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



# The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January – December 2012

December 2013

Prepared for: 

# The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Prepared by:

Peter M McClintock, Ph.D. Applied Analysis 13700 Marina Pointe Drive #301 Marina Del Rey CA 90292-9276 pm2pt5@gmail.com

### 2 

## Acknowledgments

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

### 3 

## Table of Contents

I. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... ............................. 5 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE DENVER CLEAN SCREENING PROGRAM ........................................... 8

A. I/M P ROGRAM 

### O VERVIEW 

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

### S ITES



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

### D ATA AND 

### D ESCRIPTION OF 

### E LEMENTS 

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

A. M ONTHLY 

### C OLLECTION 

### A CTIVITY 

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

### H OUR OF 

### D AY 

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

### V EHICLES 

### M EASURED 

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

A. V EHICLES 

### S ELECTED 

### , N OTICES AND 

### R EDEMPTIONS 

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

### S CREEN 

### P ROGRAM 

### E FFECTIVENESS 

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

### C AP 

### E VAPORATIVE 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### RSD-LEI VS



### . 2- HIT 

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

### I DLE 

### T ESTS TO 

### IM240 E QUIVALENT EMISSIONS 

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

### M ILEAGE 

### W EIGHTING 

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

### E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

### .......................................................................................................... 42 VI. REVIEW OF CLEAN SCREEN STANDARDS AND PR OCEDURES ............................................. 44 VII. IM240 PROJECTED EMISSIONS BY MODEL YEAR ..................................................................... 45 VIII. RAPIDSCREEN BENEFITS .......................................................................................................... .... 49 A. G REENHOUSE 

### G AS AND 

### P OLLUTANTS FROM 

### C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### O PERATIONS 

### ............................................ 49 1. RapidScreen Opera ting Vehicles ................................................................................................ ........... 49 2. Generators .................................................................................................................... ......................... 50 3. Calibration and Audit Gases ................................................................................................... ............... 50 4. RapidScreen Vehicle Em issions Redu ctions ...................................................................................... .... 50 B. R APID 

### S CREEN 

### V EHICLE 

### O WNER 

### S AVINGS 

### .............................................................................................. 51
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... .......... 52

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

A1 COLORADO 2012 TRANSIENT TEST EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS A2 COLORADO 2012 CLEAN SCREEN AUDI T TRANSIENT TEST EMISSION REDUCTIONS B COLORADO 2012 TRANSIENT TEST REDUCTION TONS

### 4 

## List of Tables

T ABLE 

### II-1 N ORTHERN 

### F RONT 

### R ANGE 

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

### II-2 D ENVER 

### RSD S ITES 

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

### II-2 D ENVER 

### RSD S ITES CONTINUED 

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

### II-3 E L 

### P ASO 

### RSD S ITES



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

### II-4 V EHICLE 

### M EASUREMENT 

### I NFORMATION 

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

### III-1 C OLLECTION 

### S UMMARY 

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

### III-2 S OURCE OF 

### V EHICLE 

### R EGISTRATIONS 

### M EASURED BY 

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

### III-3 T YPE OF 

### V EHICLES 

### M EASURED BY 

### RSD WITHIN 

### R EGISTRATION 

### J URISDICTION 

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

### III-4 R EGISTERED 

### J URISDICTION AND 

### A GE OF 

### V EHICLES 

### M EASURED BY 

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

### IV-1 V EHICLES 

### Q UALIFIED 

### A S 

### M EETING 

### C LEAN 

### S CREENING 

### C RITERIA BY 

### S TATUS 

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

### IV-2 N OTIFICATIONS 

### T RANSMITTED TO 

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

### IV-3 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### A UDIT 

### T EST 

### P ASS 

### / F AIL 

### S TATISTICS 

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

### IV-4 T RANSIENT 

### T EST 

### E MISSION 

### R EDUCTIONS FOR 

### 1982-1985 P ASSENGER 

### V EHICLES 

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

### IV-5 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### E MISSIONS 

### I MPACT FOR 

### T AILPIPE 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### IV-6 C LEAN 

### S CREEN 

### I MPACT ON 

### E VAPORATIVE 

### HC E MISSIONS 

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

### IV-7 G AS 

### C AP 

### R ELATED 

### B ENEFIT 

### T ONS 

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

### IV-8 A VERAGE 

### E MISSIONS PER 

### V EHICLE 

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

### V-1 L OW 

### S PEED 

### I DLE TO 

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

### V-2 H IGH 

### S PEED 

### I DLE TO 

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

### V-3 E STIMATED 

### A NNUAL 

### M ILEAGE IN 

### 2012 ............................................................................................... 41 T ABLE 

### V-4 E STIMATED 

### A NNUAL 

### T ONS OF 

### R EDUCTION 

### (IM240 AND 

### I DLE 

### T ESTED 

### V EHICLES 

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

### VIII-1 R EDUCTIONS IN 

### G REENHOUSE 

### G ASES AND 

### P OLLUTANTS FROM 

### R APID 

### S CREEN 

### O PERATIONS 

### .......... 49



## List of Figures

F IGURE 

### I-1 A VERAGE 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

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

### II-1: T AG 

### E DIT TM 

### S CREEN 

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

### II-2 A 

### : S ITE 

### L OCATIONS 

### N ORTHERN 

### F RONT 

### R ANGE 

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

### II-2 B 

### : S ITE 

### L OCATIONS



### – D ENVER 

### M ETRO 

### A REA 

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

### III-1 M ONTHLY 

### RSD M EASUREMENTS 

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

### III-2 M EASUREMENTS BY 

### T IME OF 

### D AY 

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

### IV-1 G AS 

### C AP 

### P RESSURE 

### F AILURE 

### R ATES 

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

### IV-2 A VERAGE 

### I NITIAL 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

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

### IV-3 A VERAGE 

### IM240 E MISSIONS 

### R EDUCTIONS 

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

### V-1 RSD VS



### . I DLE 

### T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### V-2 RSD VS



### . 2500 I DLE 

### T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### V-3 RSD VS



### . IM240 T EST 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### VII-1 LDGV HC R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### VII-2 LDGT HC R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### VII-3 LDGV CO R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### VII-4 LDGT CO R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### VII-5 LDGV NO X 

### R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### VII-6 LDGT NO X 

### R EDUCTIONS AND 

### R EMAINING 

### E MISSIONS 

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

### 5 

## I. Summary
The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) and the Department of Revenue (DOR) have operated an Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program in the Denver metropolitan area (DMA) since 1995. Operations for a remote sensing clean screening element commenced in 2003. Previ ous reports, “The Colorado Clean Screening Program’ reports for July 2003 – December 2004 and annual reports for 2005-2011 1 

## described on-road measurement activities and the vehicles exempted from inspection. This report covers calendar year 2012. The clean screening program uses remote se nsing to measure the tailpipe emissions of vehicles as they drive by measuring equipment positioned on the side of the road. Vehicles that are determined to have low tailpipe emi ssions are granted an exemption from the I/M inspection. Clean screening improves convenien ce of the I/M program for vehicle owners. In order to exempt vehicles from inspection, computer systems and procedures are required for administering the program and notifying vehi cle owners of their in spection exemption. The I/M program is registration enforced a nd the administration of the clean screening program requires the transmission of inform ation among the contractor, CDPHE and DOR who manage motor vehicle registrations. Rapidscreen provided benefits to vehicle owners of $5.1M th rough reduced time and expense associated with eliminated insp ection station visits. The reduction in station inspections also yielded net savings in greenhouse gases and 200,000 gallons of gasoline. Collection Activity In 2012, eighteen RSD vans were deployed in the DMA with an additional 4 in the Northern Front Range (NFR). Twenty-two different RS D systems were used as some units were rotated for preventive or corrective maintenance. Van’s deployed at 80 locations in the DMA, 35 sites in the NFR and 2 sites in Colorado Springs for a total of 24,204 active collection hours. A total 6.7 million emission measurements were collected and successfully matched to Colorado registered vehicles. Additional remo te sensing productivity information is provided in Section IV. Expanded vehicle emissions testing began in part s of Weld and Larimer counties in late 2010. Vehicle owners with December 2010 renewal date s were the first required to get a test. 2011 vs 2012 Collection Comparison In 2011, RSD performed over 7.7 million emission measurements at 90 locations in the DMA and 42 locations in the NFR. In 2012 there we re one million fewer emission measurements. Despite the reduction in the quan tity of emission measurements the number of clean screens issued remained similar, 289,768 in 2011 vs. 280,310 in 2012. This was partly due to the application of new location perfor mance metrics by the contractor.

### 6 

## Vehicle Exemptions Almost 290,000 vehicles measured on-road initi ally met the clean screening exemption criteria. Two percent of these were reserved to provide a program audit sample and others were eliminated during the QA reviews, for exam ple, as a result of vehicle plate changes. The owners of the remaining 280,310 vehicles meeting the clean screening cr iteria were issued notices granting exemption from the I/M test at an inspection stat ion. Approximately 248,000 (88%) of the vehicle owners took advant age of the Clean Screen exemption. Two methods were used to qualify vehicles, 2-RSD and Hybrid. With the 2-RSD method, vehicles qualified for an exemp tion if they had two or more on-road measurements and the most recent two measurements both showed emi ssions within the clean screen standards. With the ‘Hybrid’ clean screening method ve hicles measured once by remote sensing qualified for clean screening if the emissions measurement was within the clean screen standards and the vehicle model had a histor ically low rate of emissions problems. A 2% random sample of vehicles that qualifie d was not issued exemption notices and 4,530 of these vehicles were subsequently inspected at an enhanced inspection station. The results of the station inspections were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Additional information about vehicles mailed notices is provided in Section IV. Clean Screen Program Effectiveness In a Clean Screen program, some vehicles pass ing the clean screen emissions criteria might have failed if inspected at an inspection sta tion. Therefore, a Clea n Screen program, while greatly improving convenience for vehicle owners, can slightly reduce the overall effectiveness of the I/M program. On May 5 th 

## 2008, IM240 Denver Metro Area station test standards were tightened – especially for HC and NOx – to bring them into closer alignment with EPA final standards. The LEI table was updated with subsequent IM240 results to reflect consequent changes in inspection result statis tics for vehicle models in Decembe r 2008, and annually thereafter. The RSD standards were updated in October 2010 w ith the addition of an RSD NO standard of 1000ppm that first applied to December 2010 registrants. Figure I-1 compares the average IM240 exhaust reductions per vehicl e inspected at stations to those of the 2-RSD audit sample and the Hybrid RSD-LEI audit sample. For all pollutants the RSD-LEI audit sample showed smaller reductio ns than 2-RSD indicating the hybrid RSD-LEI method performed better.

### 7 

## Figure I-1 Average IM240 Emissions Reductions

For 2012, based on the 2% random audit vehicles tested with IM240, it was projected that 97.4%, 97.1% and 93.9% 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 2.5% of HC reductions. The methodology for estimating clean screen effec tiveness only allows for a score of 100% or less and uses the IM240 test as a “gold’ standa rd. Any variations in vehicle performance or the IM240 test procedure that produce an anomal ous IM240 test failure are scored against Clean Screen. Therefore, it is possible the Clean Screen effectiveness was better than projected. 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10Station2-RSDRSD-LEIg/mi HC

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2Station2-RSDRSD-LEI 

### CO

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10Station2-RSDRSD-LEI 

### NOx

### 8 

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

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

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

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

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

Contractor 

## Envirotest was contracted to operate the e nhanced program by a competitive bid process and the contract was subsequently amended to include clean screening in the Denver area. Envirotest uses technology derived from that or iginally developed at Denver University with whom Envirotest has a royalty agreement.

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

### 9 

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

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

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

 RSD 4-gas analyzer Source Detector Module

 Corner Cubed Mirror Module (CCM)

 Two Alignment stands, one each for SDM and CCM

 Speed/Acceleration subsystem consisting of:

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

 Speed/Acceleration computer

 Digital Video camera and speed subsystem

 Computer control console subsystem consisting of:

 Video monitor

 Pentium TM 

### –based PC

 Additional PC cards and inte rnal hardware PC cards:

 Hard drive

 Removable Mass Storage

 Matrox video

 Serial and COM port

 RSD operation (data collection) software

 RSD compatible license plate tag-editing software

### 10 

###  Calibration and auditing s ubsystem consisting of:

 Calibration gas cell

 Audit tube

 Audit gas bottle

 Pressure regulator

 Hoses with quick disconnects

 RSD shipping container for SDM and CCM



## The following elements comprise an AccuScan TM 

## van:

 Ford one-ton truck

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

 12 – 14 foot box on bed of truck

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

 5 kW Onan generator

 Connector panel for quick connection of external cables and calibration gas hoses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### 11 

## included and shall not be rounded to zero.

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

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

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

##  16.0 %, and NO  7000 ppm.

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

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

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

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

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

### 12 

## Envirotest’s TagEdit TM 

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

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

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

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

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

Figure II-1: TagEdit TM 

## Screen

### 13 

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



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

### 14 Table II-1 Northern Front Range

Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Registered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 2132 NB SHIELDS 100' PAST VINE DR FT COLLINS 2 16 2,440 151 2144 NB STANDFORD FROM MONROE DR FT COLLINS 29 203 14,013 69 3017 EB TRILBY ROAD EAST OF SHIELDS STREET FORT COLLINS 24 185 41,775 226 3019 ON RAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 402 (CR-54) LOVELAND 4 20 1,766 90 3020 ON RAMP TO SB I-25 FROM 402 (CR-54) LOVELAND 22 143 17,868 125 3508 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM HARMONY RD. FT. COLLINS 2 16 1,309 82 3509 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM PROSPECT RD. FT. COLLINS 2 17 857 51 3510 SB SHIELDS ST. AFTER FOSSIL CREEK FT. COLLINS 5 35 6,469 182 3512 SB TIMBERLINE RD. JUST BEFORE WILLOW SPRINGS RD. FT. COLLINS 2 16 2,505 156 3513 NB SHIELDS RD. AFTER BON HOMME RD. FT. COLLINS 25 173 10,729 62 3514 NB TAFT HILL RD. AFTER HARMONY RD. FT. COLLINS 46 337 111,980 332 3515 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WB US-34 FT. COLLINS 26 198 25,233 127 3516 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM CROSSROADS BLVD. FT. COLLINS 19 140 15,122 108 3517 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM CROSSROADS BLVD. FT. COLLINS 33 248 27,200 110 3527 EB 392 AFTER INTERSECTION WITH CR-9 FT. COLLINS 14 102 11,537 113 3528 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM EB MULBERRY ST. FT. COLLINS 13 91 5,764 63 8041 WB US-287 JUST WEST OF SHIELDS ST. FT COLLINS 26 193 31,169 161 8042 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM EAST PROSPECT FT COLLINS 39 296 65,741 222 8049 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM HARMONY RD FT COLLINS 20 155 34,018 220 8052 NB SH-1 JUST EAST OF INTERSECTION WITH US-287 FT COLLINS 15 103 14,457 141 8053 EB US-287 ABOUT 500' EAST OF LCR-17 BERTHOUD 19 125 4,850 39 2989 EB US 34 BYPASS FROM 23RD AVE GREELEY 60 470 68,758 146 3507 ONRAMP TO SB US-85 FROM HWY 52 FT. LUPTON 4 24 4,245 174 3519 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM SR-56 BERTHOUD 17 109 4,938 45 3520 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM SR-66 LONGMONT 2 14 1,348 97 3521 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM SR-52 LONGMONT 15 96 20,815 216 3522 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM CR-8 DACONO 38 242 17,304 72 3524 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM SR-52 LONGMONT 9 62 4,876 79 3525 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM SR-119 LONGMONT 10 64 9,388 148 3526 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM SR-66 LONGMONT 12 67 4,786 71 8037 EB US-34 BYPASS FRONTAGE ROAD JUST EAST OF 35TH AVE. GREELEY 20 136 10,264 75 8043 ONRAMP TO WB US-34 FROM 27TH ST GREELEY 52 403 81,934 203 8044 ONRAMP TO EB US-34 FROM SH-257 GREELEY 18 129 13,761 107 8045 ONRAMP TO EB US-34 BYPASS FROM SH-257 GREELEY 20 150 16,383 109 8048 ONRAMP TO WB US-34 FROM SH-257 GREELEY 13 102 5,875 57 Subtotal 677 4,881 711,477 146

### 15 Table II-2 Denver RSD Sites

Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Registered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 2169 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 136TH AVE. THORNTON 3 23 1,982 88 2462 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM NB BRIGHTON BLVD COMMERCE CITY 2 15 2,999 203 2808 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM 136TH AVE THORNTON 3 23 4,030 179 2819 ONRAMP TO SB 121 FROM WB 287 WESTMINSTER 101 1,048 313,405 299 2821 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 120TH AVE WESTMINSTER 35 260 55,600 214 2971 EB DILLON RD EAST OF US-287 BROOMFIELD 37 272 70,199 258 3498 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM 74TH AVE. COMMERCE CITY 1 7 1,636 226 8073 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 104TH AVE. NORTHGLENN 58 517 92,141 178 8087 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM AIRPORT BLVD. AURORA 29 235 46,281 197 8088 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM 88TH AVE COMMERCE CITY 2 15 1,961 130 8093 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM NB I-25 DENVER 205 2,011 1,032,654 514 8107 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM BROADWAY DENVER 76 675 185,783 275 8115 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM FEDERAL BLVD DENVER 6 32 4,489 141 8129 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM PECOS ST DENVER 4 28 5,895 207 2170 ONRAMP TO NB I-225 FROM BELLEVIEW AVE. CHERRY HILLS 14 118 15,300 130 8095 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM ILLIFF AVE. AURORA 4 29 2,820 97 8098 ONRAMP TO NB I-225 FROM ILLIFF AVE AURORA 7 62 10,225 164 8120 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM ALAMEDA AVE AURORA 37 293 45,445 155 8121 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM MISSISSIPPI AVE AURORA 28 224 58,143 260 2512 ONRAMP TO NB SH-157 FROM PEARL ST. BOULDER 32 239 36,142 151 2513 ONRAMP TO SB DIAGONAL HWY FROM NB BOULDER RD BOULDER 7 56 4,109 73 2514 ONRAMP TO 96TH AVE FROM SH-42. BOULDER 25 178 32,271 181 2826 ONRAMP TO EB US-36 FROM MCCASLIN LOUISVILLE 29 260 45,248 174 2827 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM INTERLOCKIEN LOOP LOUISVILLE 10 63 7,961 127 2828 ONRAMP TO NB DIAGONAL FROM NB 119 BOULDER 8 58 5,758 99 8057 ON-RAMP TO SB SH 157 FROM PEARL ST. BOULDER 41 287 54,970 192 8064 ONRAMP TO NB SH 157 (FOOTHILLS PKAY) FROM EB TABLE MESA BOULDER 39 267 48,363 181 8079 ONRAMP TO WB US-36 FROM WADSWORTH PKWY BROOMFIELD 69 701 230,729 329 2171 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM PECOS ST. DENVER 2 16 3,386 212 2456 ONRAMP TO SB I-225 FROM PEORIA ST DENVER 29 233 40,269 173 2560 ONRAMP TO EB US-6TH AVE FROM SB I-25 DENVER 19 208 47,788 230 2811 ONRAMP TO I-25 FROM WB SPEER DENVER 29 210 75,604 360 3504 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM PEORIA ST. DENVER 71 509 146,717 289 3505 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM QUEBEC ST. DENVER 14 107 42,352 396 8059 ONRAMP TO NB SANTA FE FROM US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) ENGLEWOOD 51 367 76,924 210 8081 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM HAVANA ST. DENVER 19 154 30,713 200 8094 ONRAMP TO SB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) FROM FEDERAL BLVD SHERIDAN 17 116 25,762 222 8096 ONRAMP TO NB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) FROM FEDERAL BLVD. SHERIDAN 15 96 15,790 164 8097 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM NB I-25 DENVER 154 1,122 796,212 709 8113 ONRAMP TO SB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) FROM SHERIDAN BLVD. DENVER 30 224 48,187 215 8122 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM PARK AVE DENVER 80 551 184,006 334 8123 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM 58TH AVE. DENVER 73 691 177,902 258 8126 ONRAMP TO EB I-70 FROM PECOS ST DENVER 45 405 100,370 248 2319 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM LUCENT BLVD HIGHLANDS RANCH 27 202 44,485 220 2320 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM BROADWAY HIGHLANDS RANCH 50 393 176,585 449 2321 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM UNIVERSITY BLVD HIGHLANDS RANCH 35 280 92,422 330 2322 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM UNIVERSITY BLVD HIGHLANDS RANCH 17 124 26,139 210 2323 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM LUCENT BLVD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 16 99 11,289 115 2574 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 19 140 17,152 123 2576 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM EB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 43 289 63,571 220 2577 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM EB COUNTY LINE RD. HIGHLANDS RANCH 59 442 198,705 450 3501 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM EB LINCOLN AVE LONE TREE 23 179 63,103 353

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

Table II-3 El Paso RSD Sites Site Code Location City Active Days Total Active Hours Registered Vehicles Measured Veh's Per Hour 8077 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM QUEBEC ST. HIGHLANDS RANCH 51 375 189,713 505 8083 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM FOUNDERS PARKWAY (EXIT 184) CASTLE ROCK 36 280 49,064 175 8084 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM LINCOLN AVE. LITTLETON 31 225 28,732 128 8085 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM WOLFENSBERGER RD. (EXIT 182) CASTLE ROCK 44 328 108,266 331 8086 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM FOUNDERS PARKWAY (EXIT 184) CASTLE ROCK 45 333 117,364 352 2172 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM BOWLES AVE. LAKEWOOD 1 8 1,020 126 2173 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FOM KEN CARYL AVE. LAKEWOOD 1 8 591 74 2174 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM WADSWORTH PKWY LAKEWOOD 5 39 4,418 112 2175 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM KIPLING ST. LAKEWOOD 2 16 1,558 98 2176 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM KEN CARYL AVE LAKEWOOD 18 123 38,289 311 2325 ONRAMP TO EB C-470 FROM QUINCY AVE LAKEWOOD 4 31 3,137 100 2327 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM WB US-6TH AVE GOLDEN 1 6 176 28 2400 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM NB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) LAKEWOOD 30 206 53,721 261 2458 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM SIMMS ST LAKEWOOD 4 47 14,063 297 2460 ONRAMP TO EB US-6TH AVE FROM SB WADSWORTH BLVD LAKEWOOD 4 24 4,446 182 2461 ONRAMP TO WB US-6TH AVE FROM NB WADSWORTH BLVD LAKEWOOD 26 184 44,776 243 2464 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM NB WADSWORTH BLVD ARVADA 4 31 2,108 69 2572 ONRAMP TO SB I-25 FROM EB US-6TH AVE LAKEWOOD 7 36 8,675 242 8058 ONRAMP TO WB I-76 FROM SHERIDAN BLVD. ARVADA 25 154 35,186 229 8061 SB HERITAGE RD. AT INTERSECTION WITH US-40 (COLFAX) GOLDEN 2 11 601 56 8069 ONRAMP TO WB I-70 FROM KIPLING ST. WHEATRIDGE 20 188 51,107 272 8104 ONRAMP TO SB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) FROM WADSWORTH BLVD. DENVER 23 168 26,249 157 8105 ONRAMP TO SB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) FROM KIPLING BLVD. DENVER 15 171 25,840 151 8106 ONRAMP TO NB US-285 (HAMPDEN AVE) FROM KIPLING BLVD. DENVER 51 548 113,630 208 8110 ONRAMP TO EB SH-58 FROM WASHINGTON AVE GOLDEN 4 48 12,629 263 8111 ONRAMP TO EB SH-58 FROM MCINTYRE ST. GOLDEN 25 193 59,380 308 8112 ONRAMP TO WB C-470 FROM MORRISON RD. MORRISON 3 15 1,642 107 8130 ONRAMP TO EB I-76 FROM SHERIDAN BLVD ARVADA 25 251 58,605 233 Subtotal 2,356 19,196 5,976,958 311

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 7 43 6,785 158 2520 ONRAMP TO NB I-25 FROM N.ACADEMY BLVD COLORADO SPRINGS 14 85 15,316 180 Subtotal 21 128 22,101 173

Total 3,054 24,204 6,710,536 277

### 17 

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

### 18 

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

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

 Remote sensing unit measurements

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

### 19 

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

Table II-4 Vehicle Measurement Information 

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

### 20 

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

### 21 

## III. Summary of Data Collection Up to 22 remote sensing units were depl oyed for 3,054 days during 2012 to collect 6.0M measurements in the Denver metropolitan area (DMA) Metro Area, 711 ,000 measurements in the Northern Front Range (NFR) and 22,000 measur ements in El Paso County having a visible plate and valid HC, CO, speed and acceleration values . Plates were matched to registrations to determine vehicle information. Clean screen exemption notices were issued for 248,525 DMA vehicles and 31,785 NFR vehicles scheduled to renew their registration in 2012 and due for emissions testing (Table III-1). Vehicles registered in the DMA accounted fo r 5.3M measurements, the NFR for 722,000, and El Paso County 108,000. Another 240,000 measurements we re of vehicles registered in other Colorado counties (Table III-2). In 2011, RSD performed over 7.7 million emission measurements at 90 locations in the DMA and 42 locations in the NFR. In 2012 there we re one million fewer emission measurements. Despite the reduction in the quant ity of emission measurements the number of clean screens issued remained similar, 289,768 in 2011 vs. 280,310 in 2012. This was partly due to the application of new location perfor mance metrics by the contractor.

Table III-1 Collection Summary



## A. Monthly Collection Activity Figure III-1 shows the monthly RS D measurements. Collection rates were lower during severe winter months. B. Measurements by Hour of Day Figure III-2 ‘Measurements by H our of Day’ shows the number of vehicles measured during each hour of the day. The shape of the curve is indicative of when measurements were collected and does not represent the level of traffic during the day. Most measurements were collected between 7:00am and 7:00pm. Statistic Denver Metro Area Northern Front Range Colorado Springs Total Sites Used 80 35 2 117 Collection Van Days 2,356 677 21 3,054 Active Collection Van Hours 19,196 4,881 128 24,204 Matched to Registration 5,976,958 711,477 22,101 6,710,536 Notices Generated for 2012 renewals 248,525 31,785 280,310

### 22 

## Figure III-1 Monthly RSD Measurements

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

## Measurements by Month

El Paso County

Northern Front Range

Denver Metro Area



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

## Measurements by Time of Day

El Paso County

Northern Front Range

Denver Metro Area

### 23 

## C. Composition of Vehicles Measured Table III-2, Source of Vehicle Re gistrations Measured by RSD, shows the number of vehicles registered in each program area and the area wher e they were measured. The majority (98%) of Denver Metropolitan Area registered vehicles were measured w ithin the DMA. A majority (77%) of Northern Front Range registered vehicl es were measured in NFR with the remaining 23% being measured in the DMA. Table III-3, Type of Vehicles Measured by RSD within Registration Jurisdiction, shows that 79.7% of vehicles measured were registered in the DMA, 10.8% in the NFR, 1.6% in El Paso County (Colorado Springs), 3.6% in other non-I/M counties, and 4.3% were not matched. This can occur when plates are transferred by an owner to a new vehicle. These numbers are indicative of on-road activity – not unique registrations. The sa me vehicle may be measured more than once.
Table III-4 shows the distribut ion of vehicle measurements by vehicle type, age group and registration jurisdiction. The vehi cle types were identified by the Polk VIN decoder. The model years of 1980 and older vehicles and some of th e newest models were determined from the registration information but the vehicle type wa s not available. These were classified as Unknown in Table III-3. Four h undred sixty-five measurements of motorcycles were also recorded.

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

### Measured In Denver Metro Area Northern Front Range El Paso Adams 830,209 98% 17,376 2% 233 0% 847,818 Arapahoe 724,946 98% 14,063 2% 608 0% 739,617 Boulder 343,250 95% 19,889 5% 55 0% 363,194 Broomfield 205,812 99% 2,469 1% 22 0% 208,303 Denver 914,792 98% 15,654 2% 600 0% 931,046 Douglas 806,102 99% 6,244 1% 673 0% 813,019 Jefferson 1,404,645 99% 11,888 1% 315 0% 1,416,848 State of Colorado 25,658 85% 4,009 13% 357 1% 30,024 Subtotal Denver Metro 5,255,414 98% 91,592 2% 2,863 0% 5,349,869 Larimer 55,554 14% 333,369 86% 89 0% 389,012 Weld 108,180 32% 225,553 68% 86 0% 333,819 Subtotal Northern Front Range 163,734 23% 558,922 77% 175 0% 722,831
El Paso El Paso 85,039 79% 5,804 5% 17,398 16% 108,241
Non I/M 217,540 90% 21,825 9% 1,032 0% 240,397 Not Matched 289,198 Total 5,721,727 678,143 21,468 6,710,536 

### Registered

Count y Total

Northern Front Range Denver Metro Area 

### Program

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

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

### Program County Pass Truck Unknown Total % Adams 340,951 503,676 3,191 847,818 12.6% Arapahoe 308,905 428,482 2,230 739,617 11.0% Boulder 167,557 194,531 1,106 363,194 5.4% Broomfield 93,733 113,998 572 208,303 3.1% Denver 396,661 529,474 4,911 931,046 13.9% Douglas 284,314 527,344 1,360 813,018 12.1% Jefferson 584,146 828,409 4,293 1,416,848 21.1% State of Colorado 8,762 20,567 695 30,024 0.4% Denver Metro 2,185,029 3,146,481 18,358 5,349,868 79.7% Larimer 152,712 234,015 2,285 389,012 5.8% Weld 132,925 199,193 1,701 333,819 5.0% Subtotal North Front Range 285,637 433,208 3,986 722,831 10.8%
El Paso El Paso 44,436 63,171 634 108,241 1.6%
Non I/M 86,076 152,109 2,212 240,397 3.6% Not Matched 289,199 4.3%
Total 2,601,178 3,794,969 25,190 6,710,536 100.0% Denver Metro

Northern Front Range



### Vehicle

Type Model Year Denver Metro Area Northern Front Range El Paso NonI/M Total Pass 1981 & older 322 74 8 23 427 1982-1990 37,203 6,400 830 2,628 47,061 1991-1995 141,458 21,866 2,818 7,051 173,193 1996-2000 422,976 58,897 8,352 17,462 507,687 2001-2005 704,509 94,559 14,286 28,241 841,595 2006-2010 658,390 81,696 13,924 24,416 778,426 2011 & newer 220,171 22,145 4,218 6,255 252,789 Light Truck 1981 & older 371 151 13 120 655 1982-1990 29,705 6,257 712 2,692 39,366 1991-1995 118,236 20,502 2,501 7,872 149,111 1996-2000 506,465 73,790 9,762 25,943 615,960 2001-2005 1,068,502 147,376 22,277 50,183 1,288,338 2006-2010 1,077,395 142,611 21,794 50,355 1,292,155 2011 & newer 345,807 42,521 6,112 14,944 409,384 Unknown 1981 & older 10,272 2,266 309 1,365 14,212 1982-1990 276 87 54 81 498 1991-1995 427 102 17 66 612 1996-2000 1,509 268 37 147 1,961 2001-2005 2,084 423 87 181 2,775 2006-2010 2,130 621 72 194 3,017 2011 & newer 815 155 19 93 1,082 Motorcycles 277 64 39 85 465 Total 5,349,300 722,831 108,241 240,397 6,420,769

### 25 

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

In 2012, there were 289,965 vehicles qualifying for pa rticipation in the cl ean screen program. Table IV-1 summarizes the monthly number of vehi cles meeting screening criteria each month, to include the number withheld for the random sample and the number rejected through QA checks. A random sample of two percent of vehicles meeting Clean Screen criteria are not mailed notices. These vehicles are required to go to a te st station to obtain the station-based emission inspection. This random sample of vehicles is us ed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Clean Screen program.
Not all vehicles notified for clean screen or w ithheld in the random sample redeem the clean screen or obtain a test at that time, for exam ple vehicles changing owner were likely to have obtained an earlier station inspection. Compared to the 280,310 vehicles notified in the year, fewer vehicles 248,224 (88.6%) obtained a clean screen.

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



## Table IV-2 lists the number of vehicles by month and city notified via the Department of Revenue. Table IV-3 shows insp ection results of the audit sample. Just 0.9% of the audit sample failed their exhaust emissions inspection up from 0.3% in 2011. Gas cap pressure test failures of 3.3% were also up from 2.8% in 2011. Reg Year Reg Month Random Sample QA failed Notified Total Qualified Random % of Qualified 2012 Jan 500 256 24,106 24,862 2.0% 2012 Feb 492 251 23,793 24,536 2.0% 2012 Mar 526 308 25,655 26,489 2.0% 2012 Apr 478 224 23,047 23,749 2.0% 2012 May 492 245 23,692 24,429 2.0% 2012 Jun 471 269 22,854 23,594 2.0% 2012 Jul 510 261 24,619 25,390 2.0% 2012 Aug 545 871 25,284 26,700 2.0% 2012 Sep 500 402 23,868 24,770 2.0% 2012 Oct 507 310 24,223 25,040 2.0% 2012 Nov 407 230 19,524 20,161 2.0% 2012 Dec 401 199 19,645 20,245 2.0% Total 5,829 3,826 280,310 289,965 2.0%

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

Table IV-3 Clean Screen Audit Test Pass / Fail Statistics Registration Renewal Month City Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul A ug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total DENVER 4,177 4,195 4,374 4,043 4,275 4,194 4,390 4,468 4,066 3,979 3,338 3,021 48,520 AURORA 1,609 1,566 1,868 1,631 1,696 1,610 1,766 1,879 1,775 1,785 1,453 1,426 20,064 LITTLETON 1,318 1,301 1,455 1,217 1,259 1,239 1,351 1,336 1,398 1,437 1,179 1,172 15,662 ARVADA 1,324 1,253 1,367 1,276 1,341 1,233 1,373 1,341 1,311 1,340 990 1,008 15,157 LAKEWOOD 1,147 1,126 1,321 1,166 1,175 1,055 1,141 1,235 1,182 1,229 985 972 13,734 HIGHLAND RCH 1,083 1,133 1,104 1,061 1,042 990 1,165 1,188 1,105 1,187 941 951 12,950 WESTMINSTER 985 1,033 1,113 994 1,052 1,020 1,076 1,095 1,074 1,091 797 826 12,156 THORNTON 1,004 994 1,040 924 951 925 994 974 930 955 750 776 11,217 FT COLLINS 977 895 982 813 805 831 999 1,050 910 947 723 865 10,797 CENTENNIAL 934 883 866 796 837 721 906 928 858 891 770 694 10,084 BOULDER 817 765 820 763 740 705 731 827 802 823 654 697 9,144 BROOMFIELD 741 676 793 716 724 694 815 838 760 799 612 620 8,788 CASTLE ROCK 719 744 798 657 727 653 757 751 754 708 578 565 8,411 PARKER 683 673 738 685 611 596 666 616 634 616 471 491 7,480 GOLDEN 651 617 677 643 601 553 581 617 573 604 472 481 7,070 LONGMONT 432 411 470 405 463 436 456 475 459 489 389 405 5,290 GREELEY 403 478 483 390 477 407 457 464 429 415 346 443 5,192 ENGLEWOOD 442 454 475 436 419 370 412 453 423 393 333 351 4,961 LOVELAND 353 402 421 408 378 372 423 438 359 378 342 391 4,665 BRIGHTON 273 301 322 272 306 309 309 293 253 271 210 209 3,328 COMMERCE CITY 270 286 286 283 299 341 286 276 229 255 177 201 3,189 NORTHGLENN 262 280 306 263 293 268 271 268 256 264 234 215 3,180 WHEAT RIDGE 278 253 271 256 234 298 253 275 250 278 228 236 3,110 LOUISVILLE 205 201 250 191 205 234 231 226 205 230 169 159 2,506 LAFAYETTE 217 190 215 206 176 200 229 215 230 221 181 162 2,442 EVERGREEN 228 198 204 191 187 208 210 187 190 206 165 162 2,336 LONE TREE 174 166 171 165 158 158 157 193 180 166 140 123 1,951 MORRISON 159 156 175 139 153 163 175 168 173 182 162 135 1,940 GREENWOOD VLG 209 167 178 157 169 140 168 162 145 161 119 94 1,869 WINDSOR 195 141 161 160 144 115 136 158 146 137 125 166 1,784 ERIE 157 142 179 157 149 135 136 148 134 128 121 152 1,738 CASTLE PNS N 144 146 137 132 133 126 146 163 143 145 109 105 1,629 SUPERIOR 144 127 142 120 139 129 141 141 129 121 119 106 1,558 CONIFER 59 81 99 83 87 81 100 89 113 97 74 89 1,052 EVANS 95 93 84 80 75 100 82 96 75 83 72 82 1,017 FREDERICK 71 56 76 56 89 78 83 72 76 63 57 85 862 JOHNSTOWN 70 72 85 59 61 71 59 76 50 61 67 72 803 FT LUPTON 81 71 96 77 66 81 73 51 57 50 34 49 786 LARKSPUR 58 72 69 53 65 55 45 71 57 61 51 53 710 OTHER 958 995 984 923 931 960 870 983 975 977 787 835 11,178 Total 24,106 23,793 25,655 23,047 23,692 22,854 24,619 25,284 23,868 24,223 19,524 19,645 280,310



### Vehicle Type Vehicles Fail Emissions Fail Gas Cap / Pressure Fail Inspection Passenger 1,968 22 59 82 Light Truck 2,627 19 92 103 Total 4,595 41 151 185 Percentage 0.9% 3.3% 4.0%

### 27 

## B. Clean Screen Program Effectiveness The emissions reductions obtained during the station testing of the audit samp le vehicles are used to project the total emissions re ductions foregone as a result of the Clean Screen program. Pass / Fail Statistics Matching initial tests for audit vehicles were limited to those occurring after the second RSD measurement and before expiration of the assigned Clean Screen period. Matching reinspections following an initial failure were sought through the end of February 2013. The inspections identified for audit sample vehicles and the inspection results are tabulated in Table IV-3. As noted earlier, some of the anticipated random vehicles did not obtain a test within the Clean Screen period. In aggregate, 0.9% of th e tested audit vehicles failed their tailpipe emissions inspection, and 3.3% of the tested audi t vehicles failed their gas cap pressure test 2



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

Tailpipe Emissions Over 91% of inspected vehicles, and 99% of the clean screen audi t vehicles, were tested using IM240. Models inspected using the idle test included 1981- and-older models and 1982-andnewer trucks over 8500 lbs GWWR plus some fou r-wheel drive and traction control vehicles. Few of these were clean screened. The IM240 te st provides a more accurate estimate of in-use vehicle exhaust emissions than the idle tailpipe te st. Therefore, the resu lts of the clean screen audit sample vehicles tested using IM240 were used to evaluate the exhaust emissions effectiveness of the clean screen program.
Vehicle test results were sorted by VIN and test date. Vehicles we re then further classified based on their first and last test result during th e period. To avoid potential double counting of emissions reductions, the emissions analysis only considered the first and last result for each vehicle during the year and inte rim results were ignored. In the list below, the first and last results are in dicated in parenthesis, where P is pass, F is fail, W is waiver and null indicates th ere was only a single test result for a particular vehicle. The expected combinations applying to the va st majority of vehicles 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)

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

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

### 28 

## 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 results for vehi cles fast-passing the IM240 inspection must be extrapolated. A method for projecting full test emissions was developed and implemented in the I/M program in 1996 4 

## and the projected full test emissions values are stored in the test records and reported as the emissions results. Unresolved Vehicles When vehicles fail their initial in spection, they must obtain a repair and return for re-inspection. This process is normally completed in 30 days, bu t can take longer. Vehi cles having initial tests in late 2012 but completing repair and final test after February of the following year are treated as unresolved. Thus, the “Fail unresolved ” category may be somewhat over-stated. A number of vehicles never complete the repair /re-inspection process. In most cases, these vehicles are either scrapped or removed fr om the non-attainment area, which does reduce emissions in the area. Surveys in Arizona 5 

## and Colorado 6 

## found that some vehicles continued to operate in the area in violation of the program rules, either with expired lic ense plates or with stolen license plates or license plate stickers. In this report, it is assumed that two-thirds of these unresolved vehicles leave the area and one third c ontinues to operate. Later studies in Colorado preliminarily indicate the percentage l eaving the area may be as high as 80%.
To minimize the number of unresolved Clean Screen audit vehicles, retests of audit vehicles were included through the end of February 2013 and the audit ve hicles were all assumed to remain in the area.
First and Final Emissions Results Table IV-4 contains an example of the initial and final tailpipe results for 1982 to 1985 passenger vehicles inspected using the IM24 0 test. The table shows the av erage initial and average final emissions for each group of vehicles t ogether with the percentage reduction. For example, of the 1,271 1985 model year passenge r vehicles tested using the IM240 transient test, 17.6% of vehicles initially failed inspection and were repair ed (Pass) with HC, CO and NOx reductions of 56.8%, 69.1% and 7.8%. Another 8.3% of vehicles failed their initial inspection and had not successfully passed a retest by end February 2013 (Unresolved). Reductions from these vehicles are estimated to be approximate ly 67% for HC, CO and NOx, because follow-up studies have shown that more than two thirds cease operating in the area. Finally, 0.6% of vehicles were waived (Waiver) with HC, CO and NOx reductions of 14.7%, 2.0% and 58.3%. In aggregate, including vehicles passing their initial inspection, emi ssion reductions for 1985 passenger vehicles were 32.7% for HC, 39.1% for CO and 7.3% for NOx. Complete tables by model year and vehicle type are provided in Appendix A for vehicles tested using the IM240. Tables are also provided fo r the Clean Screen audit sample vehicles.29Table IV-4 Transient Test Emission Reductions for 1982-1985 Passenger VehiclesColorado 2012 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 - 332 1.57 18.62 2.14 1.57 18.62 2.14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 88 19.4% 3.57 54.77 2.11 1.68 20.21 2.18 52.9% 63.1% -3.3%Fail Unresolv. 30 6.6% 6.56 73.58 2.62 1.89 23.65 0.89 71.1% 67.9% 66.1%Fail Waiver 3 0.7% 5.12 158.57 0.31 2.72 112.36 0.37 46.8% 29.1% -19.1%Total Fail% 453 26.7% 2.31 30.21 2.16 1.62 19.88 2.06 29.9% 34.2% 4.7%1983 Pass - 334 1.34 13.07 2.05 1.34 13.07 2.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 109 21.7% 3.44 49.99 2.10 1.32 14.15 2.02 61.7% 71.7% 3.5%Fail Unresolv. 55 11.0% 4.98 78.39 1.66 1.58 25.81 0.54 68.3% 67.1% 67.3%Fail Waiver 4 0.8% 5.02 99.89 1.67 12.41 122.60 1.65 -147.0% -22.7% 0.9%Total Fail% 502 33.5% 2.22 28.93 2.01 1.45 15.57 1.88 34.8% 46.2% 6.9%1984 Pass - 981 1.24 11.05 1.94 1.24 11.05 1.94 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 204 15.9% 3.10 42.96 1.93 1.31 13.27 1.97 57.9% 69.1% -1.7%Fail Unresolv. 89 7.0% 4.96 75.26 1.94 1.70 27.41 0.59 65.7% 63.6% 69.4%Fail Waiver 5 0.4% 7.51 177.40 0.56 5.63 148.37 0.39 25.0% 16.4% 29.6%Total Fail% 1,279 23.3% 1.82 21.26 1.93 1.30 13.08 1.84 28.6% 38.5% 4.6%1985 Pass - 934 1.03 10.68 1.93 1.03 10.68 1.93 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%P Fail Pass 224 17.6% 2.69 31.72 2.08 1.16 9.81 1.92 56.8% 69.1% 7.8%Fail Unresolv. 105 8.3% 4.99 66.00 1.95 1.62 20.26 0.63 67.5% 69.3% 68.0%Fail Waiver 8 0.6% 8.18 111.89 1.52 6.98 109.65 0.63 14.7% 2.0% 58.3%Total Fail% 1,271 26.5% 1.69 19.59 1.96 1.14 11.94 1.81 32.7% 39.1% 7.3%

### 30 

## Audit Sample Reductions and Projected Impact Table IV-5 shows the aggregate first and fina l results for the 99% of the inspected audit sample vehicles tested using IM240. The average per vehicle emissions reductions from the audit sample are multiplied by the number of exempted clean screen vehicles to project the reductions that could have been achieved if the clean screen vehicles had instead been inspected at the stations. This amount is then compared to the total emission reductions from vehicles tested at stations to determine th e impact of the Clean Screen program and the percentage of emissions reductions retained. For vehicles subject to the IM240 test, the Clean Screen program retained 97.3% of the exhaust HC and CO reductions and 95.2% of NOx reductions. These reductions assume all vehicles are driven the same number of miles each year. Mileage adjusted emission reductions are calculated in section V.

Table IV-5 Clean Screen Emissions Impact for Tailpipe Emissions 

## IM240 Tailpipe Emissions Vehicles HC g/mi CO g/mi NOx g/mi Audit Sample 4,530 Mean Initial 0.106 1.784 0.311 Mean Final 0.098 1.684 0.298 Emissions reduction 0.008 0.101 0.013

Clean Screens 248,224 Potential Reductions 2,063 24,980 3,204

Station Vehicles 825,828 Mean Initial 0.340 4.475 0.696 Mean Final 0.251 3.369 0.619 Emissions reduction 0.089 1.106 0.077

In station reductions 73,834 913,391 63,444

Combined CS & Stn 1,074,052 75,896 938,370 66,649 Clean Screen Impact 2.7% 2.7% 4.8% Retained Reductions 97.3% 97.3% 95.2%

### 31 

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



## . Figure IV-1 compares the average gas cap fail ure rate of the Clean Screen audit sample vehicles to the average failure ra te of the non-audit vehicles tested at stations. The failure rate of vehicles exempted via Clean Screen met hods was 19% lower than the failure rate of vehicles receiving a station-base d test (See Figure IV-1). Th is result is expected because remote sensing is directed towards measuring tail pipe emissions. A gas cap evaporative leak would have to be quite large to be detected by RSD units. Clean screen models were newer than the overall tested fleet. Figure IV-1 Gas Cap Pressure Failure Rates

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

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

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

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

Pressure Failure Missing Cap
Nature of Failure 

## 2012 Gas Cap Pressure Failure Rates

Clean Screen Station

### 32 

## idle tests as well as those test ed using IM240. Vehicles with a redeemed Clean Screen notice account for 18% of the total possible gas cap fail ures. Therefore, 82% 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, MOVES, was used to estimat e the fraction of emissions benefits derived from gas cap inspections. CDPHE provided results from MOVES models of the benefits of the I/M program for 2012. The projected average reduction in HC emissions of the area fleet was 0.169 g/mi. This was comprised of 0.145 g/mi resulting from exhaus t emissions inspections and 0.024 g/mi from the Gas Cap testing. The measured I/M exhaus t reductions (see secti on V) were 697.2 tons. Assuming the 0.145 g/mi corresponded to 696.7 tons , the Gas Cap related HC reductions were projected to be 114.7 tons. Thes e results are shown in Table IV -7. The RapidScreen impact was projected as 20.6 tons or 2.5% of the I/M program reductions.

Table IV-6 Clean Screen Impact on Evaporative HC Emissions



## Initial Tests Pressure Failure Missing Cap Total Fails RapidScreen Audit 4,595 143 8 151 3.1% 0.2% 3.3%


## Projected RapidScreen 248,224 7,725 432 8,157

Station GC Tests 926,945 35,722 1,553 37,275 3.9% 0.2% 4.0% 

## Total Program 1,175,169 43,447 1,985 45,432 RapidScreen Impact 21.1% 17.8% 21.8% 18.0% Retained Reductions 78.9% 82.2% 78.2% 82.0%

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



## MOVES Estimates (from CDPHE) 2012 MOVES g/mi HC I/M 2012 HC tons I/M Exhaust emission reductions 0.145 697.2 Projected Gas Cap Evap Emissions reductions 0.024 114.7 I/M Program total HC reductions 0.169 811.9
Gas Cap Evap RapidScreen impact 18.0% 0.004 20.6 % of I/M program HC benefit 2.5%

### 34 

## D. Hybrid RSD-LEI vs. 2-hit RSD Envirotest compared the effectiveness of th e ‘Hybrid’ and ‘2-RSD’ screening methods. The Hybrid method uses a single RSD measurement and a low emitter index (LEI) table. The 2- RSD method uses two RSD measurements. The audit sample of vehicles with IM240 tests contained 3,182 ve hicles screened using the 2- RSD method and 1,349 vehicles screened using Hybrid RSD-LEI method. Table IV-8 shows the emissions reductions for these two samples a nd the average for all vehicles inspected at stations. Figures IV-2 and IV -3 show the average initial em issions and emissions reductions for each sample.
The 2-RSD method audit vehicles had initial em issions that were 42%, 50% and 56% of the overall I/M fleet average for HC and CO a nd NOx respectively. These percentages were similar to the equivalent percentages in 2011 of 40%, 50% and 59% respectively. The Hybrid RSD-LEI method audit vehicles had lower initial em issions that were 26%, 38% and 39% of the I/M fleet average for HC and CO and NOx respectively. These percentages were lower than the 2010 equivalents of 32%, 42% and 51% Average I/M emissions reductions for the 2-RSD audit vehicles were 3.8%, 3.4% and 3.0% of fleet average initial emissions for HC and CO and NOx respectively. These percentages were higher than the comparable percentages in 2011 of 0.9%, 2.3% and 0.9%. Average emissions reductions for the Hybrid RSD-LEI audit vehicl es were 0.8%, 0.9% and 0.1% of fleet average initial emissions for HC and CO and NOx respectively and were similar to the comparable 2011 percentages of 1.0%, 0.4% and 0.0%. Average re ductions in station te sted vehicles were 31.2%, 28.7% and 12.7% for HC, CO and NOx respectively. The Hybrid RSD-LEI audit vehicles had lowe r initial emissions of HC, CO and NOx and smaller reductions than the 2-RSD audit vehicles . Consideration should be given to adjusting the 2-RSD standards. The RSD-LEI method sta ndards are in part automatically adjusted by annual updates to the LEI table.

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



## Figure IV-2 Average In itial IM240 Emissions Vehicle IM240 Tailpipe Emissions Sample Vehicles HC g/mi CO g/mi NOx g/mi I/M vehicle initial mean emissions 0.286 3.853 0.607

2-RSD Audits 3,181 Mean Initial 0.120 1.914 0.341 Mean Final 0.109 1.785 0.323 Emissions reduction 0.011 0.129 0.018 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissio n 3.8% 3.4% 3.0%
Hybrid Audits 1,349 Mean Initial 0.074 1.478 0.239 Mean Final 0.072 1.444 0.239 Emissions reduction 0.002 0.034 0.001 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissio n 0.8% 0.9% 0.1%

All Station Tests 825,828 Mean Initial 0.340 4.475 0.696 Mean Final 0.251 3.369 0.619 Emissions reduction 0.089 1.106 0.077 % of I/M vehicle initial mean emissio n 31.2% 28.7% 12.7%

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40Station2-RSDRSDLEIg/mi HC

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0Station2-RSDRSDLEI 

### CO

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80Station2-RSDRSDLEI 

### NOx

### 36 

## Figure IV-3 Average IM240 Emissions Reductions

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10Station2-RSDRSD-LEIg/mi HC

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2Station2-RSDRSD-LEI 

### CO

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10Station2-RSDRSD-LEI 

### NOx

### 37 

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

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

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

### 38 

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

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

y = 1.0336x R 2 = 0.9242

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 

### Idle HC ppmRSD HC ppm 

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

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

- 100 200 300 400 500 600 

### Idle HC ppmRSD HC ppm 

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

y = 1.3267x R 2 = 0.712

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

### Idle CO %RSD CO %



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

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

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 

### Idle CO %RSD CO %



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

### 39 

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

Table V-2 High Speed Idle to IM240



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

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

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 

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

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

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 

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

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

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

### Idle CO %RSD CO %

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

y = 1.4699x R 2 = 0.8185

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 

### Idle CO %RSD CO %



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

### 40 

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

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

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

0 50 100 150 200 250 

### RSD HC ppmIM240 HC g/mi

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

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

0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 

### RSD CO %IM240 CO g/mi

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

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

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 

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

y = 0.0111x R 2 = 0.9756

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 

### RSD HC ppmIM240 HC g/mi

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

y = 18.765x R 2 = 0.9368

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 

### RSD CO %IM240 CO g/mi

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

y = 0.0016x + 0.3013 R 2 = 0.9785

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

0 500 1000 1500 2000 

### RSD NO ppmIM240 NOx g/mi

### 41 

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



## . The estimated annual mileages are shown in Ta ble V-3 for LDGVs and LDGTs. In Table VI3 the mileage accumulation rates for LDGT2, 3 a nd 4 were weighted together to obtain a single LDGT value. This table i ndicates that newer model year ve hicles are driven more miles annually than older vehicles. It also indica tes that 1997 and newer model year LDGTs, which emit greater masses of pollution than LDGVs are driven more miles annually than 1997 and newer model year LDGVs.
`

Table V-3 Estimated Annual Mileage in 2012 Year LDGV LDGT 1982 4304 4,550 1983 4304 4,554 1984 4304 4,562 1985 4434 4,583 1986 4481 4,630 1987 4502 4,668 1988 4552 4,741 1989 4,780 4,851 1990 5,088 5,019 1991 5,430 5,256 1992 5,672 5,519 1993 6,002 5,824 1994 6,331 6,135 1995 6,653 6,471 1996 6,974 6,940 1997 7,369 7,437 1998 7,764 7,863 1999 8,188 8,345 2000 8,613 8,900 2001 9,032 9,502 2002 9,450 10,087 2003 9,905 10,727 2004 10,360 11,245 2005 10,746 11,817 2006 11,132 12,303 2007 11,870 12,834 2008 12,023 13,215 2009 12,307 13,433 2010 12,357 13,514 2011 11,600 12,428 2012 9,650 8,995

### 42 

## C. Annual Emissions Reductions Annual tons of emissions were projected for vehicle type and model year by multiplying the numbers of vehicles by annual mileage and av erage g/mi emission levels. Results were projected for initial tests and final tests to determ ine the initial and final tons of emissions and, therefore, the tons of reducti on. The results are listed in Appe ndix B for IM240 and Idle tests.
Table V-4 first shows the reductions from the Cl ean Screen audit tests. Based on the audit tests, the second part of the table projects the potential re ductions from the Clean Screen vehicles if all vehicles with redeemed Clean Sc reen notices had been tested at a station. The third part of the table shows the reductions from the vehicles tested at inspection stations, which includes the Clean Screen audit vehicles. The total potential 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 2012, the Cl ean Screen program retained 94.8%, 97.1% and 93.9% respectively of potential HC, CO and NOx emission reductions in vehicles subject to testing. For vehicles initially tested in calendar year 2012, the I/M Program is projected to have eliminated 770.1 tons of HC, 8,377.1 tons of CO and 538.2 tons of NOx for one year of vehicle travel – based on the IM240 driving cycle. Because the program is biennial, these reductio ns are approximately half of the reductions that would be measured over a full two-year cycle of the program.
The tons of reductions cited here do not relate di rectly to the total mobile emissions inventory. The reductions cited are for tailpipe emissions a nd are in terms of the IM240 driving cycle. State Implementation Plan reductions are based on different driving cycles, are subject to many adjustments for speed, road type, temperat ure, air conditioning loads, etc., and therefore are larger than the IM24 0 measured reductions. As noted earlier, the reductions shown do not include reducti ons from maintenance actions performed on vehicles before their initial in spection. These may be quite substantial, especially for OBD-II vehicles that turn on the ch eck engine light to alert owners to problems.

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

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

### 43 Table V-4 Estimated Annual Tons of Reduction (IM240 and Idle Tested Vehicles

* NOx is not reported for idle tests.



## Table V-4 also shows that, during calenda r year 2012, 248,224 vehicles were exempted through Clean Screen, and 902,338 vehicles received a station test. Ther efore, 21.6% of the 1,150,562 unique vehicles were Clean Screened.
If the fraction of Clean Screen vehicles had be en 30% of vehicles subject to inspection there would have been 345,159 Clean Screens and 805,393 St ation tests. Assuming this increase was achieved by increasing on-road fleet coverage rather than by relaxing the Clean Screen standards, the projected emissions reta ined would have been 92.8%, 95.6% and 90.8% respectively of potentia l HC, CO and NOx tailpipe emission reductions. Audit Vehicle Reductions (IM240 tons/yr)

Audit Tests Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx Enhanced IM240 4,530 0.39 4.64 0.63

Potential from RS Vehicles (IM240 tons/yr)
RapidScreen Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx Enhanced Area 248,224 21.3 254.3 34.7 Gas Cap estimate from Mobile6 20.6

Station Reductions (IM240 tons/yr)

Station I/M Vehicles Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx Enhanced IM240 825,828 526.6 6,601.4 538.2 Enhanced Idle* 76,510 149.3 1,775.7 Gas Cap scaled from MOVES 94.1 902,338 770.1 8,377.1 538.2

Total Potential Reductions 811.9 8,631.4 572.9 RapidScreen Exhaust Impact 2.6% 2.9% 6.1% Rapidscreen Gas Cap Impact 2.5% Retained Reductions 94.8% 97.1% 93.9%

### 44 

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

## contained an extensive ‘what if’ anal ysis to determine how clean screen standards could be adjusted to match the May 5, 2008 changes in I/M standards. Since then the LEI table has been updated several times to reflect the results of those changes and an RSD NO standard of 1000 ppm was implemented. The changes have improved results and resulted in fewer lost emissions reductions in 2011 and 2012. In previous years the RSD-2 method was equally or more effective than the RSDLEI method but in 2012, the RSD-2 method was le ss effective than the RSD-LEI method. Clean screens using the RSD-LEI method have fallen from 45% of the total in 2008 to 30% in 2012. This reduction is a combination the effec tive tightening of the LEI to match the new standards and an increase in the fraction of vehicles with two RSD measurements.
It would be beneficial to conti nue to refine methods and procedur es to ensure the clean screen program continues to provide convenience to as many vehicle owners as possible consistent with maintaining air quality goals.

### 45 

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

 most 2009 and newer models not ye t subject to inspection;

 any estimate of pre-inspection emission reductions;

 NOx emissions for 76,510 vehicles tested w ith the idle test: 1981 and older models 13,896 (18%), 1982 and newer trucks 58,446 (76%), and 1982 & newer passenger vehicles 4,168 (5%). The Figures VII-1 to 6 illustrate that older ve hicles, which are fewer in number and driven fewer miles each year, still contribute many t ons of excess emissions in the I/M area – especially old trucks.

### 46 

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

Figure VII-2 LDGT HC Reductions and Remaining Emissions 0 50 100 150 200 250P 1965&olderP 1966-70P 1971-75P 1976-81P 1982P 1983P 1984P 1985P 1986P 1987P 1988P 1989P 1990P 1991P 1992P 1993P 1994P 1995P 1996P 1997P 1998P 1999P 2000P 2001P 2002P 2003P 2004P 2005P 2006P 2007P 2008P 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012 

### IM240 Equivalent 

### Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2012 Passenger HC
Idle Reduction HC IM240 Reduction HC Idle Final HC IM240 Final HC Clean Screen Vehicles HC



### 0 50 100 150 200 250T 1965&olderT 1966-70T 1971-75T 1976-81T 1982T 1983T 1984T 1985T 1986T 1987T 1988T 1989T 1990T 1991T 1992T 1993T 1994T 1995T 1996T 1997T 1998T 1999T 2000T 2001T 2002T 2003T 2004T 2005T 2006T 2007T 2008T 2009T 2010T 2011T 2012 

### IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2012 Light Truck HC
Idle Reduction HC IM240 Reduction HC Idle Final HC IM240 Final HC Clean Screen Vehicles HC

### 47 

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

Figure VII-4 LDGT CO Reductions and Remaining Emissions 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500P 1965&olderP 1966-70P 1971-75P 1976-81P 1982P 1983P 1984P 1985P 1986P 1987P 1988P 1989P 1990P 1991P 1992P 1993P 1994P 1995P 1996P 1997P 1998P 1999P 2000P 2001P 2002P 2003P 2004P 2005P 2006P 2007P 2008P 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012 IM240 Equivalent 

### Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2012 Passenger CO
Idle Reduction CO IM240 Reduction CO Idle Final CO IM240 Final CO Clean Screen Vehicles CO



### 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500T 1965&olderT 1966-70T 1971-75T 1976-81T 1982T 1983T 1984T 1985T 1986T 1987T 1988T 1989T 1990T 1991T 1992T 1993T 1994T 1995T 1996T 1997T 1998T 1999T 2000T 2001T 2002T 2003T 2004T 2005T 2006T 2007T 2008T 2009T 2010T 2011T 2012 

### IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2012 Light Truck CO
Idle Reduction CO IM240 Reduction CO Idle Final CO IM240 Final CO Clean Screen Vehicles CO

### 48 

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

Figure VII-6 LDGT NOx Reductions and Remaining Emissions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500P 1965&olderP 1966-70P 1971-75P 1976-81P 1982P 1983P 1984P 1985P 1986P 1987P 1988P 1989P 1990P 1991P 1992P 1993P 1994P 1995P 1996P 1997P 1998P 1999P 2000P 2001P 2002P 2003P 2004P 2005P 2006P 2007P 2008P 2009P 2010P 2011P 2012 IM240 Equivalent 

### Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2012 Passenger NOx Idle Reduction NOx n/a IM240 Reduction NOx Idle Final NOx n/a IM240 Final NOx Clean Screen Vehicles NOx



### 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500T 1965&olderT 1966-70T 1971-75T 1976-81T 1982T 1983T 1984T 1985T 1986T 1987T 1988T 1989T 1990T 1991T 1992T 1993T 1994T 1995T 1996T 1997T 1998T 1999T 2000T 2001T 2002T 2003T 2004T 2005T 2006T 2007T 2008T 2009T 2010T 2011T 2012 

### IM240 Equivalent Exhaust Tons Per Year in 2012 Light Truck NOx
Idle Reduction NOx n/a IM240 Reduction NOx Idle Final NOx n/a IM240 Final NOx Clean Screen Vehicles NOx

### 49 

## VIII. RapidScreen Benefits
Rapidscreen provided benefits to vehicle owners of $5.1M th rough reduced time and expense associated with eliminated insp ection station visits. The elimination of station inspections also yielded net saving s in greenhouse gases and 200,809 gallons of gasoline. This section summarizes the operational costs and bene fits of the Rapidscreen program.
A. Greenhouse Gas and Pollutants fr om Clean Screen Operations

The following were considered in deriving the net emissions, greenhouse gas and fuel use associated with the RapidScreen program:

- RSD van operations;

- RSD generators;

- RSD unit calibration and audit gases;

- Reductions from eliminated trips to inspection stations.
Table VIII-1 summarizes these amounts.

Table VIII-1 Reductions in Greenhouse Gases an d Pollutants from RapidScreen Operations



## 1. RapidScreen Operating Vehicles Emissions and fuel usage of RSD vans, audit truc ks and maintenance vehicles associated with the RapidScreen program were developed from the average IM 240 emissions of each vehicle from all inspections performed from 2010 through 2012. Idle test emissions were converted to IM240 g/mi using the conversion factors describe d in Section V. Emissions were scaled up to match MOVES estimates of running emissions vs. IM240. The scalin g factors were 1.0 for hydrocarbons, 1.92 for CO and 2.23 for NO x 

## . Odometer changes were pro-rated to provide annual mileages. Fuel use was calculated usin g EPA city fuel economies for the vehicle Activity HC t/y r CO t/yr NOx t/yr CO2 t/y r Fuel gal. RapidScreen Operations RapidScreen operating vehicles (vans, audit trucks, maintenance) 0.054 1.50 0.065 94.6 10,605 Generators 1.038 25.37 0.091 61.3 10,685 Calibration and audit gases 0.005 0.05 0.003 0.5 Total Rapidscreen operations 1.097 26.92 0.159 156.4 21,290
RapidScreen Vehicle Emission Reductions Station trip, waiting & testing 0.522 13.02 2.513 1981.1 222,098

Net benefit (cost) (0.58) (13.90) 2.354 1824.7 200,809

### 50 

## models or similar models. CO 2 

## tons were calculated at the rate of 8.92 x 10 -3 

## tons per gallon (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/ener gy-resources/refs.html).
2. Generators Typical emissions and CO 2 

## grams over a four minute peri od were obtained by collecting emissions from two generators using lane IM24 0 equipment. Emissions were collected from the generator while another vehicle was dr iven on the dynamometer. Emissions and CO 2 

## grams were then multiplied by 15 to obtain g/ hour and by the Active Collection Van Hours from Table III-1. Fuel gallons were back calculated from CO 2 

## tons. Envirotest is investigating replacement of existing generators with newer, lower emitting models that would eliminate 67% of HC em issions and up to 98% of the generator NOx emissions.
3. Calibration and Audit Gases Calibration and Audit Gas emissions were calculated directly from the use estimates presented in Table VIII-2. The liters of calibration and audit gases at 70F and normal pressure were multiplied by the pollutant concentration percentages and by the pollutant mass per liter to obtain tons.

Table VIII-2 Calibration and Audit Gas Emissions



## 4. RapidScreen Vehicle Emissions Reductions The RapidScreen program eliminated the ne ed for 248,224 station insp ections that would otherwise require travel , waiting and inspection. RSD VANS AL Cyls BL Cyls CL Cyls Liters at 70F NP CO % CO2 % HC % NO % HC PPM NOX PPM CO tons CO2 tons HC tons NO tons Calibration 240 30 0 1,028,820 3.00 12.90 0.15 0.15 1500 1500 0.0425 0.2874 0.0033 0.0023 2 Point Audit 80 10 342,940 0.50 14.70 0.04 0.10 400 1000 0.0024 0.1092 0.0003 0.0005 ATP / DOR A 12 0 47,916 0.00 15.05 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.0000 0.0156 0.0000 0.0000 F 12 0 16 61,964 5.00 11.55 0.60 0.03 6000 250 0.0043 0.0155 0.0008 0.0000 G 12 0 47,916 0.20 14.91 0.01 0.15 100 1500 0.0001 0.0155 0.0000 0.0001 H 12 0 47,916 0.30 14.84 0.02 0.10 200 1000 0.0002 0.0154 0.0000 0.0001 J 12 0 16 61,964 0.50 14.70 0.04 0.10 400 1000 0.0004 0.0197 0.0001 0.0001 K 12 0 47,916 1.00 14.34 0.05 0.03 500 300 0.0007 0.0149 0.0001 0.0000 L 12 0 47,916 1.50 13.99 0.07 0.01 700 100 0.0010 0.0145 0.0001 0.0000 Q 12 0 16 61,964 3.00 12.92 0.11 0.05 1100 500 0.0026 0.0173 0.0001 0.0000 Total 416 40 48 1,797,232 0.0541 0.5249 0.0048 0.0031

Capacities and g/l AL Cyls BL Cyls CL Cyls CO % CO2 % HC % NO % Cylinder L @2000psi 29.5 15.7 5.9 Mol. Wt 28 44 44 30 Liters gas at 70F NP 3993 2350 878 g/l 1.3 2.0 2.0 1.3

### 51 

## The average round trip to a station was estimated to be 9.5 miles. For every two minutes a car is idling, it uses about the same amount of fuel it takes to go about one mile according to the Consumer Energy Center (http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/idling.html). This implies the average waiting time of 12.3 minutes was equivalent to 6.2 miles of driving. The equivalent of another equivalent 2.2 miles of driving was spent moving through the inspection lane for a total equivalent of 17.9 miles per insp ection. Eliminated trip/inspection emissions tons were calculated from the inspection mileage multiplied by the average IM240 g/mi emissions of the RapidScreen audit sample and the number of exempted vehicles. As noted above, IM240 emissions were scaled up to match MOVES estimates of running emissions vs. IM240. Gallons of fuel saved were estimated using an average of 20mpg.

B. RapidScreen Vehicle Owner Savings
Table VIII-3 quantifies the RapidS creen benefits to vehicle owners . The average round trip to an inspection station was assumed to take an average of 28.5 minutes (9.5 miles at 20mph). Average wait and test times we re 12.3 minutes and 15.0 minute respectively. The waiting and testing fuel consumption was estimated to be th e equivalent of drivin g another 8.4 miles. Vehicle owner time was assumed to be worth ha lf the State’s average hourly wage of $23 per hour, or $11.50 per hour. Travel savings from were calculated at the IR S rate of 55.5c per mile per IRS Notice IR-2011- 116, Dec. 9, 2011. Total savings were $5.1M or $20.63 per vehicle.

Table VIII-3 RapidScreen Vehicle Owner Savings 

### Activity Vehicles Minutes Hours Unit $ $'M Station round trip @ 20mph 248224 28.5 117906 11.50 $ 1.36 $ Testing 248224 15.0 62056 11.50 $ 0.71 $ Waiting 248224 12.3 50886 11.50 $ 0.59 $ Miles Driving miles equiv. 248224 17.9 0.56 $ 2.47 $ Total vehicle owner savings 5.12 $

### 52 

## IX. Recommendations
In 2012 the 2-RSD clean screening method was re latively less effect ive than the RSD-LEI method (see Figure 4.3). The stringency of th e RSD-LEI method has effectively tightened over time as the LEI table has been updated a nnually and older models no longer meeting the LEI fail rate threshold of 2% ar e dropped from consideration. On the other hand, the absolute effectiveness of the 2-RSD method in g/mi has not changed substantially since the introduction of the 1000 ppm NOx cutpoint in 2010. Changes to the program testing procedures are scheduled for 2015. New vehicles will be exempt for seven years instead of four years and most vehicles eight to eleven years old will be inspected using the OBD system instead of the IM240 test. Many vehicles failing OBD inspection do not have high exhaust emissions . Emissions control components can drift outside their design operating ra nge, thus triggering a malfunc tion light, before significantly increasing emissions. In this situation, the appl ication of a loose LEI standard to 2-RSD clean screen candidates is recommended to limit th e number of candidates passing the on-road emissions screen but failing OBD. Appropriate clean screen standards for th e new 2015 program could be evaluated and reviewed in the first quarter of 2014. This would allow tim e for regulatory approval and implementation of new standards in October 201 4 when clean screen no tices for January 2015 registrations will be prepared.

### 53 

# References

1 

### “ 

## The Colorado Remote Sensing Program January – December 2011”, Envirotest report for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, November 2012

2 

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

3 

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

4 

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

5 

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

6 

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

7 

### “ 

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

8 

### “ 

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

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 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 - 332 1.57 18.62 2.14 1.57 18.62 2.14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 88 19.4% 3.57 54.77 2.11 1.68 20.21 2.18 52.9% 63.1% -3.3% Fail Unresolv. 30 6.6% 6.56 73.58 2.62 1.89 23.65 0.89 71.1% 67.9% 66.1% Fail Waiver 3 0.7% 5.12 158.57 0.31 2.72 112.36 0.37 46.8% 29.1% -19.1% Total Fail% 453 26.7% 2.31 30.21 2.16 1.62 19.88 2.06 29.9% 34.2% 4.7%

1983 Pass - 334 1.34 13.07 2.05 1.34 13.07 2.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 109 21.7% 3.44 49.99 2.10 1.32 14.15 2.02 61.7% 71.7% 3.5% Fail Unresolv. 55 11.0% 4.98 78.39 1.66 1.58 25.81 0.54 68.3% 67.1% 67.3% Fail Waiver 4 0.8% 5.02 99.89 1.67 12.41 122.60 1.65 -147.0% -22.7% 0.9% Total Fail% 502 33.5% 2.22 28.93 2.01 1.45 15.57 1.88 34.8% 46.2% 6.9%

1984 Pass - 981 1.24 11.05 1.94 1.24 11.05 1.94 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 204 15.9% 3.10 42.96 1.93 1.31 13.27 1.97 57.9% 69.1% -1.7% Fail Unresolv. 89 7.0% 4.96 75.26 1.94 1.70 27.41 0.59 65.7% 63.6% 69.4% Fail Waiver 5 0.4% 7.51 177.40 0.56 5.63 148.37 0.39 25.0% 16.4% 29.6% Total Fail% 1,279 23.3% 1.82 21.26 1.93 1.30 13.08 1.84 28.6% 38.5% 4.6%

1985 Pass - 934 1.03 10.68 1.93 1.03 10.68 1.93 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 224 17.6% 2.69 31.72 2.08 1.16 9.81 1.92 56.8% 69.1% 7.8% Fail Unresolv. 105 8.3% 4.99 66.00 1.95 1.62 20.26 0.63 67.5% 69.3% 68.0% Fail Waiver 8 0.6% 8.18 111.89 1.52 6.98 109.65 0.63 14.7% 2.0% 58.3% Total Fail% 1,271 26.5% 1.69 19.59 1.96 1.14 11.94 1.81 32.7% 39.1% 7.3%

1986 Pass - 1,831 0.90 7.81 1.83 0.90 7.81 1.83 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 300 13.3% 2.85 30.56 2.19 1.04 9.35 1.81 63.3% 69.4% 17.3% Fail Unresolv. 112 5.0% 4.98 62.19 2.21 1.46 20.48 0.69 70.6% 67.1% 69.0% Fail Waiver 6 0.3% 7.08 92.18 0.76 4.64 59.21 1.26 34.5% 35.8% -66.0% Total Fail% 2,249 18.6% 1.38 13.78 1.90 0.95 8.78 1.77 30.7% 36.3% 6.6%

1987 Pass - 1,581 0.86 7.74 1.82 0.86 7.74 1.82 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 265 13.6% 2.58 29.94 2.16 1.03 9.37 1.69 60.0% 68.7% 21.6% Fail Unresolv. 101 5.2% 5.21 55.79 2.09 1.47 17.73 0.66 71.9% 68.2% 68.6% Fail Waiver 7 0.4% 3.89 34.76 2.42 2.90 37.15 2.23 25.5% -6.9% 7.9% Total Fail% 1,954 19.1% 1.33 13.33 1.88 0.92 8.58 1.74 30.7% 35.6% 7.3%

1988 Pass - 2,877 0.72 7.80 1.55 0.72 7.80 1.55 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 426 12.3% 2.33 30.17 1.88 0.85 8.06 1.61 63.5% 73.3% 14.4% Fail Unresolv. 158 4.6% 4.15 47.36 2.06 1.43 15.88 0.66 65.6% 66.5% 67.9% Fail Waiver 10 0.3% 2.22 38.83 1.55 2.99 44.38 1.53 -34.7% -14.3% 1.2% Total Fail% 3,471 17.1% 1.08 12.43 1.62 0.77 8.30 1.52 28.1% 33.2% 6.0%

1989 Pass - 2,775 0.73 7.99 1.62 0.73 7.99 1.62 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 444 13.1% 2.04 24.64 1.93 0.89 8.15 1.66 56.4% 66.9% 14.0% Fail Unresolv. 156 4.6% 4.27 48.62 2.12 1.28 15.18 0.73 69.9% 68.8% 65.7% Fail Waiver 8 0.2% 3.01 63.88 1.99 2.31 44.41 2.22 23.2% 30.5% -11.8% Total Fail% 3,383 18.0% 1.07 12.18 1.68 0.78 8.43 1.59 27.2% 30.8% 5.9%

A1-1

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 33% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1990 Pass - 5,834 0.68 7.68 1.59 0.68 7.68 1.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 756 11.0% 2.07 25.49 2.13 0.77 7.79 1.62 62.7% 69.5% 23.8% Fail Unresolv. 244 3.6% 4.28 44.90 2.48 1.41 15.16 0.78 67.0% 66.2% 68.4% Fail Waiver 10 0.1% 3.02 46.28 2.71 2.82 39.27 2.78 6.8% 15.1% -2.6% Total Fail% 6,844 14.8% 0.97 11.03 1.68 0.72 8.00 1.56 25.5% 27.4% 6.9%

1991 Pass - 5,638 0.60 6.90 1.49 0.60 6.90 1.49 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 766 11.4% 2.19 25.21 2.12 0.71 7.32 1.56 67.5% 71.0% 26.5% Fail Unresolv. 311 4.6% 3.88 36.85 2.57 1.25 12.50 0.84 67.9% 66.1% 67.3% Fail Waiver 8 0.1% 3.88 54.73 2.03 2.80 48.70 2.21 27.8% 11.0% -8.6% Total Fail% 6,723 16.1% 0.94 10.42 1.61 0.65 7.25 1.47 31.0% 30.4% 8.9%

1992 Pass - 8,140 0.55 6.19 1.41 0.55 6.19 1.41 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,200 12.3% 1.86 24.87 1.86 0.62 6.27 1.47 66.4% 74.8% 21.0% Fail Unresolv. 377 3.9% 3.30 37.82 2.28 1.10 12.01 0.75 66.6% 68.2% 67.1% Fail Waiver 19 0.2% 4.09 26.91 2.53 4.42 22.27 2.15 -7.9% 17.2% 15.3% Total Fail% 9,736 16.4% 0.82 9.76 1.50 0.59 6.45 1.40 28.8% 33.8% 7.2%

1993 Pass - 7,900 0.54 5.89 1.46 0.54 5.89 1.46 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,014 11.0% 1.91 23.51 2.02 0.65 6.54 1.55 66.1% 72.2% 23.2% Fail Unresolv. 324 3.5% 3.53 31.30 2.45 1.12 10.21 0.80 68.2% 67.4% 67.4% Fail Waiver 13 0.1% 3.95 38.18 2.72 2.92 34.02 2.72 25.9% 10.9% 0.1% Total Fail% 9,251 14.6% 0.80 8.76 1.56 0.58 6.16 1.45 27.9% 29.7% 7.0%

1994 Pass - 11,179 0.42 5.06 1.18 0.42 5.06 1.18 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,333 10.3% 1.70 18.39 1.84 0.53 5.46 1.32 69.0% 70.3% 28.2% Fail Unresolv. 462 3.6% 3.25 28.87 2.43 1.03 9.45 0.80 68.4% 67.3% 67.1% Fail Waiver 15 0.1% 3.14 30.98 3.08 2.57 19.84 3.26 18.3% 35.9% -5.8% Total Fail% 12,989 13.9% 0.65 7.31 1.29 0.45 5.27 1.18 30.5% 27.8% 8.6%

1995 Pass - 13,146 0.40 4.81 1.03 0.40 4.81 1.03 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,453 9.6% 1.48 17.14 1.72 0.49 5.15 1.17 67.0% 69.9% 32.3% Fail Unresolv. 500 3.3% 3.29 28.27 2.35 1.05 8.75 0.76 68.1% 69.1% 67.4% Fail Waiver 21 0.1% 2.64 19.26 2.86 2.16 17.68 2.94 18.3% 8.2% -2.9% Total Fail% 15,120 13.1% 0.60 6.79 1.14 0.43 4.99 1.03 28.3% 26.5% 9.3%

1996 Pass - 17,276 0.30 3.74 0.81 0.30 3.74 0.81 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,710 8.8% 1.05 14.23 1.54 0.38 4.33 0.94 63.5% 69.6% 39.2% Fail Unresolv. 408 2.1% 2.12 23.40 2.33 0.73 7.64 0.77 65.7% 67.4% 67.0% Fail Waiver 13 0.1% 1.90 35.85 2.32 1.88 31.06 1.83 0.8% 13.4% 21.2% Total Fail% 19,407 11.0% 0.40 5.10 0.91 0.32 3.89 0.82 21.8% 23.7% 9.5%

1997 Pass - 17,068 0.30 3.84 0.78 0.30 3.84 0.78 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,745 9.1% 1.04 13.92 1.43 0.36 4.40 0.89 65.0% 68.4% 37.7% Fail Unresolv. 400 2.1% 2.09 22.00 2.35 0.72 7.38 0.78 65.5% 66.5% 66.6% Fail Waiver 16 0.1% 2.58 56.91 1.72 2.15 41.33 2.08 16.5% 27.4% -20.7% Total Fail% 19,229 11.2% 0.41 5.18 0.87 0.32 4.00 0.79 22.1% 22.8% 9.4%

A1-2

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 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 - 23,408 0.22 3.30 0.63 0.22 3.30 0.63 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2,263 8.6% 0.86 12.31 1.34 0.26 3.67 0.67 70.1% 70.2% 49.8% Fail Unresolv. 475 1.8% 1.87 21.64 2.28 0.59 6.76 0.76 68.4% 68.7% 66.8% Fail Waiver 25 0.1% 1.24 9.36 2.71 1.18 8.47 2.72 4.3% 9.5% -0.5% Total Fail% 26,171 10.6% 0.31 4.42 0.72 0.23 3.40 0.64 24.4% 23.1% 11.8%

1999 Pass - 20,580 0.20 2.99 0.58 0.20 2.99 0.58 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2,181 9.4% 0.74 10.43 1.34 0.23 3.38 0.67 68.2% 67.6% 50.2% Fail Unresolv. 415 1.8% 2.08 19.04 2.32 0.64 6.03 0.77 69.4% 68.3% 66.7% Fail Waiver 15 0.1% 1.87 26.98 2.09 1.27 16.39 2.52 32.1% 39.3% -20.3% Total Fail% 23,191 11.3% 0.28 4.00 0.69 0.21 3.09 0.60 26.1% 22.6% 13.2%

2000 Pass - 31,158 0.14 2.37 0.43 0.14 2.37 0.43 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2,614 7.6% 0.63 9.06 1.27 0.19 3.01 0.56 69.8% 66.8% 56.0% Fail Unresolv. 445 1.3% 1.58 18.55 2.43 0.49 5.91 0.81 69.0% 68.1% 66.6% Fail Waiver 19 0.1% 3.69 18.43 3.20 0.81 6.39 3.10 78.1% 65.3% 3.2% Total Fail% 34,236 9.0% 0.20 3.10 0.52 0.15 2.46 0.45 25.3% 20.4% 14.4%

2001 Pass - 23,622 0.10 2.07 0.31 0.10 2.07 0.31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,709 6.7% 0.64 9.77 1.21 0.16 2.80 0.44 75.0% 71.3% 64.1% Fail Unresolv. 204 0.8% 1.53 22.04 2.22 0.44 6.87 0.71 71.1% 68.8% 68.0% Fail Waiver 15 0.1% 0.67 8.23 4.25 0.61 9.47 3.85 9.7% -15.1% 9.3% Total Fail% 25,550 7.5% 0.15 2.75 0.39 0.11 2.16 0.32 27.6% 21.3% 16.6%

2002 Pass - 32,351 0.08 2.27 0.24 0.08 2.27 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,818 5.3% 0.44 6.36 1.06 0.12 2.14 0.33 72.4% 66.4% 68.7% Fail Unresolv. 186 0.5% 1.61 15.85 2.69 0.44 4.82 0.87 72.9% 69.6% 67.6% Fail Waiver 9 0.0% 0.69 13.24 3.48 0.57 6.36 3.64 17.0% 52.0% -4.6% Total Fail% 34,364 5.9% 0.11 2.56 0.30 0.08 2.28 0.25 21.6% 11.1% 16.0%

2003 Pass - 21,220 0.06 1.35 0.21 0.06 1.35 0.21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,137 5.1% 0.45 6.35 0.90 0.11 1.97 0.32 74.4% 69.0% 64.0% Fail Unresolv. 109 0.5% 1.61 16.51 2.19 0.57 5.55 0.71 64.6% 66.4% 67.5% Fail Waiver 5 0.0% 1.05 18.19 2.13 0.95 20.75 1.40 9.8% -14.0% 34.4% Total Fail% 22,471 5.6% 0.08 1.68 0.25 0.06 1.41 0.22 25.9% 16.3% 14.4%

2004 Pass - 28,195 0.04 1.07 0.13 0.04 1.07 0.13 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1,302 4.4% 0.38 5.25 0.64 0.08 1.77 0.20 78.7% 66.4% 69.0% Fail Unresolv. 78 0.3% 1.34 17.88 2.22 0.44 5.82 0.72 67.1% 67.4% 67.8% Fail Waiver 6 0.0% 1.50 13.61 3.21 1.97 14.10 3.09 -31.1% -3.5% 4.0% Total Fail% 29,581 4.7% 0.06 1.30 0.16 0.05 1.12 0.14 25.0% 14.2% 14.5%

2005 Pass - 18,095 0.04 0.94 0.12 0.04 0.94 0.12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 895 4.7% 0.32 5.48 0.56 0.07 1.55 0.17 78.1% 71.6% 68.8% Fail Unresolv. 64 0.3% 1.69 24.18 1.85 0.63 8.62 0.65 63.1% 64.4% 64.6% Fail Waiver 3 0.0% 1.00 18.93 2.46 1.08 18.42 2.30 -8.1% 2.7% 6.4% Total Fail% 19,057 5.0% 0.05 1.23 0.15 0.04 1.00 0.13 28.1% 19.2% 14.9%

A1-3

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 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 - 27,042 0.03 1.00 0.09 0.03 1.00 0.09 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 924 3.3% 0.28 5.13 1.42 0.07 1.32 0.16 76.1% 74.2% 88.9% Fail Unresolv. 52 0.2% 1.45 19.09 2.67 0.48 6.04 0.88 67.0% 68.4% 67.0% Fail Waiver 3 0.0% 1.38 30.87 3.20 1.11 19.60 4.30 19.7% 36.5% -34.5% Total Fail% 28,021 3.5% 0.04 1.17 0.14 0.04 1.02 0.10 20.1% 12.9% 31.7%

2007 Pass - 15,329 0.03 0.88 0.09 0.03 0.88 0.09 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 449 2.8% 0.28 4.98 1.44 0.06 1.37 0.13 78.1% 72.4% 90.8% Fail Unresolv. 16 0.1% 0.93 13.13 2.94 0.30 4.28 0.93 67.8% 67.4% 68.3% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 15,794 2.9% 0.04 1.01 0.13 0.03 0.90 0.09 18.8% 11.0% 30.8%

2008 Pass - 31,114 0.03 0.89 0.08 0.03 0.89 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 753 2.4% 0.25 4.00 1.52 0.06 1.29 0.11 78.2% 67.8% 92.6% Fail Unresolv. 26 0.1% 1.79 21.83 3.15 0.54 6.50 0.92 70.0% 70.2% 70.9% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 31,893 2.4% 0.03 0.98 0.11 0.03 0.90 0.08 16.8% 7.8% 30.8%

2009 Pass - 5,513 0.03 0.89 0.08 0.03 0.89 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 98 1.7% 0.21 4.60 1.49 0.05 1.21 0.10 76.0% 73.6% 93.1% Fail Unresolv. 9 0.2% 0.83 6.44 1.85 0.27 1.71 0.65 67.6% 73.5% 65.1% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 5,620 1.9% 0.03 0.96 0.10 0.03 0.90 0.08 11.6% 6.9% 25.2%

2010 Pass - 2,736 0.02 0.97 0.07 0.02 0.97 0.07 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 28 1.0% 0.16 3.01 0.34 0.03 0.87 0.07 80.4% 71.2% 80.5% Fail Unresolv. 6 0.2% 0.44 11.31 0.46 0.15 3.73 0.15 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 2,770 1.2% 0.03 1.02 0.07 0.02 0.98 0.07 7.3% 3.7% 4.9%

2011 Pass - 1,823 0.03 1.04 0.06 0.03 1.04 0.06 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 27 1.5% 0.30 1.64 0.21 0.02 1.08 0.07 93.9% 34.2% 65.3% Fail Unresolv. 3 0.2% 1.68 12.34 3.08 0.56 4.07 1.02 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1,853 1.6% 0.03 1.06 0.07 0.03 1.04 0.06 18.5% 2.0% 7.7%

2012 Pass - 589 0.02 0.88 0.06 0.02 0.88 0.06 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 3 0.5% 0.01 0.53 0.05 0.02 0.56 0.02 -27.2% -5.9% 60.0% Fail Unresolv. 2 0.3% 1.56 0.61 0.02 0.51 0.20 0.01 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 594 0.8% 0.03 0.88 0.06 0.03 0.88 0.06 11.7% 0.1% 0.4%

2013 Pass - 23 0.02 0.67 0.05 0.02 0.67 0.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 23 0.0% 0.02 0.67 0.05 0.02 0.67 0.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Passenger Vehicles All Pass - 380,624 0.19 2.69 0.49 0.19 2.69 0.49 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% P Fail Pass 28,238 6.8% 1.06 13.79 1.44 0.35 4.15 0.81 66.7% 69.9% 43.7% Fail Unresolv. 5,922 1.4% 2.86 30.57 2.33 0.91 9.92 0.76 68.0% 67.5% 67.2% Fail Waiver 266 0.1% 2.93 37.82 2.51 2.46 31.29 2.48 16.0% 17.3% 1.1% Total Fail% 415,050 8.3% 0.28 3.86 0.59 0.21 2.91 0.52 26.7% 24.7% 11.1% A1-4

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 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 - 305 2.32 29.53 2.98 2.32 29.53 2.98 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 149 28.2% 4.15 59.43 2.79 2.34 27.32 2.70 43.7% 54.0% 3.1% Fail Unresolv. 74 14.0% 6.99 93.78 2.60 2.20 29.95 0.82 68.6% 68.1% 68.4% Fail Waiver 1 0.2% 7.79 171.85 0.09 3.81 117.44 0.07 51.1% 31.7% 26.0% Total Fail% 529 42.3% 3.50 47.21 2.87 2.31 29.13 2.60 34.0% 38.3% 9.5%

1983 Pass - 322 2.88 32.85 2.59 2.88 32.85 2.59 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 166 29.5% 4.73 68.11 2.47 2.42 33.24 2.56 48.9% 51.2% -3.5% Fail Unresolv. 75 13.3% 7.52 105.20 2.56 2.54 34.49 0.89 66.2% 67.2% 65.2% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 563 42.8% 4.04 52.89 2.55 2.70 33.19 2.36 33.3% 37.3% 7.7%

1984 Pass - 842 2.07 25.03 2.61 2.07 25.03 2.61 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 386 27.6% 3.86 58.87 3.00 2.12 25.39 2.97 44.9% 56.9% 1.2% Fail Unresolv. 162 11.6% 7.11 105.52 2.25 2.18 33.24 0.80 69.3% 68.5% 64.3% Fail Waiver 8 0.6% 9.54 123.68 3.27 4.33 97.92 2.56 54.7% 20.8% 21.7% Total Fail% 1,398 39.8% 3.19 44.27 2.68 2.11 26.50 2.50 33.8% 40.1% 6.8%

1985 Pass - 874 1.88 19.66 2.78 1.88 19.66 2.78 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 329 24.3% 3.43 51.79 2.94 1.81 20.38 2.76 47.2% 60.6% 5.9% Fail Unresolv. 139 10.3% 6.62 97.47 2.44 2.11 32.43 0.76 68.1% 66.7% 68.7% Fail Waiver 11 0.8% 7.57 104.68 1.93 5.38 112.77 1.64 29.0% -7.7% 15.2% Total Fail% 1,353 35.4% 2.79 36.16 2.78 1.92 21.91 2.56 31.3% 39.4% 7.8%

1986 Pass - 1,766 1.60 16.32 2.54 1.60 16.32 2.54 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 536 21.4% 3.64 44.27 2.91 1.71 17.87 2.79 53.0% 59.6% 4.4% Fail Unresolv. 191 7.6% 6.97 87.51 2.49 2.12 28.85 0.79 69.5% 67.0% 68.4% Fail Waiver 6 0.2% 3.33 124.48 2.45 2.49 112.70 2.46 25.1% 9.5% -0.2% Total Fail% 2,499 29.3% 2.45 28.01 2.61 1.67 17.84 2.46 32.1% 36.3% 6.0%

1987 Pass - 1,455 1.54 14.48 2.43 1.54 14.48 2.43 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 404 20.1% 3.11 40.23 2.69 1.46 13.96 2.43 53.1% 65.3% 9.5% Fail Unresolv. 147 7.3% 5.92 69.94 2.48 1.78 22.43 0.82 69.9% 67.9% 66.9% Fail Waiver 3 0.1% 2.97 72.55 1.00 3.90 106.66 0.64 -31.6% -47.0% 35.7% Total Fail% 2,009 27.6% 2.18 23.81 2.48 1.54 15.10 2.31 29.1% 36.6% 7.0%

1988 Pass - 2,886 1.29 11.94 2.22 1.29 11.94 2.22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 720 18.8% 3.07 32.70 2.92 1.33 11.93 2.37 56.8% 63.5% 18.6% Fail Unresolv. 217 5.7% 5.18 59.54 2.74 1.64 18.21 0.87 68.3% 69.4% 68.4% Fail Waiver 3 0.1% 18.79 174.72 1.51 1.37 23.98 4.31 92.7% 86.3% -186.2% Total Fail% 3,826 24.6% 1.86 18.68 2.38 1.32 12.31 2.17 29.1% 34.1% 8.7%

1989 Pass - 2,575 1.27 12.74 2.21 1.27 12.74 2.21 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 590 17.3% 3.26 31.49 2.95 1.40 12.46 2.36 57.1% 60.4% 20.0% Fail Unresolv. 226 6.6% 5.20 58.92 3.12 1.60 18.63 1.01 69.3% 68.4% 67.6% Fail Waiver 15 0.4% 8.06 75.88 3.00 4.77 43.74 2.88 40.8% 42.4% 4.1% Total Fail% 3,406 24.4% 1.90 19.33 2.40 1.33 13.22 2.16 30.3% 31.6% 10.1%

A1-5

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 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 - 3,896 1.17 11.32 2.19 1.17 11.32 2.19 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 836 16.8% 2.66 28.97 2.80 1.24 11.73 2.24 53.2% 59.5% 20.1% Fail Unresolv. 226 4.5% 4.41 44.60 3.24 1.46 14.44 1.07 66.9% 67.6% 67.0% Fail Waiver 10 0.2% 8.16 59.87 2.98 3.75 36.06 2.86 54.1% 39.8% 4.1% Total Fail% 4,968 21.6% 1.58 15.90 2.34 1.20 11.58 2.15 24.1% 27.2% 8.3%

1991 Pass - 3,632 1.00 11.59 1.89 1.00 11.59 1.89 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 663 14.7% 2.67 31.90 2.57 1.07 11.10 2.05 60.1% 65.2% 20.2% Fail Unresolv. 195 4.3% 4.91 48.64 2.75 1.60 16.95 0.89 67.5% 65.2% 67.7% Fail Waiver 5 0.1% 6.85 37.70 3.66 2.63 31.27 3.53 61.6% 17.1% 3.8% Total Fail% 4,495 19.2% 1.42 16.22 2.03 1.04 11.77 1.88 27.1% 27.4% 7.7%

1992 Pass - 5,554 1.01 10.87 1.95 1.01 10.87 1.95 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,074 15.6% 2.63 28.91 2.73 1.14 10.85 2.14 56.6% 62.5% 21.7% Fail Unresolv. 254 3.7% 5.73 51.92 3.08 1.80 17.22 1.01 68.6% 66.8% 67.1% Fail Waiver 11 0.2% 7.61 78.48 2.08 5.19 53.36 1.51 31.8% 32.0% 27.5% Total Fail% 6,893 19.4% 1.45 15.30 2.11 1.07 11.17 1.94 26.3% 27.0% 8.0%

1993 Pass - 6,186 1.03 10.86 2.14 1.03 10.86 2.14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,087 14.4% 2.59 27.50 2.86 1.11 10.81 2.12 57.1% 60.7% 26.0% Fail Unresolv. 260 3.4% 5.34 50.52 3.09 1.72 16.26 1.03 67.7% 67.8% 66.7% Fail Waiver 13 0.2% 3.20 46.84 4.95 3.19 42.72 4.39 0.2% 8.8% 11.4% Total Fail% 7,546 18.0% 1.41 14.69 2.28 1.07 11.10 2.10 24.0% 24.5% 7.9%

1994 Pass - 10,187 0.78 8.80 1.83 0.78 8.80 1.83 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,036 16.0% 2.28 22.42 2.93 0.87 8.73 1.93 62.0% 61.1% 34.3% Fail Unresolv. 508 4.0% 4.54 39.63 3.63 1.31 12.56 1.17 71.1% 68.3% 67.9% Fail Waiver 27 0.2% 3.06 31.71 3.83 2.95 31.17 3.42 3.6% 1.7% 10.7% Total Fail% 12,758 20.2% 1.18 12.25 2.08 0.82 8.99 1.82 30.1% 26.6% 12.5%

1995 Pass - 10,020 0.74 8.56 1.82 0.74 8.56 1.82 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,955 15.7% 2.20 21.80 2.90 0.82 8.75 1.87 62.9% 59.9% 35.7% Fail Unresolv. 498 4.0% 3.93 35.20 3.65 1.24 11.32 1.20 68.3% 67.8% 67.3% Fail Waiver 18 0.1% 3.61 45.38 3.15 2.88 33.94 3.00 20.1% 25.2% 4.8% Total Fail% 12,491 19.8% 1.10 11.75 2.06 0.77 8.74 1.80 29.5% 25.6% 12.6%

1996 Pass - 13,822 0.40 5.28 1.34 0.40 5.28 1.34 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,136 13.1% 1.14 14.52 2.38 0.44 5.44 1.49 61.4% 62.5% 37.4% Fail Unresolv. 367 2.2% 2.81 27.95 3.67 0.90 9.38 1.18 67.8% 66.4% 67.8% Fail Waiver 12 0.1% 2.61 17.78 4.20 2.86 17.97 3.78 -9.6% -1.1% 9.9% Total Fail% 16,337 15.4% 0.56 7.00 1.53 0.42 5.40 1.36 24.1% 22.9% 11.3%

1997 Pass - 14,907 0.36 5.12 1.29 0.36 5.12 1.29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,425 13.6% 1.06 14.57 2.36 0.41 5.55 1.42 61.6% 61.9% 39.7% Fail Unresolv. 427 2.4% 2.52 25.80 3.32 0.76 8.58 1.10 69.6% 66.8% 67.0% Fail Waiver 19 0.1% 2.58 27.11 3.49 2.40 19.96 3.26 7.1% 26.4% 6.5% Total Fail% 17,778 16.1% 0.51 6.93 1.49 0.38 5.28 1.31 25.8% 23.8% 12.2%

A1-6

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 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 - 23,081 0.30 4.33 1.08 0.30 4.33 1.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 3,069 11.5% 0.98 12.68 2.20 0.35 4.64 1.22 64.6% 63.4% 44.4% Fail Unresolv. 485 1.8% 2.36 21.97 3.43 0.71 7.13 1.14 69.7% 67.6% 66.8% Fail Waiver 18 0.1% 1.08 15.81 4.24 0.87 10.35 4.12 18.9% 34.5% 2.8% Total Fail% 26,653 13.4% 0.42 5.62 1.25 0.31 4.43 1.10 24.6% 21.3% 12.3%

1999 Pass - 20,368 0.24 3.50 0.82 0.24 3.50 0.82 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,647 11.3% 0.86 12.04 2.15 0.30 3.83 1.03 64.8% 68.2% 52.2% Fail Unresolv. 449 1.9% 2.01 19.77 3.33 0.61 6.37 1.11 69.6% 67.8% 66.7% Fail Waiver 19 0.1% 1.71 17.44 2.37 1.06 15.90 2.59 37.6% 8.9% -9.1% Total Fail% 23,483 13.3% 0.34 4.78 1.02 0.25 3.60 0.85 26.3% 24.7% 16.6%

2000 Pass - 28,643 0.19 2.85 0.68 0.19 2.85 0.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2,901 9.1% 0.65 10.07 1.69 0.26 3.64 0.91 60.9% 63.9% 46.2% Fail Unresolv. 352 1.1% 1.90 20.14 2.92 0.59 6.78 0.96 69.2% 66.3% 66.9% Fail Waiver 19 0.1% 2.06 19.65 2.61 1.70 14.33 2.83 17.4% 27.1% -8.6% Total Fail% 31,915 10.3% 0.26 3.70 0.80 0.20 2.97 0.71 19.9% 19.9% 11.5%

2001 Pass - 21,050 0.14 2.60 0.47 0.14 2.60 0.47 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,783 7.8% 0.54 8.76 1.27 0.19 3.13 0.65 65.2% 64.3% 48.9% Fail Unresolv. 160 0.7% 1.07 17.74 3.09 0.34 5.66 1.02 67.8% 68.1% 66.9% Fail Waiver 8 0.0% 1.02 29.57 3.11 0.79 28.95 2.49 22.5% 2.1% 20.0% Total Fail% 23,001 8.5% 0.17 3.19 0.55 0.14 2.67 0.49 18.7% 16.3% 11.3%

2002 Pass - 31,338 0.10 2.66 0.40 0.10 2.66 0.40 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,908 5.7% 0.50 11.43 1.12 0.15 2.90 0.57 70.7% 74.6% 49.7% Fail Unresolv. 143 0.4% 1.49 23.43 2.61 0.42 7.02 0.81 71.9% 70.0% 69.0% Fail Waiver 11 0.0% 1.49 29.48 2.37 1.41 22.12 2.25 5.7% 25.0% 4.9% Total Fail% 33,400 6.2% 0.13 3.26 0.45 0.11 2.70 0.41 19.2% 17.2% 8.9%

2003 Pass - 19,618 0.08 1.61 0.31 0.08 1.61 0.31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,211 5.8% 0.39 7.96 0.89 0.13 2.52 0.47 66.5% 68.3% 46.8% Fail Unresolv. 89 0.4% 1.18 19.08 2.54 0.48 7.99 0.84 58.9% 58.1% 67.1% Fail Waiver 3 0.0% 0.78 10.94 1.97 0.84 11.08 2.24 -8.9% -1.2% -13.7% Total Fail% 20,921 6.2% 0.11 2.05 0.35 0.09 1.69 0.32 16.9% 17.6% 9.0%

2004 Pass - 34,717 0.05 1.21 0.16 0.05 1.21 0.16 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,513 4.2% 0.27 5.14 0.58 0.09 2.09 0.24 67.8% 59.3% 59.3% Fail Unresolv. 56 0.2% 1.08 19.55 2.56 0.35 6.40 0.84 67.8% 67.2% 67.1% Fail Waiver 3 0.0% 0.91 18.18 2.43 0.88 16.32 2.99 2.6% 10.2% -23.2% Total Fail% 36,289 4.3% 0.06 1.40 0.18 0.06 1.25 0.16 13.7% 10.5% 9.5%

2005 Pass - 20,352 0.05 1.00 0.12 0.05 1.00 0.12 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 684 3.2% 0.22 4.22 0.64 0.09 1.92 0.25 59.8% 54.4% 60.9% Fail Unresolv. 29 0.1% 0.85 13.99 2.65 0.32 4.87 0.91 61.9% 65.2% 65.8% Fail Waiver 4 0.0% 1.41 18.09 1.93 0.75 15.75 2.47 46.9% 12.9% -27.8% Total Fail% 21,069 3.4% 0.06 1.13 0.14 0.05 1.04 0.12 9.0% 7.8% 10.8%

A1-7

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 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 - 29,143 0.04 0.91 0.10 0.04 0.91 0.10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 893 3.0% 0.19 3.13 0.67 0.06 1.19 0.17 68.7% 62.1% 74.8% Fail Unresolv. 28 0.1% 1.15 13.68 2.96 0.53 8.43 0.93 53.9% 38.4% 68.6% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 30,064 3.1% 0.04 0.99 0.12 0.04 0.93 0.10 10.2% 6.3% 14.5%

2007 Pass - 17,899 0.03 0.80 0.08 0.03 0.80 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 627 3.4% 0.11 2.53 0.47 0.05 1.34 0.10 59.8% 47.1% 79.0% Fail Unresolv. 10 0.1% 0.46 4.20 1.23 0.15 1.21 0.35 68.4% 71.3% 71.4% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 18,536 3.4% 0.04 0.86 0.10 0.03 0.82 0.08 7.0% 4.9% 13.5%

2008 Pass - 36,404 0.03 0.77 0.08 0.03 0.77 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 1,060 2.8% 0.05 2.44 0.33 0.04 1.50 0.06 34.7% 38.4% 80.3% Fail Unresolv. 18 0.0% 0.35 5.63 1.62 0.12 1.86 0.53 65.4% 67.0% 67.1% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 37,482 2.9% 0.03 0.82 0.08 0.03 0.79 0.08 2.2% 3.5% 9.3%

2009 Pass - 4,548 0.03 0.75 0.08 0.03 0.75 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 117 2.5% 0.08 1.48 0.34 0.03 1.10 0.07 64.8% 25.4% 80.4% Fail Unresolv. 2 0.0% 0.04 3.10 0.03 0.01 1.02 0.01 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 4,667 2.5% 0.03 0.77 0.08 0.03 0.76 0.08 4.7% 1.3% 8.2%

2010 Pass - 2,629 0.03 0.74 0.06 0.03 0.74 0.06 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 47 1.8% 0.03 1.14 0.14 0.02 0.75 0.05 22.1% 34.0% 67.1% Fail Unresolv. 2 0.1% 0.02 0.40 0.06 0.01 0.13 0.02 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 2,678 1.8% 0.03 0.74 0.06 0.03 0.74 0.06 0.5% 0.9% 2.6%

2011 Pass - 1,318 0.03 0.79 0.05 0.03 0.79 0.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 16 1.2% 0.06 1.81 0.24 0.02 0.74 0.02 61.6% 59.3% 90.8% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.1% 0.06 0.70 0.07 0.02 0.23 0.02 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 1,335 1.3% 0.03 0.80 0.06 0.03 0.79 0.05 1.6% 1.6% 4.7%

2012 Pass - 412 0.03 0.68 0.05 0.03 0.68 0.05 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 4 1.0% 0.03 1.11 0.04 0.01 0.72 0.03 50.9% 34.8% 31.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 416 1.0% 0.03 0.68 0.05 0.03 0.68 0.05 0.5% 0.5% 0.3%

2013 Pass - 20 0.02 0.52 0.04 0.02 0.52 0.04 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 20 0.0% 0.02 0.52 0.04 0.02 0.52 0.04 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Trucks All Pass - 370,769 0.25 3.43 0.66 0.25 3.43 0.66 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% T Fail Pass 33,972 8.3% 1.34 16.72 1.98 0.55 6.33 1.27 59.0% 62.1% 35.9% Fail Unresolv. 5,790 1.4% 3.83 41.46 3.13 1.19 13.48 1.03 68.8% 67.5% 67.3% Fail Waiver 247 0.1% 3.92 45.79 3.12 2.67 36.25 2.96 32.0% 20.8% 4.9% Total Fail% 410,778 9.7% 0.40 5.09 0.81 0.29 3.84 0.72 26.0% 24.7% 11.0% A1-8

## Appendix A1 Colorado 2012 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

Fleet Total All Pass - 751,393 0.22 3.05 0.58 0.22 3.05 0.58 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All Fail Pass 62,210 7.5% 1.21 15.39 1.74 0.46 5.34 1.06 62.0% 65.3% 38.8% Fail Unresolv. 11,712 1.4% 3.34 35.95 2.73 1.05 11.68 0.89 68.5% 67.5% 67.2% Fail Waiver 513 0.1% 3.41 41.66 2.80 2.56 33.68 2.72 24.9% 19.2% 3.1% Total Fail% 825,828 9.0% 0.34 4.47 0.70 0.25 3.37 0.62 26.3% 24.7% 11.0%

A1-9

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1982 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

1983 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

1984 Pass - 1 0.56 7.44 1.48 0.56 7.44 1.48 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 1 0.0% 0.56 7.44 1.48 0.56 7.44 1.48 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 - 1 1.10 9.95 2.51 1.10 9.95 2.51 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% 1.10 9.95 2.51 1.10 9.95 2.51 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1987 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%

1988 Pass - 2 0.80 6.06 1.36 0.80 6.06 1.36 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

------ - - - Fail Unresolv. 1 33.3% 15.99 6.36 1.54 15.99 6.36 1.54 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 3 33.3% 5.86 6.16 1.42 5.86 6.16 1.42 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1989 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%

A2-1

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 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 - 5 0.99 10.27 1.79 0.99 10.27 1.79 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 16.7% 1.03 7.22 2.07 0.25 2.41 1.27 75.3% 66.7% 38.6% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 6 16.7% 1.00 9.76 1.84 0.87 8.96 1.70 13.0% 8.2% 7.3%

1991 Pass - 1 0.50 8.13 1.61 0.50 8.13 1.61 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% 0.50 8.13 1.61 0.50 8.13 1.61 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1992 Pass - 9 0.35 4.93 0.92 0.35 4.93 0.92 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 9 0.0% 0.35 4.93 0.92 0.35 4.93 0.92 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1993 Pass - 3 0.36 3.89 1.23 0.36 3.89 1.23 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% 0.36 3.89 1.23 0.36 3.89 1.23 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1994 Pass - 23 0.46 4.50 1.04 0.46 4.50 1.04 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 4.2% 1.71 0.90 1.09 0.66 0.15 1.10 61.4% 83.3% -0.6% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 24 4.2% 0.52 4.35 1.04 0.47 4.32 1.04 8.5% 0.7% 0.0%

1995 Pass - 16 0.40 3.08 0.98 0.40 3.08 0.98 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 11.1% 2.65 11.34 1.04 0.49 4.53 1.04 81.5% 60.0% -0.1% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 18 11.1% 0.65 3.99 0.99 0.41 3.24 0.99 37.1% 18.9% 0.0%

1996 Pass - 30 0.32 3.24 0.85 0.32 3.24 0.85 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 3 9.1% 0.64 8.21 1.34 0.30 2.40 0.53 53.4% 70.8% 60.2% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 33 9.1% 0.34 3.69 0.90 0.31 3.16 0.83 9.0% 14.3% 8.2%

1997 Pass - 39 0.38 3.19 0.77 0.38 3.19 0.77 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 2.4% 1.23 22.96 0.28 0.18 12.53 0.14 85.2% 45.4% 49.1% Fail Unresolv. 1 2.4% 0.42 6.96 2.23 0.42 6.96 2.23 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 41 4.9% 0.41 3.76 0.79 0.38 3.51 0.79 6.3% 6.8% 0.4%

A2-2

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 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 - 72 0.27 3.22 0.68 0.27 3.22 0.68 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 2 2.7% 0.13 2.13 0.82 0.07 2.47 0.69 41.3% -16.0% 16.2% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 74 2.7% 0.27 3.19 0.69 0.27 3.20 0.68 0.5% -0.3% 0.5%

1999 Pass - 75 0.18 2.76 0.55 0.18 2.76 0.55 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 7 8.5% 0.30 5.47 1.05 0.17 2.22 0.72 44.8% 59.4% 31.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 82 8.5% 0.19 2.99 0.60 0.18 2.71 0.57 6.1% 9.3% 4.8%

2000 Pass - 137 0.12 2.05 0.40 0.12 2.05 0.40 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 6 4.2% 0.86 15.09 0.82 0.28 3.90 0.40 67.2% 74.1% 51.6% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 143 4.2% 0.15 2.60 0.41 0.13 2.13 0.40 15.8% 18.1% 4.3%

2001 Pass - 126 0.11 2.03 0.33 0.11 2.03 0.33 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 8 6.0% 0.08 2.79 0.35 0.08 2.27 0.16 0.8% 18.5% 54.1% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 134 6.0% 0.10 2.07 0.33 0.10 2.04 0.32 0.0% 1.5% 3.5%

2002 Pass - 224 0.07 2.16 0.24 0.07 2.16 0.24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 11 4.7% 0.11 2.96 0.25 0.10 1.52 0.22 7.9% 48.5% 11.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 235 4.7% 0.07 2.19 0.24 0.07 2.13 0.24 0.6% 3.1% 0.6%

2003 Pass - 136 0.06 1.25 0.20 0.06 1.25 0.20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 8 5.6% 0.24 10.27 0.69 0.10 1.28 0.19 59.5% 87.5% 72.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 144 5.6% 0.07 1.75 0.22 0.07 1.25 0.20 10.7% 28.5% 12.4%

2004 Pass - 251 0.04 0.93 0.14 0.04 0.93 0.14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 9 3.5% 0.02 0.69 0.06 0.02 0.77 0.07 -0.2% -13.0% -11.7% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 260 3.5% 0.04 0.92 0.14 0.04 0.92 0.14 0.0% -0.3% -0.2%

2005 Pass - 114 0.03 0.95 0.14 0.03 0.95 0.14 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 4 3.4% 0.05 1.08 0.12 0.07 2.34 0.09 -36.7% -116.3% 27.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 118 3.4% 0.03 0.96 0.14 0.03 1.00 0.13 -1.9% -4.4% 0.8%

A2-3

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

2006 Pass - 259 0.03 0.90 0.09 0.03 0.90 0.09 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 4 1.5% 0.08 4.77 3.43 0.09 0.92 0.08 -15.9% 80.8% 97.5% Fail Unresolv. 3 1.1% 0.10 1.06 3.40 0.06 0.53 3.93 41.8% 50.0% -15.3% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 266 2.6% 0.03 0.96 0.18 0.03 0.90 0.14 0.9% 6.6% 24.4%

2007 Pass - 64 0.03 0.77 0.08 0.03 0.77 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 1 1.5% 0.02 0.03 5.77 0.01 0.22 0.24 72.9% -637.2% 95.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 65 1.5% 0.03 0.75 0.17 0.03 0.76 0.08 0.9% -0.4% 51.2%

2008 Pass - 284 0.03 0.97 0.08 0.03 0.97 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P Fail Pass 10 3.4% 0.06 2.17 0.90 0.03 1.06 0.04 52.5% 51.3% 95.2% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 294 3.4% 0.04 1.01 0.11 0.03 0.97 0.08 3.0% 3.8% 27.6%

2009 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

2010 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

2011 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

2012 Pass - 0

------ - - -

P Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

Total Passenger Vehicles All Pass - 1,872 0.09 1.63 0.26 0.09 1.63 0.26 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% P Fail Pass 78 4.0% 0.30 5.13 0.82 0.12 1.94 0.29 59.7% 62.2% 65.3% Fail Unresolv. 5 0.3% 3.34 3.30 2.80 3.32 2.98 3.11 0.8% 9.6% -11.2% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Fail% 1,955 4.2% 0.11 1.77 0.29 0.10 1.64 0.27 6.7% 7.2% 7.1%

A2-4

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

1982 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

1983 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

1984 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

1985 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

1986 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

1987 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

1988 Pass - 1 0.94 11.77 2.81 0.94 11.77 2.81 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 1 0.0% 0.94 11.77 2.81 0.94 11.77 2.81 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1989 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

A2-5

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 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 - 5 0.85 8.92 1.92 0.85 8.92 1.92 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 5 0.0% 0.85 8.92 1.92 0.85 8.92 1.92 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1991 Pass - 3 0.57 9.40 0.96 0.57 9.40 0.96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 3 0.0% 0.57 9.40 0.96 0.57 9.40 0.96 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1992 Pass - 3 0.74 7.61 1.85 0.74 7.61 1.85 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 3 0.0% 0.74 7.61 1.85 0.74 7.61 1.85 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1993 Pass - 1 0.71 5.33 2.37 0.71 5.33 2.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 1 0.0% 0.71 5.33 2.37 0.71 5.33 2.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1994 Pass - 10 0.78 9.15 1.41 0.78 9.15 1.41 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2 16.7% 1.41 21.09 4.82 1.00 12.94 2.49 28.8% 38.6% 48.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 12 16.7% 0.88 11.14 1.98 0.81 9.78 1.59 7.7% 12.2% 19.6%

1995 Pass - 16 0.81 8.61 1.83 0.81 8.61 1.83 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 16 0.0% 0.81 8.61 1.83 0.81 8.61 1.83 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1996 Pass - 24 0.44 5.13 1.37 0.44 5.13 1.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 24 0.0% 0.44 5.13 1.37 0.44 5.13 1.37 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1997 Pass - 34 0.29 4.47 1.26 0.29 4.47 1.26 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2 5.6% 0.70 5.11 1.47 0.79 5.57 1.40 -12.8% -9.1% 4.8% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 36 5.6% 0.32 4.50 1.27 0.32 4.53 1.26 -1.6% -0.6% 0.3%

A2-6

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 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 - 63 0.27 3.36 1.08 0.27 3.36 1.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 4 6.0% 0.46 6.29 1.81 0.32 3.78 1.10 29.6% 40.0% 39.0% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 67 6.0% 0.28 3.54 1.12 0.27 3.39 1.08 2.9% 4.2% 3.7%

1999 Pass - 89 0.20 3.30 0.75 0.20 3.30 0.75 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 5 5.3% 0.21 4.45 1.10 0.16 4.04 1.14 25.6% 9.2% -3.4% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 94 5.3% 0.21 3.36 0.76 0.20 3.34 0.77 1.4% 0.6% -0.3%

2000 Pass - 145 0.20 2.65 0.66 0.20 2.65 0.66 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 6 3.9% 0.16 2.56 1.57 0.29 3.66 0.98 -77.1% -43.0% 37.6% Fail Unresolv. 2 1.3% 1.01 12.96 4.66 0.84 9.11 3.14 16.3% 29.7% 32.8% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 153 5.2% 0.21 2.78 0.75 0.22 2.77 0.70 -1.3% 0.3% 5.8%

2001 Pass - 120 0.12 2.28 0.43 0.12 2.28 0.43 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 10 7.6% 0.62 10.01 0.66 0.22 2.09 0.61 65.2% 79.1% 7.2% Fail Unresolv. 1 0.8% 1.30 45.26 2.82 0.52 26.94 1.93 60.3% 40.5% 31.8% Fail Waiver 0 0.0%

------ - - - Total Fail% 131 8.4% 0.17 3.19 0.47 0.13 2.45 0.46 21.8% 23.3% 2.3%

2002 Pass - 298 0.09 2.44 0.40 0.09 2.44 0.40 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 18 5.7% 0.13 4.64 0.59 0.13 2.22 0.43 -6.4% 52.1% 28.3% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 316 5.7% 0.09 2.57 0.41 0.09 2.43 0.40 -0.5% 5.4% 2.3%

2003 Pass - 151 0.08 1.36 0.31 0.08 1.36 0.31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 6 3.8% 2.57 5.49 0.42 0.14 2.70 0.77 94.6% 50.8% -82.1% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 157 3.8% 0.17 1.52 0.31 0.08 1.41 0.33 53.9% 7.0% -4.2%

2004 Pass - 434 0.05 1.18 0.17 0.05 1.18 0.17 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 21 4.6% 0.11 2.23 0.25 0.10 2.49 0.24 6.2% -11.7% 6.0% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 455 4.6% 0.05 1.23 0.17 0.05 1.25 0.17 0.6% -1.0% 0.4%

2005 Pass - 136 0.04 0.91 0.10 0.04 0.91 0.10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 3 2.2% 0.92 9.13 0.18 0.07 0.91 0.10 92.7% 90.1% 45.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 139 2.2% 0.06 1.09 0.10 0.04 0.91 0.10 30.1% 16.3% 1.8%

A2-7

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

2006 Pass - 383 0.04 0.90 0.10 0.04 0.90 0.10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 10 2.5% 0.13 2.55 0.36 0.08 2.45 0.25 36.6% 3.9% 29.5% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 393 2.5% 0.04 0.94 0.11 0.04 0.94 0.11 3.0% 0.3% 2.4%

2007 Pass - 95 0.03 0.85 0.08 0.03 0.85 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 2 2.1% 0.03 0.42 0.19 0.02 0.62 0.17 16.8% -49.5% 9.6% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 97 2.1% 0.03 0.84 0.09 0.03 0.84 0.09 0.3% -0.5% 0.4%

2008 Pass - 463 0.03 0.72 0.08 0.03 0.72 0.08 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

T Fail Pass 9 1.9% 0.03 0.86 0.06 0.04 0.90 0.05 -46.6% -4.9% 17.0% Fail Unresolv. 0 0.0%

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

------ - - - Total Fail% 472 1.9% 0.03 0.72 0.08 0.03 0.72 0.08 -0.8% -0.1% 0.3%

2009 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

2010 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

2011 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

2012 Pass - 0

------ - - -

T Fail Pass 0 0.0%

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

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

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

Total Trucks All Pass - 2,474 0.09 1.66 0.31 0.09 1.66 0.31 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% T Fail Pass 98 3.8% 0.39 4.49 0.66 0.17 2.66 0.52 57.6% 40.8% 21.8% Fail Unresolv. 3 0.1% 1.11 23.73 4.05 0.73 15.06 2.73 33.5% 36.5% 32.5% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 2,575 3.9% 0.10 1.79 0.32 0.10 1.71 0.32 8.7% 4.5% 2.2%

A2-8

## Appendix A2 Colorado 2012 Clean Screen Audit Transient Test Emissions Reductions Unresolved fails remaining in area 100% Model First Last Initial Final Reduction % Year/Type Result Result Vehicles Fail% HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX

Fleet Total All Pass - 4,346 0.09 1.65 0.29 0.09 1.65 0.29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% All Fail Pass 176 3.9% 0.35 4.77 0.73 0.15 2.34 0.42 58.4% 51.0% 43.4% Fail Unresolv. 8 0.2% 2.50 10.96 3.27 2.35 7.51 2.97 6.2% 31.5% 9.1% Fail Waiver 0 0.0% Total Fail% 4,530 4.1% 0.11 1.78 0.31 0.10 1.68 0.30 7.8% 5.6% 4.2%

A2-9

### Appendix B Colorado 2012 Enhanced IM240 Test Reduction Tons Initial Tons/Yr Final Tons/Yr Reduction Tons/Yr
Type Annual Miles Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx HC CO NOx HC CO NOx P 1982 4,304 453 5.0 64.9 4.6 3.5 42.7 4.4 1.5 22.2 0.2 P 1983 4,304 502 5.3 68.9 4.8 3.5 37.1 4.5 1.8 31.8 0.3 P 1984 4,304 1,279 11.0 129.0 11.7 7.9 79.4 11.2 3.2 49.6 0.5 P 1985 4,434 1,271 10.5 121.7 12.2 7.1 74.2 11.3 3.4 47.6 0.9 P 1986 4,481 2,249 15.3 153.0 21.1 10.6 97.5 19.7 4.7 55.5 1.4 P 1987 4,502 1,954 12.9 129.3 18.2 8.9 83.2 16.9 3.9 46.1 1.3 P 1988 4,552 3,471 18.8 216.5 28.2 13.5 144.6 26.5 5.3 71.9 1.7 P 1989 4,780 3,383 19.1 217.2 30.0 13.9 150.3 28.3 5.2 66.9 1.8 P 1990 5,088 6,844 37.1 423.3 64.4 27.6 307.2 60.0 9.4 116.2 4.5 P 1991 5,430 6,723 37.8 419.5 64.9 26.1 291.9 59.2 11.7 127.6 5.8 P 1992 5,672 9,736 50.1 593.8 91.5 35.7 392.9 84.9 14.4 200.9 6.6 P 1993 6,002 9,251 49.2 536.2 95.3 35.5 376.7 88.6 13.7 159.4 6.7 P 1994 6,331 12,989 59.4 662.2 117.1 41.2 478.1 107.1 18.1 184.1 10.1 P 1995 6,653 15,120 66.7 752.6 126.5 47.8 553.1 114.7 18.9 199.5 11.7 P 1996 6,974 19,407 60.2 760.8 135.8 47.0 580.7 122.9 13.1 180.1 12.9 P 1997 7,369 19,229 63.5 809.0 135.6 49.4 624.5 122.9 14.1 184.5 12.7 P 1998 7,764 26,171 69.2 989.5 161.9 52.3 761.4 142.8 16.9 228.1 19.1 P 1999 8,188 23,191 58.9 836.5 144.0 43.5 647.5 125.0 15.4 188.9 19.0 P 2000 8,613 34,236 63.8 1006.8 170. 4 47.7 801.2 145.9 16.1 205.7 24.5 P 2001 9,032 25,550 37.6 699.1 98.8 27.3 550.0 82.5 10.4 149.1 16.4 P 2002 9,450 34,364 38.3 917.1 108.1 30.0 815.1 90.9 8.3 102.1 17.3 P 2003 9,905 22,471 20.7 413.2 62.2 15.4 345.9 53.2 5.4 67.2 9.0 P 2004 10,360 29,581 20.8 439.2 54.9 15.6 376.7 46.9 5.2 62.5 8.0 P 2005 10,746 19,057 12.4 278.1 33.5 8.9 224.6 28.5 3.5 53.4 5.0 P 2006 11,132 28,021 15.1 403.3 48.8 12.1 351.4 33.4 3.0 51.9 15.5 P 2007 11,870 15,794 7.6 209.2 26.3 6.2 186.2 18.2 1.4 23.0 8.1 P 2008 12,023 31,893 14.4 412.9 48.0 12.0 380.6 33.2 2.4 32.3 14.8 P 2009 12,307 5,620 2.4 73.3 7.9 2.2 68.3 5.9 0.3 5.1 2.0 P 2010 12,357 2,770 1.0 38.3 2.6 0.9 36.9 2.5 0.1 1.4 0.1 P 2011 11,600 1,853 0.8 25.2 1.7 0.6 24.7 1.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 P 2012 11,600 594 0.2 6.7 0.4 0.2 6.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 P Total 415,027 885.0 12806.4 1931.5 653.9 9891.3 1693.8 231.1 2915.1 237.7 T 1982 4,550 529 9.3 125.3 7.6 6.1 77.3 6.9 3.2 48.0 0.7 T 1983 4,554 563 11.4 149.5 7.2 7.6 93.8 6.7 3.8 55.7 0.6 T 1984 4,562 1,398 22.4 311.2 18.9 14.8 186.3 17.6 7.6 124.9 1.3 T 1985 4,583 1,353 19.1 247.1 19.0 13.1 149.7 17.5 6.0 97.4 1.5 T 1986 4,630 2,499 31.3 357.3 33.4 21.3 227.5 31.3 10.0 129.8 2.0 T 1987 4,668 2,009 22.5 246.1 25.7 15.9 156.1 23.9 6.5 90.0 1.8 T 1988 4,741 3,826 37.2 373.4 47.6 26.4 246.1 43.5 10.8 127.4 4.1 T 1989 4,851 3,406 34.6 352.1 43.7 24.1 240.8 39.3 10.5 111.3 4.4 T 1990 5,019 4,968 43.5 437.1 64.3 33.0 318.4 59.0 10.5 118.8 5.3 T 1991 5,256 4,495 37.1 422.5 52.9 27.0 306.6 48.8 10.0 115.9 4.1 T 1992 5,519 6,893 60.6 641.6 88.5 44.7 468.3 81.4 16.0 173.3 7.1 T 1993 5,824 7,546 68.1 711.5 110.5 51.7 537.5 101.8 16.3 174.0 8.7 T 1994 6,135 12,758 101.5 1056.9 179. 4 70.9 775.4 157.1 30.6 281.6 22.4 T 1995 6,471 12,491 97.8 1046.7 183. 8 68.9 778.4 160.6 28.9 268.2 23.2 T 1996 6,940 16,337 69.5 875.3 191.5 52.7 674.8 169.9 16.8 200.5 21.6 T 1997 7,437 17,778 74.1 1009.9 216. 7 55.0 769.3 190.3 19.2 240.6 26.4 T 1998 7,863 26,653 96.4 1299.2 289. 3 72.7 1022.4 253.7 23.7 276.9 35.6 T 1999 8,345 23,483 73.6 1033.0 219. 8 54.2 777.5 183.4 19.4 255.5 36.4 T 2000 8,900 31,915 80.1 1159.5 250. 3 64.2 929.2 221.4 15.9 230.3 28.9 T 2001 9,502 23,001 42.1 768.2 133.6 34.2 642.8 118.6 7.9 125.4 15.1 T 2002 10,087 33,400 48.4 1209.4 166.0 39.2 1001.5 151.3 9.3 207.9 14.7 T 2003 10,727 20,921 26.2 507.6 86.5 21.8 418.1 78.8 4.4 89.6 7.8 T 2004 11,245 36,289 28.9 629.9 80.7 24.9 563.5 73.0 4.0 66.3 7.6 T 2005 11,817 21,069 15.9 309.4 37.9 14.5 285.4 33.8 1.4 24.0 4.1 T 2006 12,303 30,064 18.0 402.9 47.3 16.2 377.4 40.5 1.8 25.5 6.9 T 2007 12,834 18,536 9.4 224.8 25.1 8.7 213.7 21.7 0.7 11.0 3.4 T 2008 13,215 37,482 15.9 446.2 46.4 15.6 430.7 42.1 0.3 15.5 4.3 T 2009 13,433 4,667 2.0 53.2 5.7 1.9 52.5 5.3 0.1 0.7 0.5 T 2010 13,514 2,678 1.1 29.6 2.6 1.1 29.4 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 T 2011 12,428 1,335 0.5 14.7 1.0 0.5 14.4 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 T 2012 12,428 416 0.2 3.9 0.3 0.2 3.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 T Total 410,758 1198.8 16454.9 2683.2 903.2 12768.6 2382.8 295.6 3686.4 300.4 Total 825,785 2083.8 29261.3 4614.7 1557.1 22659.9 4076.6 526.6 6601.4 538.2 25% 23%

B-1

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

Type Annual Miles Unique Vehicles HC CO NOx HC CO NOx HC CO NOx P 1982 4,304 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1983 4,304 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1984 4,304 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1985 4,434 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1986 4,481 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1987 4,502 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1988 4,552 3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1989 4,780 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1990 5,088 6 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1991 5,430 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1992 5,672 9 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1993 6,002 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1994 6,331 24 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1995 6,653 18 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 1996 6,974 33 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 1997 7,369 41 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 P 1998 7,764 74 0.2 2.0 0.4 0.2 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 1999 8,188 82 0.1 2.2 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 P 2000 8,613 143 0.2 3.5 0.6 0.2 2.9 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 P 2001 9,032 134 0.1 2.8 0.4 0.1 2.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2002 9,450 235 0.2 5.4 0.6 0.2 5.2 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 P 2003 9,905 144 0.1 2.8 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 P 2004 10,360 260 0.1 2.7 0.4 0.1 2.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 P 2005 10,746 118 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0 P 2006 11,132 266 0.1 3.1 0.6 0.1 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 P 2007 11,870 65 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 P 2008 12,023 294 0.1 3.9 0.4 0.1 3.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 P 2009 12,307 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P Total 1,955 1.9 34.8 5.5 1.8 32.3 5.1 0.1 2.5 0.5 T 1982 4,550 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1983 4,554 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1984 4,562 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1985 4,583 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1986 4,630 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1987 4,668 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1988 4,741 1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1989 4,851 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1990 5,019 5 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1991 5,256 3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1992 5,519 3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1993 5,824 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1994 6,135 12 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 1995 6,471 16 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1996 6,940 24 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1997 7,437 36 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 1998 7,863 67 0.2 2.1 0.7 0.2 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 T 1999 8,345 94 0.2 2.9 0.7 0.2 2.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2000 8,900 153 0.3 4.2 1.1 0.3 4.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 T 2001 9,502 131 0.2 4.4 0.6 0.2 3.4 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.0 T 2002 10,087 316 0.3 9.0 1.4 0.3 8.5 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 T 2003 10,727 157 0.3 2.8 0.6 0.1 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 T 2004 11,245 455 0.3 7.0 1.0 0.3 7.0 1.0 0.0 -0.1 0.0 T 2005 11,817 139 0.1 2.0 0.2 0.1 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 T 2006 12,303 393 0.2 5.0 0.6 0.2 5.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2007 12,834 97 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2008 13,215 472 0.2 4.9 0.5 0.2 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 T 2009 13,433 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T Total 2,575 2.8 50.2 8.6 2.5 48.0 8.5 0.3 2.2 0.2 Total 4,530 4.7 85.0 14.2 4.3 80.4 13.5 0.4 4.6 0.6

B-2