 7.19 1.78 0.68 7.19 1.78 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% 0.68 7.19 1.78 0.68 7.19 1.78 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1992 Pass - 8 0.76 9.48 1.54 0.76 9.48 1.54 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1 11.1% 2.22 18.58 1.55 1.03 22.94 1.58 53.6% -23.5% -2.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 9 11.1% 0.92 10.49 1.54 0.79 10.98 1.54 14.3% -4.6% -0.3%

1993 Pass - 15 0.68 6.98 1.57 0.68 6.98 1.57 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2 11.8% 1.47 40.81 0.96 1.01 11.95 1.40 31.2% 70.7% -45.6% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 17 11.8% 0.77 10.96 1.50 0.72 7.56 1.55 7.0% 31.0% -3.4%

1994 Pass - 29 0.70 6.19 1.44 0.70 6.19 1.44 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1 3.3% 1.30 2.64 8.00 0.55 8.19 3.24 57.5% -210.2% 59.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 30 3.3% 0.72 6.08 1.66 0.69 6.26 1.50 3.5% -3.0% 9.6%

1995 Pass - 36 0.55 5.33 1.52 0.55 5.33 1.52 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 6 14.0% 2.17 11.97 2.05 0.59 4.92 1.94 72.7% 58.9% 5.3% Fail Unresolv. 1 2.3% 5.73 67.23 0.05 5.73 67.23 0.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 43 16.3% 0.89 7.69 1.56 0.67 6.71 1.54 24.7% 12.8% 1.0%

1996 Pass - 35 0.39 4.28 1.39 0.39 4.28 1.39 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 3 7.7% 0.30 8.70 2.01 0.37 5.21 2.08 -23.7% 40.1% -3.4% Fail Unresolv. 1 2.6% 1.32 12.48 3.17 1.46 13.97 3.21 -10.1% -12.0% -1.2% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 39 10.3% 0.41 4.83 1.49 0.42 4.60 1.49 -2.2% 4.8% -0.4%

1997 Pass - 75 0.34 3.85 1.21 0.34 3.85 1.21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 9 10.5% 0.42 5.09 2.19 0.31 4.92 1.65 25.8% 3.3% 24.8% Fail Unresolv. 2 2.3% 1.61 13.09 4.37 1.30 11.26 4.87 19.3% 13.9% -11.3% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 86 12.8% 0.38 4.20 1.39 0.36 4.14 1.34 4.9% 1.4% 3.3%

1998 Pass - 104 0.25 2.92 0.86 0.25 2.92 0.86 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 6 5.5% 0.38 4.06 1.84 0.29 3.08 1.13 25.4% 24.1% 38.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 110 5.5% 0.26 2.98 0.91 0.25 2.93 0.88 2.1% 1.8% 4.2%

1999 Pass - 194 0.20 2.01 0.73 0.20 2.01 0.73 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 9 4.4% 0.39 3.69 1.17 0.34 2.73 0.85 13.1% 26.2% 26.7% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.5% 1.60 40.42 2.53 2.01 48.78 2.66 -25.1% -20.7% -4.9% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 204 4.9% 0.21 2.27 0.76 0.21 2.27 0.75 0.1% 0.1% 1.7%

A2-6

### Appendix A2 Colorado 2009 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

2000 Pass - 170 0.20 2.09 0.71 0.20 2.09 0.71 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 8 4.5% 0.31 3.30 1.32 0.28 3.06 1.17 7.6% 7.2% 11.4% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.6% 0.51 6.61 2.29 0.53 5.14 2.20 -3.9% 22.2% 4.1% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 179 5.0% 0.20 2.17 0.75 0.20 2.15 0.74 0.5% 0.9% 1.0%

2001 Pass - 247 0.11 1.51 0.50 0.11 1.51 0.50 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 7 2.7% 0.21 1.94 1.10 0.15 1.79 0.93 26.2% 7.6% 15.1% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.4% 0.12 15.05 0.27 0.12 15.05 0.27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 255 3.1% 0.12 1.58 0.51 0.11 1.57 0.51 1.3% 0.3% 0.9%

2002 Pass - 180 0.10 1.37 0.47 0.10 1.37 0.47 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 3 1.6% 0.06 0.76 0.73 0.03 0.05 0.28 54.0% 93.6% 61.5% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.5% 0.21 4.11 2.18 0.21 4.11 2.18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 184 2.2% 0.10 1.38 0.48 0.10 1.36 0.48 0.5% 0.8% 1.5%

2003 Pass - 345 0.09 1.20 0.37 0.09 1.20 0.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 10 2.8% 0.10 1.59 0.32 0.05 1.15 0.26 45.3% 27.6% 18.4% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 355 2.8% 0.09 1.21 0.36 0.08 1.20 0.36 1.4% 1.0% 0.5%

2004 Pass - 124 0.07 1.04 0.27 0.07 1.04 0.27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 6 4.6% 0.08 1.17 0.35 0.04 0.83 0.09 49.0% 29.3% 72.7% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 130 4.6% 0.07 1.04 0.27 0.07 1.03 0.26 2.5% 1.5% 4.2%

2005 Pass - 424 0.06 0.90 0.21 0.06 0.90 0.21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 12 2.8% 0.08 0.79 0.26 0.04 0.38 0.07 46.6% 51.8% 71.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Fail Waiver 0 0.0% - - - - - - - - - Total Fail% 436 2.8% 0.06 0.90 0.21 0.06 0.89 0.21 1.7% 1.3% 2.4%

2006 Pass - 1 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.16 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% 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2007 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%

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%

A2-7

### Appendix A2 Colorado 2009 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

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%

Total Trucks All Pass - 2,009 0.16 1.91 0.56 0.16 1.91 0.56 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% T Fail Pass 86 4.1% 0.48 4.96 1.45 0.28 3.17 1.00 41.1% 36.2% 30.6% Fail Unresolv. 8 0.4% 1.59 21.51 2.41 1.58 22.10 2.54 0.5% -2.8% -5.5% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 2,103 4.5% 0.18 2.11 0.60 0.17 2.04 0.58 4.5% 3.4% 2.9%

Fleet Total All Pass - 3,720 0.17 2.22 0.53 0.17 2.22 0.53 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All Fail Pass 151 3.9% 0.40 4.84 1.23 0.23 2.56 0.79 42.7% 47.1% 36.0% Fail Unresolv. 16 0.4% 1.90 19.64 2.57 1.92 21.88 2.39 -1.0% -11.4% 7.2% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 3,887 4.3% 0.18 2.40 0.57 0.18 2.32 0.55 3.6% 3.3% 3.2%

A2-8

### Appendix B Colorado 2009 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 4,434 433 5.4 58.6 4.4 3.7 42.2 4.1 1.6 16.4 0.3 P 1983 4,481 898 9.3 123.3 8.8 6.3 75.9 8.4 2.9 47.4 0.4 P 1984 4,502 1,333 13.3 160.3 13.3 9.1 100.3 12.5 4.1 60.0 0.8 P 1985 4,552 2,162 17.5 211.5 21.8 11.8 129.5 20.0 5.7 82.0 1.9 P 1986 4,780 2,323 17.5 198.6 24.4 12.2 126.4 22.8 5.2 72.1 1.6 P 1987 5,088 3,601 26.3 294.0 37.6 18.9 194.4 34.8 7.4 99.6 2.9 P 1988 5,430 3,787 27.9 314.4 40.2 19.5 212.9 37.2 8.3 101.5 3.0 P 1989 5,672 5,857 40.0 466.2 60.1 28.6 325.2 56.2 11.5 140.9 3.9 P 1990 6,002 7,406 51.7 573.8 83.0 37.4 404.9 75.5 14.3 168.9 7.5 P 1991 6,331 10,427 63.3 709.8 111. 4 45.5 518.2 100.9 17.8 191.7 10.5 P 1992 6,653 10,053 62.0 721.4 110. 8 43.4 487.2 100.6 18.6 234.3 10.3 P 1993 6,974 13,266 79.7 873.2 148. 1 55.7 606.9 134.8 24.0 266.3 13.3 P 1994 7,369 14,614 75.2 836.6 141. 8 52.1 612.3 128.1 23.0 224.3 13.7 P 1995 7,764 18,939 91.4 975.7 177. 0 65.3 723.4 159.3 26.2 252.3 17.7 P 1996 8,188 17,023 63.7 739.5 139. 8 49.7 583.8 126.6 14.0 155.7 13.2 P 1997 8,613 22,064 74.4 908.9 172. 0 61.9 744.1 159.3 12.5 164.7 12.7 P 1998 9,032 20,018 59.8 819.8 139. 2 47.8 657.5 125.1 12.0 162.2 14.1 P 1999 9,450 24,967 65.3 944.1 165. 5 53.8 760.7 149.9 11.5 183.4 15.7 P 2000 9,905 23,339 53.0 808.1 149. 5 42.6 691.2 130.3 10.4 116.9 19.2 P 2001 10,360 27,713 46.6 851.1 141.7 41.0 757.6 128.6 5.6 93.5 13.0 P 2002 10,746 21,353 34.4 633.8 104.5 30.3 579.4 94.8 4.2 54.4 9.7 P 2003 11,132 27,329 37.4 715.1 116.6 33.3 668.7 109.9 4.1 46.4 6.7 P 2004 11,870 14,988 20.4 424.8 61.4 18.2 392.3 57.4 2.2 32.5 4.0 P 2005 12,023 30,541 37.6 783.7 117.4 34.7 743.3 111.2 2.9 40.4 6.2 P 2006 12,307 8,438 9.9 217.6 34.7 9.4 209.9 29.0 0.5 7.7 5.6 P 2007 12,357 3,925 4.3 94.0 14.5 4.1 91.7 12.7 0.2 2.3 1.8 P 2008 11,600 3,068 3.1 72.7 10.0 3.0 70.9 8.8 0.1 1.7 1.2 P 2009 9,650 735 0.6 13.8 2.4 0.6 13.4 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.5 P 2010 9,650 32 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P Total 340,632 1091.1 14544.9 2351.9 839.9 11525.1 2140.6 251.1 3019.8 211.3 T 1982 4 583 510 10 2 123 4 7 5 6 9 81 1 6 4 3 3 42 3 1 1 , . . . . . . . . . T 1983 4,630 875 16.1 199.6 12.5 12.2 141.1 11.3 3.9 58.5 1.2 T 1984 4,668 1,409 25.1 326.2 20.3 17.0 198.3 19.0 8.1 127.9 1.3 T 1985 4,741 1,937 29.2 371.9 27.5 20.4 232.8 25.4 8.8 139.2 2.2 T 1986 4,851 2,159 31.2 356.6 32.0 21.4 219.7 29.4 9.8 136.9 2.6 T 1987 5,019 2,861 30.7 334.8 38.4 23.6 230.8 35.9 7.1 104.1 2.6 T 1988 5,256 3,402 39.4 365.0 46.4 27.0 252.2 41.1 12.4 112.8 5.3 T 1989 5,519 4,502 46.6 457.2 62.2 34.9 330.7 56.4 11.7 126.5 5.8 T 1990 5,824 4,316 46.6 447.2 64.2 34.1 315.1 58.4 12.5 132.2 5.8 T 1991 6,135 6,207 55.5 576.8 81.0 40.6 416.9 72.5 15.0 159.9 8.5 T 1992 6,471 6,286 63.2 627.6 93.7 44.4 450.6 83.6 18.7 177.0 10.1 T 1993 6,940 9,409 92.8 909.4 147.0 68.1 672.0 131. 9 24.8 237.4 15.2 T 1994 7,437 12,461 109.4 1067.7 183. 3 76.4 777.8 157.7 33.0 289.9 25.6 T 1995 7,863 14,238 118.4 1095.0 213. 5 82.4 798.7 185.6 36.0 296.3 27.8 T 1996 8,345 12,911 63.1 729.2 176. 9 46.4 533.7 154.5 16.7 195.6 22.3 T 1997 8,900 18,254 78.6 978.7 230. 7 59.6 732.3 204.4 19.0 246.3 26.3 T 1998 9,502 18,666 73.3 822.9 214. 3 59.0 667.7 191.9 14.3 155.2 22.4 T 1999 10,087 23,811 76.0 821.0 222. 6 59.7 660.8 196.3 16.3 160.1 26.3 T 2000 10,727 20,692 59.1 667.1 180.2 50.0 571.0 167.3 9.2 96.2 12.8 T 2001 11,245 25,093 44.9 604.4 163.5 39.9 527.9 153.8 5.0 76.5 9.6 T 2002 11,817 18,363 27.6 417.8 113.4 25.4 366.3 107.7 2.1 51.5 5.7 T 2003 12,303 26,169 34.2 481.0 138.5 32.2 448.5 133.9 2.0 32.5 4.6 T 2004 12,834 15,751 18.0 271.7 66.0 17.1 255.0 63.4 0.9 16.7 2.6 T 2005 13,215 32,005 30.6 474.9 104.1 29.7 456.0 102.1 0.9 18.9 2.0 T 2006 13,433 7,189 6.9 101.7 24.1 6.6 99.7 22.4 0.3 2.1 1.7 T 2007 13,514 3,472 2.8 44.4 10.6 2.8 44.1 9.9 0.0 0.3 0.6 T 2008 12,428 2,760 1.8 30.8 7.6 1.8 30.6 7.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 T 2009 8,995 575 0.3 4.9 1.0 0.3 4.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2010 8,995 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T Total 296,291 1231.7 13709.1 2682.9 939.9 10516.3 2430.5 291.8 3192.7 252.4 Total 636,923 2322.7 28254.0 5034.8 1779.8 22041.4 4571.1 542.9 6212.5 463.7

B-1

### Appendix B - Colorado 2009 RapidScreen Audit 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 4,434 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1983 4,481 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1984 4,502 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1985 4,552 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1986 4,780 5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1987 5,088 6 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 1988 5,430 4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1989 5,672 8 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1990 6,002 13 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1991 6,331 18 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 P 1992 6,653 17 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0 P 1993 6,974 33 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1994 7,369 38 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1995 7,764 42 0.2 1.4 0.3 0.2 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1996 8,188 57 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.1 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1997 8,613 81 0.2 2.1 0.5 0.2 2.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1998 9,032 97 0.2 2.8 0.7 0.2 2.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 1999 9,450 160 0.4 5.3 1.0 0.4 5.2 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 P 2000 9,905 176 0.4 5.8 1.1 0.4 5.5 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 P 2001 10,360 186 0.2 4.6 0.8 0.2 4.5 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 2002 10,746 141 0.2 3.7 0.6 0.2 3.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 2003 11,132 274 0.3 6.6 1.0 0.3 6.4 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 P 2004 11,870 96 0.1 2.6 0.4 0.1 2.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2005 12,023 327 0.4 8.2 1.2 0.4 8.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 P 2006 12,307 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2007 12,357 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2008 11,600 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2009 9,650 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P Total 1,784 3.3 51.2 9.6 3.2 49.7 9.3 0.1 1.6 0.3 T 1982 4 583 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , . . . . . . . . . T 1983 4,630 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1984 4,668 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1985 4,741 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1986 4,851 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1987 5,019 6 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1988 5,256 2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1989 5,519 2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1990 5,824 4 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 T 1991 6,135 8 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1992 6,471 9 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1993 6,940 17 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 T 1994 7,437 30 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1995 7,863 43 0.3 2.9 0.6 0.3 2.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.0 T 1996 8,345 39 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.2 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 1997 8,900 86 0.3 3.5 1.2 0.3 3.5 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 1998 9,502 110 0.3 3.4 1.1 0.3 3.4 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 1999 10,087 204 0.5 5.1 1.7 0.5 5.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2000 10,727 179 0.4 4.6 1.6 0.4 4.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2001 11,245 255 0.4 5.0 1.6 0.4 5.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2002 11,817 184 0.2 3.3 1.2 0.2 3.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2003 12,303 355 0.4 5.8 1.8 0.4 5.8 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 2004 12,834 130 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2005 13,215 436 0.4 5.7 1.3 0.4 5.6 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 2006 13,433 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2007 13,514 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2008 12,428 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2009 8,995 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T Total 2,103 4.0 48.4 14.1 3.9 47.1 13.8 0.2 1.3 0.3 Total 3,887 7.3 99.7 23.7 7.1 96.8 23.1 0.2 2.9 0.7

B-2