EPA-460/3-75-007
July 1975
               AUTOMOBILE  EXHAUST
            EMISSION SURVEILLANCE
             ANALYSIS  OF THE FY  73
                                PROGRAM
           U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Waste Management
           Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
             Certification and Surveillance Division
                 Ann Arbor, Michigan  48105

-------
                                  EPA-460/3-75-007
 AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST

EMISSION  SURVEILLANCE
 ANALYSIS OF  THE FY 73

            PROGRAM
                  by

 Jeffrey Bernard, Paul Donovan, and H. T. McAdams

            CALSPAN Corporation
            4455 Gennessee Street
           Buffalo, New York 14221



           Contract No. 68-03-0486


      EPA Project Officer: John T. White, III


               Prepared for

   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Office of Air and Waste Management
    Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
      Certification and Surveillance Division
         Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

                July 1975

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.  Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air
Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
CALSPAN Corporation, Buffalo, New York 14221,  in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-03-0486. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as
received from CALSPAN Corporation. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not
to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
                  Publication No. EPA-460/3-75-007
                                    11

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section                            Title
            SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND BACKGROUND .........    1
            1.1  Summary .....................    2
            1.2  Conclusions ...................    7
            1.3  Background ...... . ............   11

            EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM DESIGN ............   14
            2.1  FY 73 Test Vehicle Selection and
                 Handling Procedure. ...............   15

            STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .................   16
            3.1  Emission Data and Results ............   17
            3.2  Discussion ............. . .....   18
                 3.2.1  City Effects ...............   18
                 3.2.2  Degradation Effects ...........   19
                 3.2.3  Fuel Economy ...............   21
                 3.2.4  Performance of Vehicles in Their
                        First Year of Operation .........   22
                 3.2.5  Loaded Vehicles and Vehicles Towing
                        Trailers .................   23
                 3.2,6  Air Conditioned Vehicles .........   24
                 3.2.7  Replicate Testing .............   25

            REFERENCES ......................   27
            TABLES ........................   28
                                     ill

-------
                     1.  SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND BACKGROUND


            This publication is the third in a series of reports aimed at
summarizing information on emissions from light-duty vehicles.  State and
local agencies, Federal air pollution officials, automobile manufacturers
and concerned citizens can use this summary to estimate the impact of light-
duty vehicle emissions on air quality and to determine conformity of vehicles
to the standards under which they were certified.

            Source data for the report are the exhaust emission test findings
of three individual contractor reports prepared as part of the Fiscal Year
1973 (FY 73) EPA Emission Factor Test Program [see References (1), (2), (3)}.
The exhaust emission tests were performed in accordance with the 1975 Federal
Test Procedure (FTP), which allowed calculation of grams-per-mile results
with both  1972  and 1975  FTP weighting  factors.   The  1972  FTP weighting  is  used
primarily  throughout  this  report  since this method was  used  in  certification of
 the 1972,  1973  and 1974  models.   Using the  1975 FTP  weighting,  one may  compare
performance of  pre-1975  vehicles  with  those certified  for 1975  and  later model
years.   For more detailed  information  on specific vehicle tests or  the  results
 thereof, consult the  appropriate  test  contractor reports.

             The EPA Emission  Factor Program is  an on-going study  which  obtains
current  emission data on in-use vehicles.  The  vehicles tested  in the program
are randomly selected to represent  the national population of in-use vehicles
during  the Fiscal Year under  consideration.   This on-going effort updates
emissions  data  first  obtained in  1971  by the  1972/1975  FTP and  adds  new data
from the latest model year.   Where  possible,  therefore, results from the
FY 73 Emission  Factor Program are compared with corresponding results  from the
FY 71 and  FY 72 Emission Factor programs [see References  (4), (5)].
 * Though a part of the Emission Factor Program, evaporative emissions
   are not the subject of this summary report.

-------
1.1   SUMMARY

            The FY 73 EPA Emission  Factor Program  consisted  of  exhaust emissions
tests on 1967 through 1974 model-year  in-use automobiles  and light trucks under
6000 pounds gross weight.  Tests  of hydrocarbon  (HC),  carbon monoxide (CO),
oxides of nitrogen (NOX)  and carbon dioxide  (C0_)  emissions  were performed on
180 vehicles in each of six cities: Los Angeles,  Denver, Detroit, St. Louis,
Houston and Newark.  These test locations represent heavily  populated areas
of diverse climate, terrain and associated driving practices and use patterns.
Los Angeles represents the temperate,  warm western part of the  nation while
Denver, at a mile high elevation, represents mountainous  metropolitan areas.
Detroit, representing the Great Lakes  and northeast sector,  is  typical of cities
with long winter seasons.  The Great Plains  region is  represented by St. Louis
with moderate winters and Houston with a very warm, humid climate.  Finally,
Newark is an eastern seabord city.  Being subject  to the  exhaust emission
inspection program of New Jersey, Newark is  distinguished from  eastern seabord
cities outside the state.  The inspection program  did  not become mandatory,
however, until February 1, 1974.


            As in the FY 71 and FY  72  programs,  average emission levels in
Denver differed significantly from  those in  all  other  cities sampled.  On the
other hand Los Angeles, distinguished  from all other cities  in  the FY 72
program, was not found significantly different from St. Louis and Newark.
Finally, there were no significant  differences in  emission levels in Houston
and Detroit.  In all cases, a difference in mean emission levels for vehicles
from two cities was adjudged to be  significant if  two  conditions were met.
First, it was necessary for the observed difference between  the means to be
statistically significant at the  95% significance  level.   Second, the magnitude
of the observed difference between  the means had to be at least 10% of the
average emission level for vehicles from the two cities combined.  Both
statistical significance and the  magnitude of the  difference were taken into
account to avoid attaching undue  importance  to situations in which statistical
significance is indicated but the actual difference between  average emission
levels is negligibly small.  Such situations can arise if the  average emission
levels are based on a large number  of  vehicles.

-------
              A summary of the results of the FY 73 EPA Emission Factor Program
is presented on the following page.  Results for all cities are reported
separately.  However, as in .previous Fiscal Year programs, results for all cities
except Denver and Los Angeles are pooled.  Further discussion on the pooling
technique will be found later in this report.  Emission rates are reported
in terms of arithmetic means and standard deviations but, for reasons
disclosed later in the text of this report, fuel economies are reported in
terms of harmonic means and standard deviations.

              One of the most noteworthy factors affecting the FY 73 program
was the imposition, for the first time, of a nationwide standard for oxides
of nitrogen.  The influence of the new standard can be seen by comparison
of current model-year vehicles in the FY 71, FY 72 and FY 73 programs (see
table page 5).  The question of interest is whether 1973 model-year in use
vehicles had lower emissions in their first year of operation than did 1972
and 1971 model-year vehicles in their first year of operation.  As can be
seen in the table, the most dramatic reductions in emissions are those for
NOX, and these reductions are offset by either increases or less appreciable
decreases in HC and CO emissions.
            The results of this table should be interpreted in light of three
major factors.  First, when comparing FY.72 with FY 71, it should be noted
that vehicles sold in California were required to meet NOX emission standards
in the 1971 model year and more stringent NOX emission standards in the 1972
model year, whereas vehicles sold in other states were exempt from any NOX
standards  during these two model years.  Second, 1972 was the first model year
when national HC standards were 3.4 gm/mi and CO standards were 39 gm/mi.  To
meet the new more stringent standards, many manufacturers completely redesigned
their pollution control systems for the 1972 model year production.  These two
factors may partially explain why mean HC and CO emissions increased in
Los Angeles and decreased only slightly in the other lower altitude cities from

-------
    FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
SUMMARY TABLE OF EMISSION LEVELS USING
              THE 1972 FTP
City
Houston
Detroit
St. Louis
Newark
4
Cities
Averaged
Denver
Los
Angeles
Number
of
Vehicles
Tested
180
180
180
180
720
180
180
Mean
Miles
(Thou-
sands)
41.5
37.7
42.7
37.3
39.8
37.1
43.5
Hydrocarbons
CMS /MI
Arithmetic
MEAN
5.95
6.71
4.86
5.59
5.78
6.87
5.44
SD
3.76
7.26
3.17
5.38
5.18
2.99
5.95
Carbon Monoxide
CMS /MI
• Arithmetic
MEAN
80.69
77.21
69.13
63.21
72.56
108.54
65.21
SD
47.38
50.01
43.87
41.88
46.30
43.35
52.94
NOX
CMS /MI
Arithmetic
MEAN
5.27
5.14
3.62
3.59
4.41
2.84
3.27
SD
2.46
2.07
1.44
1.31
2.04
1.41
1.34
Fuel Economy
MI /GAL
Hanno
MEAN
10.91
11.67
12.94
13.01
12.07
12.23
12.77
lie
SD
2.31
2.60
3.11
3.12
2.89
2.84
3.22
Idle Hydrocarbons
Parts Per Millior
Hexane
MEAN
390
435
214
382
354
357
262
SD
310
436
272
435
380
265
321
Idle Carbon
Monoxide
Percent CO
MEAN
3.1
3.5
3.0
3.2
3.2
3.8
2.0
SD
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.3
2.0

-------
     COMPARISON OF MEAN EMISSION RESULTS FROM FY 71,

        FY 72 and FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAMS

                     (1972 FTP) **
Locations
Four Cities*.**
FY71 Program, 1971 Model
year Vehicles
FY72 Program, 1972 Model
year Vehicles
FY73 Program, 1973 Model
year Vehicles
Percent Reduction:
71 to 72
72 to 73
71 to 73
Los Angeles
FY71 Program, 1971 Model
year Vehicles
FY72 Program, 1972 Model
year Vehicles
FY73 Program, 1973 Model
year Vehicles
Percent Reduction:
71 to 72
72 to 73
71 to 73
Denver
FY71 Program, 1971 Model
year Vehicles
FY72 Program, 1972 Model
year Vehicles
FY73 Program, 1973 Model
year Vehicles
Percent Reduction:
71 to 72
72 to 73
71 to 73
Average Mileage
(in thousands)
15.6
14.8
18.1


15.8
17.6
21.5


15.2
14.1
14.3


HC
gm/MI
3.42
3.42
4.07

0%
-19%*
-19%*
3.51
4.07
4.27

-16%
-5%
-22%
6.73
5.61
5.03

17%
10%
25%*
CO
gm/MI
46.33
43.79
53.40

5%
-22%*
-15%
51.90
55.77
47.93

-7%
14%
8%
100.04
90.42
93.34

10%
-3%
7%
NOXC
gm/MI
4.99
4.52
3.47

9%*
23%*
30%*
3.81
3.83
3.00

0%
22%*
21%*
3.04
3.00
1.99

1%
34%*
35%*
  *  Significant at 95% level
 **  1974 vehicles tested in FY 73 are omitted in this
     comparison since mean mileages of 74 vehicles are
     about 5K miles which is considerably less than the
     14K-20K miles for vehicles used in this table.
***  FY71 and FY72 -t Chicago,' Houston, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
     FY73 - Detroit, Houston, St. Louis, Newark
                             5

-------
1971 to 1972.  Third, when comparing  FY  1973 with  FY  72  and FY 71, it should
be noted that 1973 was the first model year when national NOX standards were
3.0 gms/mi.  Since the NOX emissions  are negatively correlated with HC and CO
emissions, attempts by the manufacturers to meet the  new NOX standard appears
to have resulted in increases in HC and  CO for  the four  city locations.

            For the FY 73 program additional tests were  performed on light
duty vehicles to determine the effect of air conditioning and vehicle loading
on emission levels and fuel economy.  In general,  HC, CO and NOX emissions were
higher and fuel economy lower for vehicles tested  with their air conditioning
operating as opposed to the same vehicles tested with their air conditioning not
operating.  Results of vehicles tested to determine the  effects of loading on
emission levels and fuel economy showed  large increases  in emission and large
decreases in fuel economy for vehicles towing trailers.

-------
1.2   CONCLUSIONS

            Results of the FY 73 EPA Emission Factor Program summarized in
this report reveal that:

            1.  Exhaust emissions for any specific vehicle depend on a great
                number of factors.
            2.  Certain differences and similarities among cities were
                observed in emission results.  Carbon monoxide and
                hydrocarbon emissions tended to be higher in Denver than
                in other cities, whereas oxides of nitrogen tended to be
                lower.  The observed differences are believed to be
                attributable to the effect of altitude on air-fuel ratios.
                For this reason Denver was segregated from the low-altitude
                cities in the compilation of emission results.  In
                recognition of the different emission standards applicable
                to certain model year vehicles in California than in other
                states, Los Angeles was segregated from other low-altitude
                cities, even though results from Los Angeles were similar to
                results from St. Louis and Newark.  Though significant differ-
                ences were observed among the remaining four low-altitude cities,
                results from these cities were pooled to provide a more repre-
                sentative base for low-altitude emission factors.
            3.  Individual vehicles of a particular group show wide
                dispersion in exhaust emissions.  Consequently, two
                groups of vehicles, for example populations of vehicles
                tested in two different cities, may show considerable
                overlap of their statistical distributions even though the
                mean emissions for the two groups are appreciably different.
                Generalizations with regard to make, city or other
                categories of interest, therefore, are often not applicable
                to comparison of individual vehicles or small subsets of
                vehicles drawn from the two categories.

-------
4.   Tests of 1973 and  1974 model year  light  duty vehicles
    indicate the following percent of  vehicles were at
    or below the 1973/1974 Federal Standards for HC
    (3.4 gras/mi) , CO (39.0gms/mi) and  NOX  (3.0 gms/mi).


1973
Model
Year
Vehicles

1974
Model
Year
Vehicles
POLLUTANT

HC
CO
NOX
ALL THREE
1
HC
CO
NOX
ALL THREE
FOUR CITIES
(140 Vehicles
Tested)
43% or 60
38% or 53
42% or 59
14% or 19
(40 Vehicles
Tested)
58% or 23
63% or 25
65% or 26
45% or 18
DENVER
(35 Vehicles
Tested)
20% or 7
8% or 3
89% or 31
3% or 1
(10 Vehicles
Tested)
! 0% or 0
0%
90% or 9
0%
L
LOS ANGELES
(35 Vehicles
Tested)
57% or 20
60% or 21
57% or 20
20% or 7 1
1
(10 Vehicles
Tested)
70% or 7 i
1
50% or 5
90% or 9
30% or 3
	 .... . ,J
5.  Light duty vehicles tested in the FY 73 program show a
    general downward trend in HC, CO and NOX emissions from
    the 1966-1967 model years (pre-control in all cities except
    Los Angeles) to the model year 1973.  Note, however, that
    this apparent trend must be interpreted in light of the fact
    that new vehicles with low mileage are compared with older
    vehicles with larger mileage.  This trend is shown by the
    average emission levels based upon the 1972 Federal Test
    Procedure (see Table page 9).  Note that the one increase
    in NOX for Los Angeles is not significant at the 95%
    confidence level.  1974 model year vehicles tested in FY
    73 show an even greater reduction in emissions from
    1966/1967 to 1974.

-------
       FY  73 EMISSION LEVELS (GM/MI)

        1972 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE

(1967  Vehicles  Are Pre-Control  In All  Cities
      Except Los  Angeles)
LOCATION
Four City
1967 Vehicles
1973 Vehicles
.1974 Vehicles
Percent Reduction
67 - 73
67 - 74
Los Angeles
1967 Vehicles
1973 Vehicles
1974 Vehicles
Percent Reduction
67 - 73
67 - 74
Denver
1967 Vehicles
1973 Vehicles
1974 Vehicles
Percent Reduction
67 - 73
67 - 74
1C
gm/MI

9.7S
4.07
3.42

58%*
65%*

7.58
4.27
3.26

44%
57%

11.02
5.03
4.47

54%*
59%*
CO
gm/MI

121.08
53.40
41.03

56%*
66%*

87.06
47.93
40.82

45%*
53%*

156.94
93.34
83.37

41%*
. 47%*
NOXC
gm/MI

3.97
3.47
2.88

13%*
27%*

2.88
3.00
2.23

-4%
23%

2.26
1.99
1.84

12%
19%
MEAN
MILES
' fK\

68.1
18.1
5.8




62.1
21.5
11.3




66.4
14.3
5.3



  Significant  at  95%  Level

-------
6.  Comparison of the  results  of  the FY  71,  72  and 73
    Emission Factor  programs reveals a general  tendency
    for HC and CO emissions  to increase  with increasing
    vehicle age and/or mileage.   However,  the con-
    founding effects of vehicle maintenance, vehicle
    population variation  and other  more  subtle  effects
    from FY to FY make the estimation of an  age or
    mileage effect uncertain.
   The FY 73 Emission Factor Program was the first pro-
   gram in which the effects of air conditioning and
   vehicle loading upon emissions and fuel economy were
   measured.  Results indicate that for tests on air
   conditioned vehicles performed in Houston and Detroit,
   emission levels were generally higher and fuel economy
   lower when the air conditioning system was in operation.
   Results for tests on vehicles with an additional 500 pounds
   inertia weight to simulate an added load of passengers
   or luggage, indicate no significant effect on vehicle
   emissions or fuel economy.  However, results for vehicles
   with an additional 1000 pounds inertia weight and an
   increased road load horsepower to simulate vehicles towing
   trailers indicate a large decrease in fuel economy
   accompanied by a large increase in vehicle emissions.  For
   these tests, the increased road load horsepower was
   determined from actual road tests.
                      10

-------
1.3   BACKGROUND

            The Congress, through the enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1963
and amendments thereto, provided for a national air pollution program to
monitor and control emissions from new motor vehicles.  Administrative .
responsibility for the air pollution control program is vested with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

            The first nationwide standards for exhaust emissions, together
with-the testing and certification procedures, were issued in 1966 and were
applicable to 1968 model year passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks sold
within the United States.  Levels for maximum allowable exhaust emissions
were imposed initially on HC and CO pollutants only.  Hydrocarbons were
restricted to 275 parts per million concentration and carbon monoxide was
restricted to 1.5 percent.  These pollutants were measured using the 7-mode
cold-start test procedure.

            More stringent standards on a mass equivalent basis were intro-
duced for 1970 and 1971 model year vehicles.  The Federal standards based on the
7-mode procedure, expressed in mass equivalents, were 2.2 grams/mile for HC
and 23 grams/mile for CO.  In 1972, a change was made to a new test procedure.
This procedure contained a new sampling method, the Constant Volume Sampling
Procedure (CVS), and a new driving sequence.  At that time the standards were
again strengthened.  HC was restricted to 3.4 grams/mile and CO was restricted
to 39.0 grams/mile.  The numerical increase in the standards from 1971 to
1972 reflects the increased stringency of the testing procedures.  In terms
of the 1972 test procedure, the 1971 standards were equivalent to approximately
4.6 grams/mile for HC and 47 grams/mile for CO.  The first Federal Standards
applicable to oxides of nitrogen were promulgated for 1973 model-year light-
duty vehicles and were set at 3.0 grams/mile.  The first Federal evaporative
emission standards were introduced for 1971 model-year vehicles.
                                     11

-------
             Under the  Clean  Air Act, manufacturers are required  to  submit
 applications containing data gathered during both phases  of  a  two-part test
 program in order to qv>alify  for certificates of conformity.  The first phase
 of testing provides data on  exhaust emissions which show  the performance of
 the control equipment  after  the engine has been broken in, but before
 substantial mileage has been accumulated.  These data are known  as  4,000
 mile emission data.  The second phase of the test program provides  data on
 the durability of the  emission control system.  These data are known as
 50,000 mile durability data.

             For 1968-1971 model year vehicles, compliance was  demonstrated
 whenever the mean emission level from a specified sample  of  emission-data
 prototypes of each engine displacement, weighted according to  projected sales
 volume,  was within the applicable standard.  This mean incorporates  a
 deterioration factor determined from a sample of durability-data prototypes
 representative of at least 70% of the manufacturer's engine  displacement/
 transmission options.   Inherent in this method of certification  is  the fact
, that mean values  for HC or CO are near the levels specified  in the  standard
 though as many as 50%  of certification or in-use vehicles could  be  above the
 standard for either pollutant.  (The 50% figure assumes that emissions of
 prototype vehicles are normally distributed.  In the case of lognormality,
 less than 50% but still an appreciable fraction of the vehicles  could be
 above the standard.)

             For 1972 and subsequent model year vehicles, every vehicle tested
 in the certification sample  must have emissions below the level  of  the applicable
 standard.   The certification prototypes are tested with vehicle  parameter
 settings,  e.g.  engine  timing,  at or near the mean of the allowable production
 range.   Therefore,  to  the extent that emissions vary within  the  allowable
 range of parameter settings,  some percentage of production vehicles might be
 expected to emit  pollutants  above the certified standard.  At  the present
 time, no data exist to quantify this percentage.
                                     12

-------
            EPA has recognized that a realistic assessment of the effectiveness
of Federal air pollution regulations requires the measurement of emissions from
production vehicles in the hands of the motoring public.   Accordingly, a
series of exhaust emission surveillance programs has been administered by the
EPA during the past several years to obtain such definitive information.  Test
fleets of consumer-owned vehicles within various major cities were selected by
make, model, engine size, transmission, and carburetor categories in such
proportion as to be representative of the normal production vehicles sold (or
projected to be sold) for that model year in the United States.

            The principal objective of such surveillance programs is to gather
emissions data from a representative sample of in-use motor vehicles.  Using
the data from the surveillance programs, the Surveillance Branch works with the
National Air Data Branch (NADB) and the office of Transportation Land Use Policy
(OTLUP)  to develop appropriate in-use vehicle emission factors from which emission
source inventories, vehicle emission control strategies, and emergency episode
pollution abatement procedures can be developed.  In addition, modal data are
collected which are used to model the effect of automobile emissions under
arbitrary traffic and road network conditions in order to evaluate transportation
control systems.
                                     13

-------
                     2.   EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM DESIGN
            The Emission Factor Program  is  designed  to yield  emission factors
which are representative of the national distribution of vehicle miles traveled
by in-use vehicles.  Accordingly it  is necessary  to  determine,  for each model
year, the appropriate number of vehicles to be  tested.  This  number is determined
according to the contribution made by vehicles  of that model  year to the total
number of vehicle miles traveled by  in-use  vehicles.  Further,  within each
model year the vehicle sample is allocated  by vehicle make, engine size,
carburetor type and transmission type on the basis of vehicle sales within
each category.  To ensure a valid statistical sample, the  appropriate number
of vehicles within each designated group or stratum  is selected by a random
process.  The vehicles tested are in customer use and are  tested in an as-
received condition so that the sample can reflect variability in usage, main-
tenance and repair practices.

            In addition to the usual emission factor tests, the FY 73 program
included tests designed to satisfy certain  study  objectives.  One of these
objectives was to determine the effect of air conditioning on emissions.
Another was to determine the effect  on emissions  of  additional  loading, such
as the towing of a trailer, or the addition of  extra passengers or baggage.
Also included in the program was the measurement  of  modal  mass  emission data
for vehicles from each of the six cities.  Analysis  of the modal data is being
treated separately and is not a subject  of  this report.  A study of the
repeatability of emission tests was  conducted by  replicate testing of 20
vehicles in Denver and 20 vehicles in Los Angeles.  Results of  statistical
tests on replicate data appear later in  this report.
                                     14

-------
            Air  conditioned vehicle emission data for emission factors develop-
ment were generated using twenty (20) vehicles each in Houston and Detroit.
The testing sequence was conducted on vehicles equipped with factory installed
air conditioning systems.  The vehicles were operated from a hot start over
the 1972 FTP Driving Sequence.  Testing was such as to allow calculation of
emission factors for vehicles with the air-conditioning system operating.

            Tests were performed on 42 Detroit area vehicles using modal mass
sampling techniques at three load conditions.  The first was at the inertia
weight  and road  load settings of the Federal Register.  The second was at a
higher  inertia weight leaving the road load settings the same as in the first
test to simulate the addition of passengers and baggage.  The third was at an
even higher inertia weight and a higher road load setting to simulate the
addition of a  towed vehicle.  For this test the appropriate road load power
settings were  determined empirically from actual road tests of the vehicles.

2.1   FY 73 TEST VEHICLE SELECTION AND HANDLING PROCEDURE

            In each of the six cities, a sample of 1967 through 1974 automobiles
representative of the nationwide vehicle population profile was selected.  The
vehicle sample was chosen on the basis of model year, make, carburetor, and
transmission categories.  All vehicles were inspected for compliance with these
established criteria prior to final acceptance.  Before testing, vehicles were
inspected to confirm acceptability.   In some cases, vehicles were rejected
because of leaky exhaust systems or for safety reasons.

            Test vehicles were scheduled for testing at each of the laboratories
in accordance with the respective laboratory work load and manpower capabilities.
To encourage participation, incentives included fully insured loan cars and a
$25 U.S. Savings Bond.

            The constant volume sampling technique by the 1975 Federal Test
Procedure was used for determination of exhaust emissions.   Upon completion of
testing, engine diagnostic procedures were performed which included basic
timing, point dwell, and idle rpm.   HC and CO were analyzed at idle using a
garage-type analyzer.

                                     15

-------
                           3.    STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

            Statistical analysis of  the  FY 73  emission  factor  data was performed
with a view toward consolidation of  information  and the Identification of
trends and generalizations.  In this analysis  the  results  of emissions are
presented, for the most part,  in the form of arithmetic and geometric means
and standard deviations.  The results of fuel  economy calculations are presented
in the form of harmonic means  and standard deviations.

            A word of explanation is in  order  with regard  to the  geometric mean
and standard deviation and their interpretation  in an emission context.  There
is evidence that emissions data tend to  follow a lognormal rather than a normal
distribution.  Consequently,  if the  emission values are subjected to a
logarithmic transformation, the logarithms tend  to follow  a normal distribution,
and means and standard deviations can be computed  for these logarithms and
interpreted in much the same  way as  for  any other  normal distribution.  However,
if the inverse transformation is applied to these  statistics,  the resulting
antilogarithms represent geometric means and standard deviations.

            Geometric means and standard deviations must be interpreted in a
multiplicative rather than an additive sense.  If  the geometric mean is
multiplied by the geometric standard deviation,  one obtains a  quantity which
represents approximately the  84th percentile of  the distribution, in much the
same way as one obtains this  percentile  in a normal distribution  by adding
the standard deviation to the  mean.   Similarly,  by multiplying the geometric
mean by the geometric standard deviation squared,  one obtains  approximately
the 95th percentile of the distribution  in much  the same way as one obtains this
percentile in a normal distribution  by adding  two  standard deviations to the mean,

            A major consequence of the lognormal characteristic of emission data
is that the distributions tend to be skewed to the right.  Toward the low
side of the distribution emissions tend  to be  bounded more strictly than on the
high side.  In particular, a vehicle can exhibit quite  high emissions but only
under very special conditions  can a  vehicle exhibit emission results which are
negative in value.  Because of this  implicit skewness in emissions data, the
mean emission level of a group of vehicles must  be looked  at independently of

                                     16

-------
the fraction of these vehicles which conform to a standard.  The arithmetic
mean of a group of vehicles is useful in assessing the impact of that group of
vehicles on air quality.  However, for purposes of estimating the fraction of
individual vehicles which comply with standards the geometric mean and standard
deviation are often more useful.  It is for these reasons that both arithmetic
and geometric means and standard deviations are reported.  Fuel consumption
or fuel economy, however, is computed on a per-mile basis by means of a
carbon-balance approach.  Because the fuel consumed over a fixed distance is
the random variable, the fup.l economy must be expressed recriproca] ly by
harmonic means and standard deviations.
3.1   EMISSION DATA AND RESULTS

            The results of the FY 73 Emission Factor Program are summarized
in Tables 1 through 57.  For Tables 1 through 27, it will be noted that
Los Angeles and Denver are treated separately from the remaining four cities,
in conformance with the method of aggregating results in the FY 71 and FY 72
programs and  to facilitate comparison with these previous years.  In addition,
results for the remaining individual cities are given in Tables 28 through 55
inasmuch as some departures from the city-based trends of previous years were
noted.  Table 56 presents the results of emission tests on air-conditioned
vehicles and  Table 57 gives results on  the effect of increased loading on
emissions and fuel economy.

            Tables 21 through 23 present the percentage of vehicles with
emissions which are no greater than the 1972 Federal Standards of 3.4 gm/mile
for HC and 39.0 gm/mile for CO, and the added 1973/1974 Federal Standard of
3.0 gm/mile for NOX.  The emission data used for comparison were based upon
the 1972 FTP.  Also presented are the number of vehicles complying with the
standards.  The percent of vehicles complying with standards for each
individual pollutant are reported in Tables 10-12 in conjunction with emission
levels for the 1972 FTP.

            Tables  13 and 27 give the 1972 and 1975 Federal Test Procedure
results by model year and inertia weight for  the combined cities of Detroit,
Houston, St.  Louis  and Newark.  The  tables contain the arithmetic means and
standard deviations of  the  1972 and  1975 FTP  emission results in grams/mile.
                                      17

-------
In this report, five hundred pound  increments  are used  to establish class
boundaries from 2000 to 5000 pounds.   Individual tables based upon Los Angeles
and Denver data are not presented since the  number of observations per cell
becomes extremely small.

3.2   DISCUSSION

            In the following sections the data from the FY 73 Emission Factor
Program are reviewed from the standpoint of  city effects, degradation effects
such as the effect of mileage on emissions,  and time trends revealed from a
comparative study of the FY 71, FY  72 and FY 73 programs.  Particular attention
is given  to the performance of vehicles during their first year of operation.
Also included are discussions of results from emission  tests on air-conditioned
and loaded vehicles, an evaluation  of fuel economy as  deduced from emission
data, and an analysis of replicate  tests performed on  forty vehicles.

3.2.1 City Effects

            the term "city effect"  means that some feature of the emission
results for a particular city distinguishes  that city  from other cities
in the test program.  As in the FY  71 and FY 72 programs, the most notable
city effects were those associated  with Denver.  Denver vehicles produced
significantly higher levels of hydrocarbons  and carbon  monoxide and lower
nitrogen  oxide emissions than did vehicles in other cities.  The principal
considerations distinguishing Denver is its  altitude, which affects carburetion
and tends to produce richer fuel mixtures.

            Certain similarities among cities were noted as the result of
statistical tests of significance and engineering comparisons of the magnitudes
of emissions in the several cities.  Some of the similarities which emerged
for the first time in the FY 73 program are  believed to be a consequence of
the fact  that 1973 was  the first model year  in which vehicles in all cities were
required  to meet NOX standards.  Of particular note in this connection is the
relation  of Los Angeles to other cities in the program.  In FY 71 and FY 72
                                    18

-------
Los Angeles exhibited higher carbon monoxide emissions than the other cities
in those programs.  In FY 73, however, Los Angeles can not be distinguished
from St. Louis  and Newark with regard to any of the pollutants.  For
consistency in  comparing FY 73 emission results with those of previous years,
emission results  for Los Angeles as well as for Denver were segregated from
results for the other four cities.  It should be noted, however, that the
four cities aggregated in the FY 73 program are not the same as those
aggregated in the previous fiscal years.  For FY 73, Chicago was replaced
by Detroit and  Washington was replaced by Newark.  Although the respective
cities involved still represent the same geographic and climatological
conditions as in  the previous program, the fact that a different mix of cities
was involved is worthy of note.  For this reason the results on individual
cities are also included in this report.  Also included for comparison are basic
summaries  of  test results  from  the FY 71 and FY 72 programs.  These are found
in  the Appendix.
3.2.2 Degradation Effects

            Degradation effects stem from factors  which operate to counteract
emission controls.  Mileage accumulation is one of these factors,  but  it is
difficult to isolate the effect of mileage from the effects of various other
factors causing deterioration of emission control  performance, such as state
of engine adjustment and repair.  Often these additional factors are positively
correlated with mileage accumulation and provide the  mechanism by  which mileage
accumulation is translated into increased levels  of emission.
            Tables 17, 18 and 19 provide insight into the effect of deteriora-
tion influences on emission levels -ind can be virwed in two ways:

            First, one  can compare FY 71, FY 72 and FY  73  results  for a
particular model  year.   An increase  in  average mileage with age is noted as
one moves  from the FY  71 to  the FY 73 results.  The change in average emissions
is  not nearly  as  consistent.   Not only  do  the  increases in average emissions
between  test years vary considerably, but  there is also uncertainty in  the
value  of  each  increase  due to  the large  standard deviations of  the average
                                     19

-------
emissions estimates.

            Second,  one can compare different model years within  a  specific
Fiscal Year program.   Again,  a consistent relationship between  age  and mileage
and an inconsistent  trend of  increasing emissions with age/mileage  are observed.
However, model year  design difference  is also a  factor contributing to emission
changes and it is difficult to separate deterioration from  design influence.

            On the other hand, fuel economy appears  to be  little  changed when
analyzing results for various model year vehicles within a  particular FY program
and for various FY programs within a particular  model year.  A possible reason
for this observation may be that the mix of vehicles has changed  from FY to
FY and model-year to model-year in such a way as to  compensate for  any
deleterious effect of emission controls increasing weight or other  factors
affecting fuel economy.

            In summary, it is evident  that  there exist factors which tend to
produce deterioration in the effectiveness  of emission controls with continued
vehicle use.  However, the two year span of the  surveillance programs to date,
and the large variance in the results, do not allow  for  precise estimates of
the rate or duration of emission control deterioration.  Our knowledge of the
rate, duration, cause, and control of  emission control deterioration will
increase as future surveillance programs lengthen the span  of emission data and
as the results of testing in areas with inspection/maintenance programs become
available.
                                    20

-------
 3.2.3 Fuel  Economy
             By virtue of the  fact  that the carbon dioxide  (CO.) output was
 measured  in addition to the output of CO and EC for each of the vehicles
 tested, it  is possible to compute  fuel consumption on a per mile basis by
 means of  a  carbon-balance approach.  The total carbon content of a gallon of
 gasoline  is known, and this carbon must be recovered after combustion as either
 HC, CO or CO..   By virtue of  the fact that carbon input and carbon output must
 be equal, it is  possible to compute  the fuel consumed per mile from the total
 carbon emitted per mile.  These results, expressed reciprocally as miles per
 gallon, are tabulated as harmonic  means and harmonic standard deviations under
 the heading "Fuel Economy" in the  appropriate tables.  The rationale for the
 use of harmonic  means and standard deviations resides in the fact that it is
 the fuel  consumed over a fixed distance that is the random variable, not the
 distance  covered on a fixed amount of fuel (see Reference 5).

            The  data shown in Tables  13  and 27  Indicate that  through  model
year 1973 there  are no significant differences among the fuel economies
exhibited by the different model years in the study if the fuel economy  for
each model year  is obtained by averaging over all inertia weight groups.
These results are observed by noting the bottom rows of the two tables.   The
 tendency  toward  constant fuel economy may reflect the fact that any deleterious
effect of emission controls on fuel economy is compensated for by the  sales
 trend toward lighter vehicles.  However, discretion must be applied when
 interpreting the individual row or inertia weight groups due to the small
number of vehicles tested for a specific year and vehicle inertia weight.  When
 interpreting data for individual model years, represented by column data in the
 above mentioned  tables, it is evident that fuel economy decreases (fuel
 consumption  increases) rather consistently with increasing inertia weight.

             Tables 14, 15 and  16 display fuel economy by model year for the
 1972 FTP, the 1975 FTP and the cold transient, hot transient and cold  stabilized
portions  of  the  Federal Test Procedure.   The fuel economies tabulated  represent
 a sales-weighted selection of vehicles for each model year, and it must be
borne in mind that the distribution of inertia weights changes from model year
 to model year.   In particular, light-weight vehicles constitute a larger

                                     21

-------
fraction of the sales of 1973 and 1974  model  year vehicles than in the sales of
previous model year vehicles.  Consequently,  the effect of emission control
systems on fuel economy is confounded with the effect  of changing distributions
of inertia weight from one model year to another.
3.2.4 Performance of Vehicles In Their .First  Year  of  Operation

            Of major importance when comparing  different Fiscal Year
programs is whether new model-year  vehicles tested in their program Fiscal
Year had lower levels of emissions  in their first  year of operation than
previous model-year vehicles tested in  their  program  Fiscal Year had in their
first year of operation.  The arithmetic  mean emission levels for vehicles
tested in their first year of operation for the 1971, 1972 and 1973 FY
programs are presented in Table 20.

            Results indicate that for Denver, where HC and CO emission levels
are usually higher than in other low altitude cities, UC emissions have been
reduced 11% from FY 72 to FY 73 and 29% from  FY 71 to FY 73.  CO emissions
for Denver have increased slightly  from new vehicles  tested in FY 72 to new
vehicles tested in FY 73, probably  as a result  of  the newly imposed NOX standard.
CO emissions, however, have decreased 7%  from new  vehicles tested in FY 71
as compared to new vehicles tested  in FY  73.  NOX  emissions for Denver have
decreased 40% from 1971 vehicles tested in FY 71 as compared to 1973 vehicles
tested in FY 73.

            Results for Los Angeles  indicate an Increase in HC emissions of
6% from FY 72 to FY 73 and 20% from FY 71 to  FY 73.  CO emissions for Los Angeles
have decreased by 15% from FY 72 to FY 73 and by 8% from FY 71 to FY 73.  Results
for NOX emissions have decreased by 24% from  FY 72 to FY 73 and also by 24% from
FY 71 to FY 73.
                                     22

-------
            For  the four combined cities, HC and CO emissions increased 17%
and 19% respectively when new 1973 model year vehicles .were compared with
new 1972 model year vehicles, a result probably due to the imposition of the
1973 NOX standard for all states.  It is significant to note that NOX values
decreased  26%  for the four combined cities when comparing 1973 vehicles tested
in FY  73 with  1972 vehicles tested in FY 72.  Whereas  the imposition of the
NOX standard has produced significant decreases in NOX, it has, as already
stated, contributed to the increase in HC and/or CO emissions. In-use
1973 vehicles  have mean emission levels for HC that are 19% above the
Federal standard of 3.4 gm/rai, mean emissions for CO that are 30% above the
Federal standard of 39.0 gin/mi and mean emissions for NOX that are 14% above
the Federal standard of 3.0 gm/mi for the four combined cities.

3.2.5  Loaded Vehicles and Vehicles Towing Trailers

            Results for both emissions and fuel economy for 42 vehicles tested
in Detroit under three load conditions are presented in Table 57.  Test 1
represents the inertia weight and road load settings as specified in the
Federal Register.  Test 2 represents a condition in which the road load setting
of the Federal Register is unchanged but the inertia weight is increased 500
pounds to  simulate the addition of passengers and luggage.  Test 3 represents
a condition intended to simulate the towing of a trailer.  In this test the
inertia weight is increased by 1000 pounds over that specified in the Federal
Register,  and  the road load power setting is increased by an amount empirically
determined from  road test.  It is evident from the table that increased loading
of a vehicle results in greater fuel consumption (reduced fuel economy) and
higher emission  levels.  Note, however, that the effect is minimal for loads
within the normal operating load range of the vehicle as a free-standing convey-
ance without a trailer.
            The  effect of loading on fuel economy for  the same vehicle is shown
graphically in the figure.  It is evident that for vehicles towing trailers
the decrease in  fuel economy is quite significant.  Moreover, the greater the
speed, the larger the difference in fuel economy between vehicles without
trailers and vehicles with trailers.  Of the speeds tested, the best fuel
economy for all  three load conditions appears at about 30 miles per hour.

                                      23

-------
          26 r
       .
       , o
          15
          10
                                                           TEST 1
                                TEST 1 - INERTIA AND ROAD LOAD SETTINGS
                                     OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER
                                TEST 2 - TEST 1 CONDITION PLUS 500 LBS
                                TEST 3 - INERTIA SETTING OF THE FEDERAL
                                     REGISTER PLUS 1.000 LBS. ALSO AN
                                     EMPIRICALLY DERIVED ADDITIONAL
                                     ROAD LOAD SETTING WAS APPLIED.
                     10
                          IS
                                                       45
                               20   25   30   35   40
                                STEADY STATE SPEED IN MI/HR
                      COMPARISON OF LOADED AND UNLOADED TESTS
                      ON FORTY-TW01967 1973 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
                                                            50
                                                                  56
                                                                       60
             The fact that both  fuel  consumption  and emission  levels tend  to
increase with  load in these  tests  should not be  construed as  indicating that
a vehicle of light-weight design will necessarily  have lower  emissions than
a vehicle of heavy design (see  Tables 13 and 27).    In this case, differences
in weight are  at least to some  extent offset by  the fact that power plants
and transmission are adjusted  to vehicle weight.

3.2.6 Air Conditioned Vehicles

             Results on the effect  of air conditioning on emissions and on fuel
economy are  reported in Table  56.  Note that the table includes tests with the
actual air conditioning system operating as well as tests in  which air
conditioning is simulated.   Simulation is in accordance with  the Federal
                                       24

-------
Register for certification testing and consists of an additional 10% road load
horsepower.

            As indicated by comparison of results with the actual air
conditioning system on and off, emissions are appreciably higher and fuel
economy appreciably lower when the air conditioning system is in operation.
In the case of simulated air conditioning a similar but less evident trend is
noted, but statistical tests of significance show that emissions are generally
lower for vehicles when tested with simulated air conditioning than when tested
with the actual factory-installed air conditioning system operating.

3.2.7 Replicate Testing

            A question of interest in connection with emission testing is the
degree to which emission measurements are repeatable when a test is performed
two or more times on the same vehicle and under the same conditions.  In
connection with the FY 73 emission factors program, twenty Denver vehicles and
twenty Los Angeles vehicles were subjected to duplicate tests to afford informa-
tion on repeatability.

            Results of these replicate tests have been analyzed in two ways.
First, a test of significance was performed to determine if there were any
systematic difference between the first and second replicate measurements.
This test revealed no bias.  Second, the mean and standard deviation for
each pair of values was computed, and the standard deviation for each pair
of values was expressed as a percent of the mean for those two values.  The
resulting coefficients of variation were then averaged for the twenty vehicles.
The variances for the twenty vehicles were averaged qnd the square root of
this average was obtained as an estimate of the pooled standard deviation for
each pollutant.
                                     25

-------
Denver Vehicles
0.39
7.3
0.14
23.1

5.8
6.9
5.5
2.1
            The results of these analyses are based on the 1972 FTP and are
summarized below.
                 Pooled Standard                 Average
               Deviation (gins/mi)       Coefficient of Variation (%)
      HC
      CO
      NOX
      CO.,
                           Los Angeles Vehicles

      HC              .81                       12.3
                     (.34)                      (5.5)
      CO            14.5                        13.4
                    (7.0)                       (6.6)
      NOX             .52                       20.1
                    (.19)                       (6.7)
      CO            24.7                         2.7
                   (17.7)                       (2.0)

            According to these results, the standard deviation of replicate
measurements for the 20 Denver vehicles is approximately 6% to 7% of the
average emission levels for HC, CO and NOX.  In the case of Los Angeles, two
sets of values are tabulated.  The first set represents calculations performed
on all twenty vehicles.  The second set, in parentheses, represents calculations
performed after rejecting two vehicles regarded as outliers on the basis of
extremely large and unrepresentative differences between replicate determinations,
After removal of these outliers from the data,  the Los Angeles vehicles exhibit
repeatability comparable to that of the Denver  vehicles.  The half-width of a
95% confidence interval for the mean, if based  on a single emission test, is
approximately double the standard deviation tabulated for a particular pollutant.

                                     26

-------
                                  REFERENCES
1.    A Study of Emissions from 1967-1974 Light Duty Vehicles in Denver,
      Houston, and Detroit, EPA Report EPA-460/3-74-015

2.    A Study of Emissions from 1967-1974 Light Duty Vehicles in Los Angels
      and St. Louis, EPA Report EPA-460/3-74-016   i/

3.    A Study of Emissions from 1967-1974 Light Duty Vehicles in Newark,
      New Jersey, EPA Report EPA-460/3-74-014

4.    Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - A Summary,  EPA Report APTD-1544

5.    Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - Analysis of the FY 72 Program,
      EPA Report EPA-460/2-74-001
                                     27

-------
                                               Table  1
                                      FYT3 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM

                  COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVtLS FOR ALL CITIBS EXCLUDING DENVER AMD LOS ANGELES

                        .   . .               COLO  TRANSIENT
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971 1
11972
11973
11974
1 TOTAL
!— —
HVDROCAKtONi-^MS
MEAN ARITHMtTIC 1
MILES 1
N (K) MEAN iL> I
1
1
68) 68.11 39.67
721 61.01 3^.80
84) 57.8) 29.91
881 51.4) 27.44
108) 37.4) 21.48
1201 28.7) 20.01
140) 18.11 17.76
40| 5.8) 14.87
7201 39.8| 24.72
' 1
2J..49)
35.40)
24.18)
17.13)
17.23)
11.511
o.71|
21.66)
1
MEAN
Jf5.it-
26.67
25.04
16.62
17.44
16. IV
13.49
20.63
LTRIC
su
CARt.UN
ARlTHV.iil i
MtAN
1.61) 469. 7b <:53
1.71) 3b5.13 240
1.09) 352.lt 210
1.58) 267. OS Ib7
1.49) 210.06 113
1.5V) 170. CL 11
l./ll 30C.44 20Q
'
MGNCXIUr-oRAMS
C I i.ejMtTf
1
iD I V.LAN
1
1
.21) 413. 42
.ij| i9fc.45
.34) 303.07
.c9| 22o.5a
.35) ^23.03
.74) Ibt.ria
.lb| ^5..c4
1
1
1
1C 1
1
SLi 1
1
1
I.Ob I
1.79|
1.81 |
1.69)
1.72 |
1.79)
I.Sol
1.821
1

t»L.X-t..KAM
^
AMThKbllC 1 GEL.
1
MbAN SD | ML AN
1
1
It. 61
19.40
21.16
19.26
19. i4
20 .26
12.34
16. i9
7.34)
•7.44)
j!-,2|
7.46|
o . 7 o |
7.99)
- -!
14.43
i7.10
19.41
l/.Lt
16.15
lo.77
13.87
11 .52
16.43

MtTRIC
Su
l.bii
1.74
1.50
1.74
1.52
1.50
1.4^1
1.64)
_J
                                               Table 2
                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM

                  COMPOSITE EMISSION  LfVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES

                                           COLD  STABILIZED
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
111974
(TOTAL
\~
1
1
1
(MEAN
(MILES
N I (K)
1
1
HYJRUCARbUNS-GRAMS
pkilHMhTlC
MEAN iU
&LOML1KIC
MEAN SU
•
CARbLiN MbNOXiDt-Gf.AMS
*,R ITHMt 1 1C
MLAN St/
081 68.11 33.24 24.26| 28. 4. | 15.37 1.75
221.C1 1.89) Ib.ob b.131 17. CV 1.60
216. IB l.b^ 16.66 /.6b| 14.94 1.64J
I6i-.3j 2.01 ii>.52 7.42J li .92 1.60
Io2.^& 2.4>< 15. 3b 7.9t| 13.59 1.66|
143.35 Z.lfc 11.. 79 i.baj 9 ^>2 1.611
95.52 2.35 9.«.9 4.C5I 8 ,S7 1.49|
165. t 7 2.211 14.70 7.94| 12.85 l.Yil
1 1
                                               Table  3
                                      FY73 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM

                  COMPOSITE  EMISSION LEpBLS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES

                                           HOT:TRANSIENT




YEAR


11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11979
11974
1 TOTAL
1
1
1




N




MEAN
MILES
(K)



1

HYDROCARBON S-bRA MS I CAStjf; XUNCXIDt : -OR AM j
ARITHMETIC

MEAN :>£)


ofcCMETiUC 1 A^ilhrttllC
1
MEAN SD | FUAN bCl
1
1
C-EUNLTRIC

MtAN SD


681 68.11 25.40 19.011 12.41 1.56| 301.44 161.551 t57.33 I.OH
721 61.01 21.31 24.751 17.37 1 .68 I 167. 7*. 12J.07I 155.92 1.85

NLX-OKAMb
ARITHMETIC 1 GEuMcTRIC
1
MLAN jD I MtAN -0
e 1
1
17.49 7.fa2| 15.37 1.76|
22.69 9.9o| 21.36 1.661
84| 57.81 IB. 88 IS. oil 15.38 1.701 16t.91 104. 54 | 14L ,9o l.«6| 24. .6 9.221 22. Id 1.54|
881 51.41 14.96 10.69| 13. 5o 1 .4t> I 15i.5c 7C.68
135.69 1.631 21.44 fc.Y7| 19. 7J 1.53|
1081 37. 4| 13.09 v.66| 11.63 -1.541 126. C2 9O.19| 103.91 l.Htl il.57 9.4i| 19.64 i.561
1201 28.71 13.15 11.451 11.50 1.56| 151.21 131.161 113.35 ^.16| 2C.83 S.C41 Id .B6 1.601
1401 18.11 11.42 4.92| 11.64 1.43) 125.36 96.131 101.26 1.91| 15.31 7. .21 i.3 .94 1.56
401 5.8| It,. 46 3.65) 9.91 1.401 102.84 63.16) 86.33 1.63) 12. ol 5.14| 11.73 1.46
720) 39.8) 15.52 14.47) 13.18 1.64) 159.65 lift. 201 126. 1C 2.0CI 19.73 9.14) 17.64 1.64)
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
                                                  28

-------
                                              Table 4
                                     FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                   EMISSION  LEVELS FOR DENVER
                                        COLD  TRANSIENT



YEAR
11967
11968
1969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974



N

MEAN
MILES
(K)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO
' .
CARBON MONOXIDE -GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO MEAN SD
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD MkAN SD
171 66.41 45.95 20.271 42.87 1.44) 626.41 243.631 579.53 1.53| 9.21 5.221 8 .00 1.74|
18| 63.51 34.08 13.42) 31.85 1.45) 430.87 176.611 394.70 1.571 12.62 4. 70 1 11.78 1.481
211 5*.7| 34.18 12.591 31.91 1.501 471.61 193.371 425.04 1.671 14.54 6.5b| 13.06 1.621
221 45.71 34.50 14.611 31.58 1.551 512.90 180.461 477.01 1.511 12.16 6.04) 10. bO 1.66)
271 32.71 27.11 9.38) 25.58 1.42) 454.00 139.79) 430.82 1.411 12.52 5.COI 11.67 1.461
301 27.51 25.15 8.39) 23.77 1.42) 4O7.92 179.09) 369.10 1.611 14.12 6.G7I 12.95 1.531
351 14.31 22.17 7.89) 20.88 1.421 395.81 161.381 361.53 1.57) 8.70 4.54) 7.66 1.69)
10) 5.31 19.25 2.54) 19.13 1.141 353.66 90.91) 343.41 1.29) 8.03 2.49) 7 .68 1.371
ITOTALI180I 37.11 29.59 13.671 27.01 1.531 452.65 185.971 412.92 1.571 11.68 5.72| 1C .36 1.6t>l
III
11 1 1 1
                                              Table 5
                                     FV73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                   EMISSION LEVELS FCR DENVER
                                            COLD  STABILIZED,
YEAR
11967
11968
1969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
J 	 1
1
| HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
(MEAN ARITHMETIC
IMILES
N I (K) MEAN SD
1
1
17) 66.4) 36.66
18) 63.51 28.98
21) 54.71 25.64
22) 45.7) 21.95
27) 32.7) .19.11
301 27.5) 19.25
35) 14.31 15.56
101 5.31 14.30
180) 37.1) 21.93
1 	 -1- — 1-
12.46)
13.601
8.271
7.24)
6.05)
7.96)
7.94)
2.42)
10.671
_U
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
34.88
26.43
24.31
20.87
18.28
17.87
14.03
14.11
19.76
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
1.38) 550. 6C
1.541 369.81
1.41) 394.76
1.38) 368.89
1.35) 345.93
1.47) 330.74
1.581 304.22
1.19) 271.59
1.581 361.38
— _a —
173.901
148.15)
148.29)
114.621
87.441
241.331
175.00)
47 .38 1
173.45)
	 -J.
NOX-GRAMS
GEOMETRIC ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD MEAN SD
522.84
337.67
364.25
350.96
334.81
275.40
254.13
267.85
321.65
1.411 7.73
1.59) 10.99
1.54) 13.00
1.39) 11.41
1.31) 10.68
1.811 10.64
1.901 6.25
1.19) 5.74
1.66) 9.65
«J - -
5.22)
5.771
5.76)
5.991
4.251
5.69)
2.621
2.83)
5.361
	 I
GEOMETRIC
Mb AN SD
6.29
9.48
11.74
10.20
IC.CC
9.32
5.72
5.27
tt.32
2. G0|
1.801
1.62)
1.631
1.431
1.691
1.551
1.521
1.751
- _J
                                              Table 6
                                     FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                   EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
                                           HUT  TRANSIENT
1
1
1
1
1
IYEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
1 TOTAL
1 .
|
1




N


MEAN
MILES
(K)


HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD
171 66.4) 30.93 9.77
18) 63.51 24.06 12.01
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD


CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD
29.53 1.37) 484.08 148.91
21.90 1.531 302.53 127.03
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD

NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD MEAN SD
458.01 1.451 8.67 4.94| 7.56 1.71
280.42 1.48) 13.40 5.74) 12.23 1.57)
21) 5*.7| 22.27 7.52) 21.06 1.42) 328.17 141.04) 299.25 1.57) 15.69 6.96) 14.14 1.621
22) 45.71 21.83 6.571 20.94 1.34| 349.84 126.211 329.55 1.42) 13.22 6.46| 11.93 1.59)
271 32.7) 18.46 5.76) 17.68 1.351 325.70 91.321 311.57 1.37) 13.63 6.111 12.62 1.47)
30) 27.5) 18.30 6.751 17.22 1.43) 303.20 178.82) 265.75 1.68) 13.99 6.43) 12.63 1.6C)
35) 14.3) 15.77 6.14) 14.56 1.531 282.19 152.14) 242.00 1.80) 8.23 J.facl 7.46 1.561
10) S.3| 15.51 2.261 15.36 1.16| 295.98 1G4.11I 280.00 1.42) 7.63 4.36 1 6.79 1.63)
1801 37.1) 20.34 8.52) 18.79 1.49) 327.72 148.14) 295.29 1.61) 12.01 6.28) 10.53 1.69)
1 1
I I
1 1


1
'
1 1 1
1 1 1

1 1
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
29

-------
                                              Table  7
                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                    EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
                                        COLD TRANSIENT



YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
1972
11973
11974



N

MEAN
MILES
IK)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD MEAN SO
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD MEAN SD
'
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SO
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD
171 62.11 31.65 54.031 19.99 2.161 347.23 314.37) 254.64 2.29| 12.54 6.121 10.46 2.141
18| 63.51 26.08 16.111 22.83 1.66) 333.80 259.03) 280.08 1.76) 16.02 6.96) 13.68 2.071
211 65.01 26.28 17.27) 22.69 1.68) 346.77 257.93) 269.26 2.20 1 15. w9 6.02) 13.62 1.671
221 51.0) -35.88 59.881 23.01 2.09) 338.54 343.38) 266.84 1.86) 15.07 6.4V) 12.74 2.181
27) 47.51 18.01 8.34) 16.28 1.59) 275.29 202.08) 216.88 2.05) 14.07 4.98 1 13.18 1.461
30) 32.9) 18.38 10.26) 16.25 1.631 203.92 90.89) 187.93 1.49) 16.82 4.231 16.36 1.26)
35) 21.51 16.16 15.91) 15.13 1.71) 208.60 136.08 1 183.66 1.611 13.17 5.24) 12.15 1.521
101 11.31 14.32 3.94) 13.89 1.28) 181.58 89.10) 167.89 1.481 9.71 4.8CI 8 .95 1.491
ITOTALI180I 43.5) 23.14 29.35) 18.19 1.781 273.94 227.581 221.44 1.871 14.40 5.751 12.92 1.721
III! 1 1 J J
	 1
                                              Table  8
                                      FY73  EMISSION FACTOR  PROGRAM
                                    'EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
                                        COLO STABILIZED
•UMPH
YEAR
1967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
L 	 1
'
N
17
18
21
22
27
30
35
10
180
MEAN
MILES
(K.)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD MEAN SD
•
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD MtAN SD
62.1) 25.21 33.19) 16.57 2.30) 305.74 277.86) 182.61 3.18) 9.08 5.571 7.35 2.06|
63.5| 26.48 24.59) 20.60 1.981 305.47 334.91) 202.13 2.54) 12.43 7.17) 9.47 2.611
65.0) 19.92 11.30) 18.12 1.49) 274.34 135.44) 233.62 2.02) 11.38 5.23) 10.29 1.6CI
51.0) 22.88 22.831 18.01 1.85) 248.97 159.98) 199.93 2.09) 11.25 5.53) 9.93 1.701
47.5) 14.87 11.43) 12.19 1.86) 199.82 211.36) 134.31 2.53) 9.39 3.76| B .72 1.48)
32.9) li.24 9.43) 9.83 1.93) 162.46 87.621 139.54 1.78) 10.44 3.83 1 9.85 1.41)
21.5) 13.88 18.251 10.03 1.98) 150.87 163.311 99.36 2.41) 9.35 3.87) 8.58 1.54)
11.3) 10.12 2.611 9.81 1.30) 124.59 99.63) 94.58 2.19) 6.99 4.13) 6.34 1.521
43.5) 17.68 18.91) 13.33 1.99) 215.16 199.551 150.12 2.41) 10.16 4.92) 8.96 1.721
                                              Table  9
                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                    EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
                                        HOTTRANS1ENT



YEAR
1967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
1 TOTAL
1
1
1



N

MEAN
MILES
(K)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD
.
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN iD MtAN SD
17) 62.1) 10.07 23.60) 13.14 1.96) 182.56 163.61) 116.60 2.821 13.62 7.341 11.40 1.971
18) 63.51 17.71 7.63) 16.10 1.59) 167.68 124.89) 127.78 2.201 17.02 7.C7) 15.48 1.61)
211 65.01 15.22 6.781 14.12 1.46) 167.91 118.77) 138.64 1.89) 16.11 5.77) 14.84 1.57
22) 51.01 18.36 13.04) 14.54 1.821 162.45 196.65) 120.72 1.97) 16.15 7.O3) 14.21 1.80
27) 47.51 11.02 5. 1C) 10.05 1.54) 115.57 115.24) 86.36 2.10) 14.66 5.151 13.81 1.431
30) 32.9) 11.46 6.29) 10.17 1.64) 105.18 44.25) 96.42 1.53) 16.52 4.141 16.06 1.27|
35) 21.5) 12.65 12.64) 10.42 1.701 96.26 63.96) 81.05 1.78) 13.65 5.3C) 12.69 1.461
10) 11.31 8.80 2.051 8.56 1.29) 87.83 46.97) 76.63 1.62) 8.80 5.41) 7.96 1.521
180) 43.5) 14.01 12.211 11.76 1.69) 131.92 119.49) 101. 6C 2.0CI 14.94 6.O3 1 13.58 1.6C
1
1


1 1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
                                                30

-------
                            Table  10
                   FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
COMMITS BtmiOM l*»W* »0« MA "TIBS EKC4.UOW6 BWVM MB U8 AHHLfS
                            1972 FTP




YEAR

11967
11968
11969
11*70
1
1
IMEAN
IHILES
N 1 («.)
1
68) 68.11
72| 61.01
84) 57.81
881 51.4|
11971 11081 37.4)
11972 1120) 28.7)
11974 1 401 5.8|
1 1 1
NOX
MC
CO
CORRECTED
J.4 GM/MI
39.0 GM/MI
t faELOy I
LEVEL * 1
1
1
HC CO NOX |
1
C 2 351
•. . 8 lol
i 11 81
6 7 15)
25 23 221
30 28 151
57 02 651
1
FOR HUMIDITY


HYDROCARBONS GM/MI

ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SD 1
1
9.75 e.:..;S 46.171
41. C: 24.70)
1




oEUMETXIC

MEAN

1C7.72 1
77.o6 1
71. *4 1
72 .at 1
53.82 1
5i.6i 1
34.82 1




1
1
1
1
*I\J |
|
.65|
. / i|
• 7 ->|
*i /|
• 7i_ I

.7t|
1



NOX GM/MI

ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SD |
1
.«• l.fcll
t.*2l
.i 2.il>|
./ 2. -.5)
.c *l.b9|

<:.cb l.*l|
i





GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO

.»v 1.751
.41 1.681
;V2 1.531
.33 1.601
.31 1.511
.35 1.55)
.OV 1.44)
1



NOX 3.0 GM/MI
Table 11
FY73 EMISSION FACTOK PROGRAM
EMISS1CN LEVtLS (-OR DENVER





YEAR

11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974

1
1
IMEAN
(MILES
N 1 IK.)
' 1
171 60. -1
181 63.51
211 5*. 71
221 45.71
27| 32.71
301 27.51
351 14.31
101 5.31
ITOTALI130I 37.11
1 1 1 1
NOX CORRECTED
*
HC
CO

3.* GM/MI
39.0 GM/MI

% bELUM |
LEVEL » 1
1
1
HC CO NOX|
1
C 0 821
~ 5 SCI
4 4 471
4 0 59|
3 0 511
1C 6 4t>|
2C 8 88|
0 C 901
7 3 631
1
FOR HUMIDITY





197
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI

ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SD |
1
11. C2 3.58)
8.41 3.311
7.98 2.59|
7.53 2.7CI
6.16 1.741
5.92 2.C3I
5.03 1.951
4.47 0.551
6.87 2.V9I
1





GEOMETRIC

MEAN

10.53 1
7.86 1
7.5H 1
7.C5 1
5.92 1
5.59 1
• 4.7C 1
4.44 1
6.30 1








SD

< FTf

.CARBON MONOXIOc bM/Ml

ARITHMETIC |
1
MEAN SE 1
1
.351 156.94 47.021
.451 106.76 36.571
.401 115.52 41.811
.461 117.57 35.521
.341 106.66 25.171
.421 98.49 52.1.11
.401 93.34 41.021
.131 83.37 14.641
.52





1 108.54 *3.35|
1 1





GEOMETRIC

MEAN

149.00 1
10C.C8 1
1C6.91 1
111.75 1
1C3.49 1
88.06 1
83.53 1
82. ib ]
99.72 1






1
1
|
1
SO |
1
.431
.4EI
•5L |
.411
.3d
.611
.651
.181
.5*1
1





NOX GM/MI

ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN iLi |
1
2.26 1.331
3.13 1.2i>|
3.67 1.611
3.14 1.4SI
3.L9 1.151
3.30 1.511
1.99 1.931
1.84 L.67I
<..b4 1.411
1







GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO

1.VE .761
2.90 .541
3.33 .561
2.66 .561
2.92 .391
3.U0 .571
1.6C .611
1.74 .391
2.33 .6*1
1




NOX 3.0 GM/MI
                            Table 12
                    FY73  EMISSION FACTUR PROGRAM
                     EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
                            197i FTP



YEAR

11967
11968
11969
11970
1971
1972
1973
11974
1
1
IMEAN
IMILES
N | IK.)
• 1
17) 62.11
18| 63.51
211 65.01
22) 51. Cl
27| 47.51
30| 32.91
3S| 21.51
10| 11.31
ITOTALI180I 43.51
1
1 1
NOX CORRECTED
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
t bELOM 1
LEVEL » 1


HC

29
16
9
Id
40
5C
57
70
37

FOR





CO

29
27
9
13
33
43
60
50
35

1-
1
NOX|
1
5BI
27|
331
36|
551
3C|
571
901
46|
1
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1

MEAN

7.58
7.C.1
6.16
7._'3
4.38
*.i.8
4.27
3.26
5.44

1
SO 1
1
11.48)
5.361
3.461
9.901
2.501
2.3CI
4.491
C.77I
5.951
1
GEOMETRIC

MEAN

l.OC
5.84
b.52
5.60
3.85
3.59
. 3.40
3.18
*.2<*


SO

2. 16|
I.B.I
.561
.961
.671
.671
.781
.261
1.821
1
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI tc
ARITHMETIC 1

MEAN

87. C6
85.14
82. bl
7e.33
63.35
*8.83
47.93
4C.b2
65.21

1
SD |
1
72.201
78.281
49.491
61.811
50.621
22.36)
38.411
19.351
52.941
1
GEOMETRIC

MEAN

6C- .63
66 .3u
60.32
65.41
49.51
44.3*
39.26
36.64
51 .62


bb

2.571
• V9 1
*9O|
.76)
.06)
.56)
.811
.621
.961
1
X tM/Ml
ARITHMETIC 1

MEAN

2.ea
3.7S
3. 53
3 •>!
3.13
3.63
3.c;
2.23
3.27

1
SD 1
1
1.511
1.851
l.*l 1
1.4ol
1.011
(..971
1.151
1.181
1.3*1
1


GEOMETRIC

MEAN

2.4*
3.13
3.23
3.13
2.9b
3.52
2.78
2.L5
2.97

HUMIDITY








































SD

1.96
i .23 1
1.571
1.72)
1.371
1.281
l.-l 1
1.49|
1.64|
1




                               31

-------
                                                                                  Table  13
NJ
                                                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                                                  1972 FTP RESULTS  BY  INERTIA WEIGHT FOR
                                                               ALL CITIESi EXCLUDING DENVER AND  LOS  ANGELES
                                                                EMISSIONS  IN GM/MI -FUEL ECONOMY IN  MI/GAL
INERTIA WT.
ILBS)
<=2000
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
2501-3060
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
35C1-4000
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
4001-4500
MC
CO
NOX

4501-5JOO
CO
:-IOX
FUEL 6CJNOMY
>5JJO
HC

NOX
FUEL tCJNUMY
ITUTAL
1 HC
1 CO
1 NOX
i • _
196
MEAN
6.55
74.06
3.39
io.93
N=
0.0
O.o
0.0
N=
10.92
113.31
4.U7
13.59
0.19
105.63
12.81
N=
9.6b
129.93
3.99
11.26
N=
0.11
3 .ob

N-
15V .7o
3.7i
9.14
N=
l. .0

o.C
; .1
N=
9.7i
121. Ob
3.V7

7 196(
SO MtAN
i N-
0.821 0.55
5.44) 93.50
2.23) 2.96
3.48) 17.37
j Ne
0.0 4.74
o.O 62.42
0.0 2.39
O.C 23.28
8 H-
6.56) 5.37
35.38) 67.61
1.87) 5.54
1.371 15.49
14 1 NC
4.28) 6.21
69.351 76.13
2.15) 5.42
2.58) 12.82
34 1 N=
1
3.941 11.28
60. 89) 116.22
1.771 ,.16
1.751 11.43
4 N-
3.41 0.76
6b.o2 1(2.27
1.3V i.44

*» N =
25.67 l>o.Jb
c.VI 6.33
I.w5 Ij.Cb
•C N-
. .
O.C - .C
o.C i.O
6b N=
6.231 7.97
56.71) t9.76
1.811 i.V7
i _
) 1 196
1
SD 1 MtAN
2 1 N=
1
3.26) 9.15
54.061 7W.05
0.91) 2.37
3.8o| 21.00
2 1 N*
1
2.16) 6.38
15.631 54.86
0.511 5.46
i..06) 17.30
V 1 N=
1
2.16| 4.73
34.121 oo.3V
3.26) 3.72
2.351 14.52
23 1 N=
1
2.63) 6.25
34.921 7*. IV
2.381 5.51
I.Sol 13.06
21 1 N=
1
15.551 b.51
70.19) o9.42
1.721 1.87
2.47) 12.31
11 N=
i.7o 7.51
49.21 V2.14
2. 82 o.CO

4 N=
21.14 V7.3V
2.11 3.96
1.10 V.6C
o N:

O.C -.G
•..o o.O
72 N-
9.33 7.14
5<..ji tl.62
2.i2| 3.34

' 11
SO MtAN
3 N=
7.8G) 4.87
46.57) 36.24
1.411 3.76
1.93) 22.67
o.o 3.67
».0 52 .47
t.O 17.54
11 N=
20.011 60.52
1.91) 4.56
I.l7| 14.9k
22 N=
1
4.17) 6.14
4l.04| 74.33
1.711 4.74
1.79) U.35
27 | N*
1
7,65| 7.01
42.93) b4.2i
1.611 *.43
l.Vt| u.5o
18 | Ns
1
49.661 Vll73
2.74) 5.C4

i N=
1
0.60) 9.45
N=
1
C t 1 • .'
o.O _ A
-..o t.o
84 1 N-
1
6.111 t.OZ
41.!,i| 7V .84
i.t»| 4./S

70 19
SO Mt'AN
6 • Nc
l.oG) 5.21
14.6C) 37.b5
1.76) 3.66
3. oi| 22.41
2 1 N=
1
o.31|; 5.37
7. 06 )' 45.40
4.221 3.53
1.2ol 19.97
8 | N=
1
1.76) 3.96
53.81). 55.69
2.74) 3.78
3.51) 15.75
18 | N=
1
1.82) 5.17
23.99) 60.09
1.721 4.3o
1.32) 12.12
32 1 N=
1
5.60) 4.6C
26.4o| 67.74
1.731 5.CC
1.24) 11.13
1
1.7b| 5.08
40.04) 73.01
1.8ol 3.11

1
lo.3t>| 71.02
0.691 4.96
0.94) 9.23
	 1
N=
1

-.0 | -.0
i.e. | o.O
88 | N=
1
3.731 4.65
i4.o3|: 61. tV
2. (.3). 4.67

71
Su
7
3.20
13.43
1.90
4.10
13
5.50
18.06
1.65
2.34
V
1.33
24.94
2.26
3.20
24
2.63
32.13
1.31
1.13
23
1.37
37.56
1.81
1.32
21
2.65
38.79
2.C1

11
52. 70
2.21
1.5L
0

0.0
o.o
108
2.89
35.54
1.8V

1972 1973 W4 TOT*L
MtAN SO MEAN SD HE AN SD MEAN St>
N= o N= 4 N= 1 N= 27
0.0 0.0 3.52 1.351 3.98* 0.0 5.72 3.42)
!>.0 0.0 39.26 22.81) 26.71 0.0 51.35 29.62)
o.O o.O ^.58 C.80I 1.59 0.0 3.21 1.621
0.0 O.C 22.60 3.721 24-.6S 0,0 21.71 3.66)
N= 30 N= 19 | N= 3 , Nc 70 1
1 1
3.79 1.82 4.07 2.75) 4.19 2.49) 4.24 3.O5I
52.53 28.93 47.72 19.89) 3V .46 13.19) 49.66 23.211
3.6o 1.4C 3.46 1.10) 2.96 0.531 3^>3 1.59)
Ib.Cl 3.C5 18.19 2.81) 22.07 1.94) 18.64 2.991
N= 9 N= 24 N= 1 N= 79 1
1 1
3.1b 1.02) 4.32 2.09) 3.77 0.0 5.03 3.26)
49.19 13.16) 59.55 35.02) 19.27 0.0 67.16 36.87)
4.63 1.551 3.46 1.43) 2 .Su O.o 4.57 ' 2.201
15.13 3.111 14.47 3. 031 13.58 o.C 14.73 2.651
N= 15 4 N= 14 | N« 6 N" 136 1
1 1
4.30 1.28) 4.40 1.98) 3.86 1.34) 5.73 3.03)
. 52.28 34.72) 48.74 35.60) 56.28 30.30) 68.81 41.231
4.2C l.ooj 2.92 l.Cll 2.48 0.67) 4.52 1.871
11.73 1.66) 12.10 1.89) 12.34 3.00| 12.44 1.77)
N= 2o | N* 35 1 N° 15 1 N= 207 I
1 1 1 1
3^>4 4.64) 3.79 1.50) 3.07 1.68) 6.87 6.94)
92.11 55.94) 32.86 36.50) 3>.96 23.60) 85.71 54.20)
4.72 1.8V) 3.07 1.15) 2.81 1.251 4.14 1.79|
K.79 1.55) 11.25 1.54) 10.35 0.60) 11.30 1.6»|
N- 32 I N= 25 | N= 11 N= 142 1
1 1 II
3.76 6.91) 1.10 2.70) 3.62 1.091 5.50 4.64)
71.45 44.12) 57.59 45.11) 49.84 25.21) 76.91 46.071
5.69 2.17) 3.94 2.29| 3.46 1.57| 4.98 2.32|

N= 12 1 Nc 14 I N= 3 1 N= 52 )
1 1 1
47.16 14.001 35.04 21.83) 22.18 8.41) 66.30 43.23)
0.26 2.131 4.30 2.451 t .40 0.38) 5.16 2.39)
lc.13 1.07) 9.43 l.Obl 9.6C 0.74) V.6J 1.16)
N= 2 1 N= 5 N= 0 N= 7 1
II 1

3.14 2.7ol 3.83 o.3V| o.O 0.0 3.63 1.23)
8.86 2.00) b.77 o.66| o.O 0.0 8.80 O.VI)
1 ' • 1
N= 12 L | N» 14o | N= 40 N= 72i 1
1 1
4.69 4.2?) 4.07 2.o6l 3.42 1.451 5.78 5.18)
05.55 16. 17| 53^»C 33.62) il .o3 24.7o| 72.56 46.30)
4.75 1.V8) 3.47 1.621 i.B8 1.21) 4.41 i.o4l
• t . i. « . . j l i 	 l

-------
                                            Table 14
                                 FY73 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM

                                FUEL ECONOMY  IN MILES PER GALLON

             COMPOSITE  EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER  AND  LOS ANGELES
 I
 (YEAR
  1967    68
 11968    72
 11969
 11970    88
 11971  1106
 11972  1120!
 11973  I14CI
 IW74  I  4u|
 I TOTAL 1720 I
 I —FT- ' I -M.--	-
 I
 (YEAR
  1967
  1V68
  1969
  1970
  1971
  1972
  1973
  1974
 ITOTAL!
 I	
 I
 I YEAR
 I
 I
 I
-I	-
 I 1967
 11968
 11969
 11970
 11971
 11972
 I 1973
 11974
 ITOTALI
 I -.••• mr^
CuLU
TRANSIENT

MtAN
11. tl
11.58
11. 9o
11.5V
11.9V
1 1 . I 3
11.77
lv.87
11.6V
1
1
1
S'J I
t.!>6l
^.351
2.251
2.651
3.i6|
3. IH 1
j.i.fcl
2.331
2.V1 I
CCLC
SlA.SILlit^

MtAN i.D
U.43 c.7t
12. Srt t.V2
i->.ll 2.3J
12. *3 2.55
It. 61 3.41
12. 3t ^.31
12.25 o.l6
11.03 2.3:>
12 »f» 3 .^v.
HOT
TKANi.Ii.NT

MtAN SL
IJ.HO 2.^/
l-».3^ 3.C3
Is. to t.^7
14.25 3.;-»
IT. -.7 3.L-
Is.lr. j.Y_
14.C1 j.t".
12. to 2 <.. V/
1^.15 3.37
lv72
FTt-

NLiN SL
11. P2 ^.56
i_.2i t . 7v
i~ "- ^ t-
*.»**-• t.ti-
i.| 12. 2t 3.28 12. SO 3.46
3.76| 14.19 4.:.7| 12.3^ 3.46 13. C3 3.66
2.981 12. 9b 3.151 11.51 2.74| 12. C2 2.91
2.9V| 13.97 3.281 It. 23 2.64| 12.86 2.V7
                                            Table 16
                                   FY73 LMISS10N FACTOR PFl
.2n|
.571
.331
HOT
TRANSIENT

MEAN
16.09
16. 7 t
16.76
15.72
15.80
15.42
14.46
12 .9<»
15. 4U
1
1
1
SD 1
2.971
3.171
2.74|
3.74J
4.521
3.921
3.561
2.6, |
3.701
1072
FTP

MfcAN
13.04
13.69
13.77
12.59
13. OC
12.77
12.22
li/.9b
12.77
1
1
1
SD 1
2.46|
3.021
2.43 I
3.39!
3.971
3.351
3.131
2.531
3.221
1975
rT P

MEAN
13.83
14.53
14.65
13.33
13.78
13.41
12.87
11.48
13.4V



SD
2.39
3.11
2.^1
3.50
4.08
3.51
3.25
2.55
3.33
                                              33

-------
              Table 17

     1972 FTP RESULTS COMPARING FY 71, FY 72,
AND FY 73 VEHICLES FOR ALL CITIES, EXCLUDING DENVER
               AND LOS ANGELES
            Emissions in GM/MI - Fuel Economy
                  in MI/GAL - Ave. Mileage In Thousands
         1971 PROGRAM
                        1972 PROGRAM
                                            1973 PROGRAM
YEAR
1966





1967





1968





1969





1970





1971





1972





1973





1974






N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
MEAN
67
61.8
9.20
103.3
3. 44
13.5
54
54.6
8.19
103.5
3.26
13.5
6'1
48.5
6.40
78.91
4.31
13.0
72
39 . '.
5.9';
70.73
5.29
ll.i
70
29.5
4.22
55.16
5.02
13.0
80
15.6
3.42
46.33
4.99
12.7


















STD
DEVIATION
	
—
6.18
43.2
1.71
2.6
	
—
3.61
47.7
1.45
3.1
	
—
7.82
62.98
1.85
3.1
—
— .
5.22
37.73
2.00
i.^
	
—
1.99
26.72
1.63
3.3
—
—
1.47
28.29
1.79
3.9


















MEAN
68
71.7
10.54
109.5
3.09
13.6
72
67.0
8.64
103.6
3.38
13.6
84
57.9
6.85
75.8
4.12
13.6
88
51.2
5.54
76.7
4.88
13. '.
108
36.8
5.64
66.1
4.16
13. S
120
26.4
4.41
60.4
4.24
13. R
140
14.8
3.42
43.8
4.52
12.9












STD
DEVIATION
	
—
8.64
53.6
1.54
2.H
—
—
5.16
39.3
1.64
2.4
	
—
5.49
41.3
1.67
2.7
—
—
3.14
41.9
1.90
2.5
	
—
5.04
45.7
1.61
3.4
—
—
2.50
39.4
1.57
4.0
_._
—
2.50
25.8
1.55
3.3












MEAN






68
68.1
9.75
121.08
3.97
11.92
72
61.0
7.97
89.76
4.97
12.23
84
57.8
7.14
81.62
5.34
12.53
88
51.4
6.02
79.84
4.79
12.01
108
37.4
4.85
61.89
4.67
12.31
120
28.7
4.69
65.55
4.75
12.04
140
18.1
4.07
53.40
3.47
12.01
40
5.8
3.42
41.03
2.88
10.96
STD
DEVIATION






—
—
6.23
58.71
1.81
2.56
—
—
9.33
52.34
2.42
2.79
—
—
6.11
41.55
2.08
2.28
	
—
3.73
34.03
2.05
2.54
—
—
2.89
35.54
1.89
3.34
	
—
4.27
46.17
1.98
3.18
	
—
2.06
33.62
1.62
3.07
—
—
1.45
24.70
1.21
2.41
                       34

-------
             Table 18
1972 FTP RESULTS COMPARING FY  71, FY 72,

     AND n 73 VEHICLES FOR DENVER


   Emissions in GMS/MI - Fuel  Economy
          in MI/GAL - Ave. Mileage in Thousands
1971 PROGRAM
                            1972 PROGRAM
                                             1973'PROGRAM
YEAR

1966





1967





1968





1969





1970





1971





1972





1973





1974







N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave . Mi les
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
MEAN

16
57.1
10.06
150.34
2.05
12.4
15
57.6
10.06
137.43
1.81
12.7
18
42.1
8.74
122.92
2.38
12.0
17
38.9
7.74
92.62
2.72
13.2
17
26.0
7.85
110.18
2.72
12.2
20
15.2
6.73
100.04
3.04
11.5


















STD
DEVIATION
„
—
3.23
63.95
1.54
2.6
	
—
3.03
34.78
0.86
2.4
	
—
4.08
66.05
1.11
3.8
	
—
4.89
57.72
1.13
3.1
	
—
4.23
39.76
1.13
2.6
	
—
2.10
39.72
1.55
2.3


















MEAN

17
60.6
10.97
132.73
2.40
12.5
18
69.8
15.23
172.00
1.67
12.0
21
51.4
8.23
121.51
2.66
11.8
22
46.1
6.86
113.92
2.79
12.8
27
31.6
6.36
102.95
3.18
12.6
30
18.2
5.89
92.04
2.76
13.1
35
14.1
5.61
90.42
3.00
12.1












STD
DEVIATION
__

7.41
55.71
1.57
2.5
—
—
9.55
51.43
0.90
2.2
	
—
5.22
83.14
1.20
2.7
	
—
1.60
42.50
1.38
3.0
	
—
1.72
37.78
1.09
2.5
	
—
2.18
44.15
1.34
3.6
	
—
4.34
35.79
1.37
3.0












MEAN







17
66.4
11.02
156.94
2.26
11.91
18
63.5
8.41
106.76
3.15
12.83
21
54.7
7.98
115.52
3.67
12.28
22
45.7
7.53
117.57
3.14
12.08
27
32.7
6.16
106.66
3.09
12.28
30
27.5
5.92
98.49
3.30
12.20
35
14.3
5.03
93.34
1.99
12.35
10
5.3
4.47
83.37
1.84
11.51
STD
DEVIATION






—
—
3.58
47.02
1.33
2.46
	
—
3.31
36.57
1.28
2.44
	
—
2.59
41.81
1.61
2.00
	
—
2.70
35.52
1.48
2.22
—
—
1.74
25.17
1.15
3.16
	
—
2.03
52.01
1.51
3.28
	
—
1.95
41.92
0.93
3.46
	
—
0.55
14.64
0.67
2.74
                35

-------
          Table 19



1972 FTP RESULTS COMPARING FY 71, FY 72,
  AND FY 73 VEHICLES FOR LOS ANGELES
Emissions In CMS/MI - Fuel Economy
         in MI/GAL - Ave. Mileage in Thousands
   1971 PROGRAM
                        1972 PROGRAM
                                            1973 PROGRAM
YEAR

1966





1967





1968





1969





1970





1971





1972





1973





1974







N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Miles
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
MEAN

16
65.7
8.72
78.12
3.23
12.8
17
56.4
6.22
81.43
3.30
12.4
15
37.3
5.65
78.00
3.76
13.8
17
38.1
5.86
87.07
5.45
11.9
Ifi
25.2
5.22
62.59
4.51
12.5
21
15.8
3.51
51.90
3.81
13.1


















STD
DEVIATION
	
—
8.64
38.29
1.45
3.2
—
—
3.52
38.01
1.45
2.9
	
—
2.21
39.77
1.99
2.4
—

1.21
25.37
2.12
2.6
—
—
2.78
29.45
1.69
2.8
—
—
0.99
22.49
1.09
4.5


















MEAN

17
73.0
7.97
98.81
3.41
12.5
18
66.7
6.25
87.77
3.70
12.6
21
65.0
7.63
71.74
4.94
12.9
22
49.5
6.24
84.26
4.60
12.0
27
40.2
7.51
90.14
4.44
12.3
30
32.1
4.54
69.39
3.78
12.7
35 -
17.6
4.07
55.77
3.83
11.4












STD
DEVIATION
	
—
11.31
42.27
1.97
2.1
—
—
4.75
52.25
1.75
2.4
	
—
5.54
32.31
1.96
1.9
	
—
5.50
32.63
1.65
2.6
	
—
7.18
42.49
1.50
2.7
—
—
1.77
26.88
1.02
3.4
—
—
4.87
25.41
1.15
2.8












MEAN







17
62.1
7.58
87.06
2.88
13.04
18
63.5
7.01
85.24
3.79
13.69
21
65.0
6.16
82.81
3.53
13.77
22
51.0
7.83
78.33
3.51
12.59
27
47.5
4.38
63.35
3.13
13.00
30
32.9
4.08
48.85
3.63
12.77
35
21.5
4.27
47.93
3.00
12.22
10
11.3
3.26
40.82
2.23
10.98
STD
DEVIATION






—
—
11.48
72.20
1.51
2.46
	
—
5.36
78.28
1.85
3.02
	
—
3.46
49.49
1.41
2.43
	
—
9.90
61.81
1.48
3.39
	
—
2.50
50.62
1.01
3.97
—
—
2.30
22.36
0.97
3.35
—
—
4.49
38.41
1.15
3.13
	
—
0.77
19.33
1.18
2.53
               36

-------
                                   Table  20

                   COMPARISON OF NEW VEHICLES IN THE  FY  71,
               FY 72,  AND FY 73 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAMS-MEAN
                               EMISSION LEVELS
                             1972  FTP (grams/mi)
Program &
Vehicle
Year
HC 1971
1972
1973
CO 1971
1972
1973
NOX 1971
1972
1973
i
|

Vehicle
Year
Four
Mean
3.42
3.42
4.07
46.33
43.79
53.40
4.99
4.52
3.47

Four
Mean
Cities
S.D.
1.47
2.50
2.06
28.29
25.84
33.62
1.79
1.55
1.62
1975
Cities
S.D.
Denver
Mean S.D.
6.73
5.61
5.03
100.04
90.42
93.34
3.04
3.00
1.99
2.10
4.34
1.95
39.72
35.79
41.92
1.55
1.37
0.93
Los
Mean
3.51
4.07
4.27
51.90
55.77
47.93
3.81
3.83
3.00
Angeles
S.D.
0.99
4.87
4.49
22.49
25.41
38.41
1.09
1.15
1.15
FTP (grams /mi)
Denver
Mean S.D.
Los
Mean
Angeles
S.D.
HC


CO


NOX


1971
1972
1973
1971
1972
1973
1971
1972
1973
3.07
3.02
3.59
39.56
36.88
46.96
5.06
4.55
3.47
1.36
2.22
1.61
25.62
24.04
32.90
1.84
1.59
1.63
5.59
4.75
4.54
88.13
80.36
84.70
3.05
3.08
1.96
1.42
2.42
1.79
35.96
32.46
41.27
1.59
1.39
0.87
3.02
3.56
3.85
42.26
46.68
39.39
3.83
3.81
3.04
0.79
4.24
4.24
19.91
24.06
32.72
1.10
1.21
1.13
NOX corrected for humidity
                                      37

-------
                                Table  21
                   FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR  PROGRAM
                          ALL  CITIES EXCLUDING
                         DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
                             Percent  Meeting
                             Federal  Standards
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
  TOTAL
1972*
Standards
Number
0
1
1
4
17
22
36
22
103
%
0
1.3
1-2
4.5
15.7
18.3
25.7
55.0
14.3
1973/1974**
Standards
Number
0
0
0
2
2
5
19
18
46
%
0
0
0
2.3
1.8
4.2
13.6
45.0
6.4
             *  PASSING  HC AND CO
            **  PASSING  HC AND CO AND NOX
                                  38

-------
                                  Table 22
                                  DENVER
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

TOTAL
Percent Meeting
Federal Standards
1972*
Standards
Number
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
4
%
0
0
4.8
0
0
3.3
5.7
0
2.2
1973/74**
Standards
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.9
0
0.6
          *  PASSING HC AND CO
         **  PASSING HC AND CO AND NOX
                                     39

-------
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

TOTAL
                              Table  23
                        FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                              LOS  ANGELES
Percent Meeting
Federal Standards
1972*
Standards
Number
4
2
1
1
9
10
17
4
48
%
23.5
11.2
4.8
4.5
33.3
33.3
48.6
40.0
26.7
1973/74**
Standards
Number
2
1
0
1
5
4
7
3
23
%
11.8
5.6
0
4.5
18.6
13.4
20.0
30.0
12.8
                *  PASSING HC AND CO
               **  PASSING HC AND CO AND NOX
                                    40

-------
                                               Table  24
                                         FY73 EMISSION FACTOR  PROGRAM
                     COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR »LL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND  LOS  ANtELES
                                                 1975 FTP
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
[TOTAL
1
1 	
1
1
1
(MEAN
IttlLES
N | IK)
1
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MEAN SO
1
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MEAN M>
1
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MEAN SO
1
68) 68.11 8. 65 5.841 7.66 l.57| 1O8.2U 53.O9) 95.14 1.721 4.O4 1.84) 3.56
72| 61.01 7.O9 8.591 5.72 1.7Q| 74.75 44.631 64.32 1.74) 5.21 2.4SI 4.64
b4| 57.81 6.30 5.77| 5.19 1.69| 67.6" 34.291 59.08 1.751 5.56 2.161 5.12
881 51.41 5.07 3.171 4.65 1.451 (.5.02 26.91) 59.38 1.56) 4.95 2.08) 4.53
10B| 37.41 4.22 2.391 3.80 1.531 51.53 32.291 43.88 1.751 4.83 2.011 4.43
1201 28. 71 4.17 3.851 3.59 1.59) 56.74 42.60) 44.89 2.001 4. SO 2.09) 4.36
1401 18.11 3.59 1.61) 3.33 1.45) 46.96 32.90) 38.89 1.84) 3.47 1.631 3.17
4O| 5.8) 3.00 1.221 2.87 1.46) 35.92 24.20) 29..40 1.88) 2.90 1.19) 2.71
720) 39. dl 5.06 4.70) 4.27 1.68) 61.86 41.30) 50.52 1.911 4.52 2.121 4.O4
III III
.711
.67)
.541
-55)
.53|
.57|
-54|
.451
1.631
1
	 1
                                               Table  25
                                       FY73 EMISSION FACTOR  PROGRAM
                                        EMISSION LtVFLS FOR  DENVER
                                               1975 FTP
YEAR
11967
11968
1 1969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
1 TOTAL
1
1 	
I
1
1
|MtAN
I MILES
N 1 IK)
1
HYUKLCAR8GMS GM/MI
•
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MFAN SO
1
171 66.4| 9.87 2.R7I 9.50
181 63.51 7.05 3.29| 7.09
211 54.71 7.07 2.201 6.74
221 45.71 6.5o 2.071 6.26
271 32.71 5.51 1.501 5.31
30) 27.51 5.40 1.921 5.09
35) 14.31 4.54 1.79| 4.23
10| 5.31 4.19 0.50) 4.16
1801 37.11 6.17 2.031 5.68
1 1 1
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MIAN SO
I
.331 146.12 42.46) 139.19
.4B| 97.00 34.361 91.00
.38) 104.61 38.69) 97.18
.37) 105.18 31.691 100.36
.311 96.91 22.18) 94.24
.421 90.53 53.29) 79.80
1.481 84.70 41.27) 74.46
1.121 7b.98 14.7il 77.79
1.501 99.04 41.461 90.57
1 1
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SD 1 MEAN SO
1
.411 2.22 1.331 1.91 1.78
.461 3.21 1.37) 2.92 1.58
.51) 3.76 1.64) 3.41 1.581
.38) 3.22 1.55) 2.93 1.561
.281 3.18 1.251 2.99 1.41
.651 3.29 1.551 2.97 1.6O
.711 1.96 0.871 1.79 1.54
.201 1.81 0.821 1.6B 1.481
.551 2.87 1.461 2.54 1.661
1 1 1
	 1
                                               Table  26
                                       FY73 CMISSION FACTUK PROGRAM
                                        EMISSION LEVELS Fbf, IUS ANGELES
                                               1975 FTP
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
1
1 	
1
I
I
(MEAN
(MILES
N 1 IK)
I
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MIAN SO 1 MEAN SD
1
171 62.11 6.55 9.211 4.45
18) 63.51 6.37 4.621 5.34
21| 65.01 5.32 2.77) 4.R5
221 51.01 6.50 6.93) 4.93
271 47.51 3.1)5 2.301 3.37
301 32.9) 3.56 2.071 3.11
351 21.51 3.85 4.24) 3.06
101 11.31 2.84 0.611 2.78
1801 43.51 4.75 4.771 3.79
1 1 1
CARBON MUNOX1DE GM/MI
1 NOX GM/MI
1
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC 1 ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1 1 1
MEAN SD 1 MEAN SO 1 MEAN SO 1 MEAN SO
1 1 1
!.13| 74.55 63.031 49.56
1.80) 72.61 67.511 54.37
.501 69.22 39.50) 5S.97
.901 64.95 51.461 53.47
.681 51.21 45.671 39.09
.681 41.35 19.04| 37.29
.771 3V. 39 32.721 31.24
.251 33.70 18.171 29.69
.81) 54.42 45.431 42.13
1 1
S.73I 2.97 1.60) £.50 l.V4|
!.14| 3.87 1.861 3.36 l.Bi
.911 3.61 1.4OI 3.32 1.561
.821 3.59 1.54) 3.21 1.701
.09) 3.17 I.06| 3.01 1.391
.591 3.61 0.97) 3.50 1.291
.901 3.O4 1.131 2.84 1.471
.701 2.16 1.211 1.98 1.481
?.03I 3.32 1.36) 3.02 1.581
1 1
	 1
NOX CORRECT&D FOR HUMIDITY
                                                   41

-------
                  Table  27
       FYT3 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
   1975 FTP RESULTS BY  INERTIA HEIGHT FOR
ALL CITIES. EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
 EMISSIONS  IN  &M/MI -FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL
INERTIA MT.
(LBS)
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
2001-250U
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
3001-3500
HC
co
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
3501-4000
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
4501-50JO
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
(FUEL ECONOMY
1967 1
1
MtAN SD 1
5.7b
Ob .77
3.17
21.73
N-
0.0
J.O
O.L
o.O
9.22
97.76
1.16
14.45
N =
7.1-3
92 .7B
1.54
13.63
b.69
116.89
11 .83
7.41
114.66
2.U8
11 .Ib
16.95
143 .56
3.7;



** *,
v .1

d.65
Kb .26
4.L4
12 ,i»V
4 1
1
0.5bl
4.77)
2. oil
0 I
1
o.O |
O.C |
C.o 1
o.O 1
b 1
1
5.86|
29.861
l.Vil
1.05)
14 |
3.191
55.19)
2. IS)
2.581
34 1
3.5i
57.oUl
1.80)
1.751
1968 1969
MEAN SD MEAN
6.20
91.76
2.90
17.49
4.55
2.26
23.76
N=
4.90
59.74
5.62
N=
5.29
60.95
5.76
13 .57
N =
10.02
9i.25
1.42
12.25
1
3.19) 0.17
72.73) bit .32
1.48) 5.75
2.12) lo.73
1
19. ii
21.57
u.31

o




Ob
5.84
53.09
I.b4
2.6?
N=
lo.3C
46.54




. \
*^

74.75
3.49) 6.96
56.71) 76.3o
o.73| 2.24
3.97) 21.46
2 1 N=
1.95) 5.65
14.80) 53.43
0.52) 5.12
u.CUl 17, 8»
V 1 N*
1.9V) 3.92
36.19) 52.32
3.2V) 6.01
2.29| 15.4B
23 1 N=
1.6bl 5.5*
29.97) 5V .81
2.51) 5.76
1.54) 13. 7b
21 | N-
1
14.41) 7.71
56.14) 7o.44
1.71) 5.07
2.5*. 12.06
11 1 N=
2.6V) 6.31
47.66) 72.6*
2.87) 6.29
1.751 11.46
1
13.49) S.Ob
15.65) V2.28


H-




b.59 o.3o
44.63) 07.69
2.4t| 5.56
2.05) 13.22
1 1970 W«- 1972 1973 I 1974 TOTAL
1 1
SO 1 MtAN SO MtAN SD MtAN SD MEAN SD 1 MEAN SO MtAN SD
. . _ I ' -
3 1 N=
1
7.96) 3.97
49.06) 32.51
l.lll 3.6V
2.2ol <.3.57
1 1 N =
1
0.0 1 4.75
o.O | 51.37
0.0 1 7.-.1
O.k ) 17.09
11 1 N«
1
0.71) 4.14
14.54) 68.75
2. C0| i.63
1.77) 15.71
22 1 N=
1
4.o4| 5.32
33.22) 63.74
1.09) i.tfO
1.751 13.vl
27 | N-
1
7.0o 1 5.67
35.15) 67.27
l.bll 4.64
1.96) 12.10
Ib | H-
l
6.12) 4.51
3V. «io| 71.23
2.92) 5.26
1.11) 1-.B7
2 1 N-
1
o.bbl o.2b
18. SV) 74 .t9


o 1 N =
1




04 I N =
1
2.37| 12.ob
6 N= 7 N= . w Na 4 | N= 1 N= 27
1
1.211 3.97 1.4C| C*.0 0.0 .3. I*. 1.2a| 3.62 b.O 4.97 3.19|
15.3YI 32.44 10.24| J.C O.C 36.17 21.63 1 23.46 0.0 47.32 3O.10|
1.731 3.7i l.bb| c.u C.O 2.47 C.7b| 1 ,5t 0.0 3.14 l.frb)
4.1M 23 .53 4.L±>| v.O L.O 23.27 3.6u| E5.73 O.C 22.48 3.95 1
21 N= 13 1 N- 30 N- 19 | N= 3 N= 76 )
II 1 1
1.971 4.57 4.26) 3.30 1.66 3.74 2.54) 3.94 2.32) 3.62 2.56)
2.1i| 37.85 16.46) 43 .7o 23.04 41.95 19.33) 38.42 13.53) 42 ^0 19.90)
4.29) 3.57 1.71) 3.59 1.3o 3.43 1.121 2.97 0.531 3.62 1.60)
1.751 ti.99 2.5ol IB .9 3 3.1? 19.13 3.23) 21.97 2. oil 19.52 3.15)
b 1 N= 9 | N= V N- 24 | N= 1 N* 79 1
1 1 1 1
1.49)i 3.51 1.09| 2.81 0.86 3.63 1.21) 2.76 O.J 4J1 2.721
43.281 40.54 20.71) 43.64 22.42 53.81 34.29) 14.35 0.0 58.00 33.06)
2.5y i 5.b5 2.41) 4.59 1.50 3.38 1.321 2.35 0.0 1.61 2.24)
3.55) io.56 3.21) 15.bl 3.17 15 .CO 3.15) 14.39 C.O 15.46 2.77)
Ib 1 N= 2i N- 15 N= 14 1 N= 6 Nc 136 1
1 1 1
1.471 I.Ob 2.72 3.83 1.05) 3.91 1.80) 3^35 1.071 5.01 2.62)
20.63) 5^ .87 3b.86 i5 .73 33.29) 43 .l>2 34.57) 51.42 28.871 58.36 35.65)
1.6o| i.57 1.53 1.15 1.221 2.99 1.04) 2.49 0.73) 4.69 1.981
1.42) 12.68 l.uV 12.36 1.96) 12.71 2.071 12.86 3.08) 13.11 1.841
32 1 Nc 23 N= 2u 1 N= 35 1 N= 15 1 NC 207 1
1 III
4.89), 4.16 1.35 5.36 4.35) 3.40 1.39) i.bl 1.29) 6.06 6.4(il
25. OC) 5b.9i 37.32 b4 .33 53tOi| 16.86 37.06) 30. 5o 22.79) 73.96 49.021
1.74) 5.22 I.b9 4.75 l.bVl 3.13 1.18) 2.79 1.19) 4.27 1.82)
1.4o) 11.66 1.37 11.2V 1.60) 11.76 1.61) lu.70 0.63) 11.87 • 1.73)
2o 1 N= 21 N: 32 | N' 25 1 N- 11 1 N= 142
1 1 1 1 1
1.24) 4.24 I.b3 5.t5 0.18) 3.45 1.39) 3.31 1.04) 4.75- 3.99)
27.15) 57.12 34.8o 6o.69 40.771 49 .b4 42.46) 42.46 26.25) 63.55 40.85)
l.bll 5.2b 2.22 5.85 2.37) i.l2 2.41) 3.57 1.52) 5.15 2.46)

21 N= 11 N= 12 1 N- 14 | N= 3 1 N= 52 1
1 1 1 1 1
1.63) 3.5<* 2.03) -..13 0.79) 4.b9 1.74) 2.16 0.28) 5 .<4 7.10)
9.51) 57.56 44.77) j«.2i> 22.f2l 47.44 22.44) lo.89 5.36) 56.02 39.18)
1.11) 5.0V 2.21) 6.23 2.33) 1.17 2.41) 2.42 0.26) 5.18 2.49)

0 N= l N- 2 1 N- 5 1 N= o N= 7
1 1 1




^™"~~~L— -I-1-. |l.»— . -- M . - l_ t . |
ob N= ICd N- 12b I N= 14C | N= 4* N= Tl« \
\ \ \
3.17 H.22 | 3.^9 1*61 | 3.06 1.22 t- .Oc 4.7b|
£t>.91 5i .i.3 32.2V 1/6 .74 42. 60 1 4O .«»6 J2.901 3t> .92 ^4.2w 61 .66 41.30 1
2.tb H.b3 2.11 t.bL 2.wV| 3.47 1.6 jj <,.<>- 1.19| 4.^2 2.12|
2.6& U .^J 3.4D 12.0^ J.34| 12 .±>b 3.2v I 11.3V 2.46| 12.69 3.v 1 1

-------
                                               Table 28
                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                    EMISSION LEVELS FOR HOUSTON
                                      .   CCLDTRANSIENl



YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974



N

MEAN
MILES
IK)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO MEAN SO
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SO
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO
NOX-GKAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO MEAN SU
17| 73.21 41.93 18.511 39.11 1.44| 510.96 262.82) 460.41 1.58| 18.34 7.39| 16.33 1.76|
18| 68.21 39.87 30.27) 33.51 1.74) 438.40 207.14) 397.15 1.58) 24.51 11.921 21.49 1.781
21| 63.6| 24.13 10.54) 22.57 1.42) 320.30 188.47) 276.59 1.731 27.67 E.90) 26.14 1.431
22) 58.1) 23.50 6.56) 22.72 1.30) 315.49 112.15) 294.51 1.49| 22.37 8.02) 21.23 1.381
271 38.01 23.03 9.50) 21.39 1.47) 308.15 189.30) 267. 8C 1.691 23.27 9.27) 21.11 1.621
30) 26.6) 21.98 11.53) 20.29 1.45) 304.03 137.221 276.67 1.57) 22.88 9.33) 20.97 1.56!
35) 14.51 21.11 13.16) 19.06 1.52) 264.15 134.08) 231.79 1.731 15.89 7.55) 14.27 1.661
10) 5.51 16.49 5.90) 15.48 1.47) 202.69 74.54) 189. 5C 1.49) 14.51 6.38) 13.61 1.421
ITOTALI180) 41.51 25.77 16.211 22.85 1.58| 327.54 184.12) 285.51 1.701 21.34 9.5G) 19.13 1.65
1 1 1
1 1
i i i
                                               Table 29
                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR  PROGRAM
                                    EMISSION  LEVELS FOR HOUSTON
                                        COLD STABILIZED
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
1 	 1
N
MEAN
MILES
IK)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO MEAN SO
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO MEAN SD
N OX -GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD ML AN SD
17) 73.21 33.58 16.451 30.32 1.58) 494.69 270.611 417.00 1.921 14.86 6.711 13.14 1.74
IB) 68.2) 30.01 24.72) 24.83 1.77) 325.81 200.82) 267.35 1.97) 23.31 9.96) 21.38 1.551
21) 63.6) 16.27 4.26) 15.76 1.30) 214.16 131.74) 179.80 1.85) 24.95 9.39) 23.17 1.511
22) 58.1) 15.41 5.851 14.39 1.46) 223.29 1C6.95) 198.04 1.69) 20.16 8.09) 18.85 1.44|
27) 38.0) 17.42 10.90) 15.72 1.51) 274.42 167.27) 221.87 1.97) 19.42 9.551 16.86 1.781
30) 26.6) 16.53 17.45) 13.53 1.70) 267.49 183.95) 216.36 1.95) 19.19 9.32) 17 .CO 1.701
35) 14.51 14.40 6.32) 13.18 1.53) 252.20 206.40) 187.76 2.22) 12.32 7.07) 10.86 1.671
101 5.5) 12.90 3.851 12.40 1.34) 203.31 156.59) 139.62 2.66) 10.26 4.i.2l 9.60 1.461
ISO) 41.5) 18.84 14.34) 16.11 1.66) 277.66 198.88) 216.92 2.071 18.19 9.42) 15.81 1.74|
                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                    EMISSION LEVELS FOR HOUSTON
                                        •HOT TRANSIENT



YEAR
1967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
1

1



N
'
MEAN
MILES
(Kl
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD MEAN SD
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MfcAN SD MEAN SD
171 73.2) 25.50 7. 851 24.40 1.36) 351.27 187.06) 308.84 1.69) 19.81 8.62) 17.6C
18) 68.21 25.37 19.79) 21.55 1.70) 242.29 137.13) 204.36 1.87) 27.28 11.34) 25.03
21) 63.6) 13.71 3.51
13.30 1.29) 164.75 113.94) 133.66 1.92) 30.13 11.14) 28.02
221 58.1) 14.76 7.63) 13.53 1.49) 150.04 56.74) 139.72 1.48) 23.94 b.36| 22 ,7C
27) 38.0) 13.91 5.54) 13.15 1.38) 177.68 126.75) 146.56 1.83) 25.35 11. CB) i2 .56
301 26.61 14.20 8.9CI 12.73 1.54) 193.68 122.73) 162.88 1.82) 24.14 ll.CI) 21.84
35) 14.5) 12.99 5.42) 12.00 1.49) 177.26 133. 5C| 143.14 1.91) 16.69 6.46| 14.90
101 5.5) 11.86 3.731 11.38 1.35) 144.67 82.02) 123.95 1.83) 14.95 6.67) 13.82
1801 41.5) 15.99 9.83) 14.26 1.56) 196. 4C 135.59) 160.47 1.86) 22.94 10.75) 20.41
1 1
1 1
1 1
.731
.56)
.5C|
.391
.691
.6CI
.681
.51
.67)
II 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 II 1
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
                                                  43

-------
                                           Table 31
                                    FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                     EMISSION LEVELS FOK HOUSTON
                                           1972 FTP



YEAR

11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
1 1972 •
1 1973
11974
X BELOW |
LEVEL * 1
MEAN
MILES
N IK) HC

17) 73.21 0
Ibl 68.21 5
211 63.6) 0
221 58.11 0
27) 38.01 11
301 26.61 10
351 14.51 25
1C) 5.51 4C.
ITOTALI180I 41.51 11
1 1 1 1
NOX CORRECTED FOR
*
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI


CO

0
0
19
4
14
6
22
50
13

1
1
NOX|
1
231
51
41
*l
181
101
341
501
17)
1
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC I

MEAN

10. C7
9.32
5.39
5.19
5.39
5.14
4.73
3.92
5.95

1
SD |
1
4.44)
6.63 1
1.761
1.471
2.311
3.791
2.101
1.211
3.761
1
1
1
GEOMETRIC 1

MEAN

9.34
B.C1
5.17
5.01
5.C5
4.57
•4.37
3.75
5.28

1
SD 1
1
1.471
1.681
1.321
1.3GI
1.421
1.511
1.491
1.381
1.57)
1
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1

MEAN

134.0«
1C1.91,
71.26
71.84
77.68
76. iC
66.85
54.13
80.69

1
SD |
1
68.261
45.551
38.671
22.88)
47.14)
41.37)
43.G4I
29.431
47.381
1
GEOMETRIC

MCAN

119.15
91.96
62.85
68.39
66.58
66.94
58. OC
46.67
69.16


SL>

1.66)
1.61)
1.67)
l.Jbl
1.751
1 .66 |
1.82)
1.801
1.75)
1
NOX GM/MI
AKITmETIC 1

MLAN

4.43
O.ib
7.C^
5.67
5.69
5.61
3.76
3.30
5.27

1
SD |
1
l.bl)
2. 79|
2.34)
i.09|
2.44)
2.44|
1.901
1.4C)
2.46)
1
GEOMETRIC

MEAN

3.97
5.06
6.61
5.36
5.1..
5.09
3.38
3. 1C
4.7,,

HUMIDITY





















































SD

1.69
1.531
1.451
1.401
1.661
1.601
1.641
1.421
1.651
1





                                           Table 32
                                    (-Y73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                     EMISSION LEVELS FOR HOUSTON
                                           1975 fTP
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
1 TOTAL
I— — — .
1 1
1 1
1
IMEAN
(MILES
N | IK)
1
171 73.21
181 68.21
211 63.61
221 58.11
271 38.01
30 | 26.6|
351 14.51
101 5.5)
1801 41.5)
1 1
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SD |
1
8.82
8.22
4.59
4.52
. 4.70
4. 54
4.12
3.57
5.20
3.66)
6.111
1.231
1.38|
2.161
3.591
1.571
1.051
3.341
1
GEOMETRIC ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SO MEAN SD 1
1
8.22 .461 121.95
7.05 .691 86.99
4.46 ,ZS\ 59.44
4.34 .351 59.26
4.40 .41) 67.76
3.99 .54) 67.82
3. 84 .471 62.24
3.43 1.34J 49.72
4.62 1.561 70.73
1
61.07)
43.221
33.431
20.871
43.36)
4O.16)
43.75)
30.211
44.491
1
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
107.42
76.44
51.78
55.96
57.06
58.22
50.79
41.10
59.25
NOX
-
GM/MI
ARITHMETIC t
1
MFAN SD 1
1
1.711 4.54
1.72) 6.59
1.711 7.20
1.41) 5.79
1.8O) 5.85
1.751 5.70
1.90) 3.82
1.951 3.34
1.82) 5.39
1
1.86)
2.77)
2.511
2.1ZJ
2.58)
2.55)
1.98)
1.421
2.55)
1


GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
4.11
6.08
6.75
5.47
5.21
5.16
3.43
3.12
4.60
1.63
1.511
1.47
1.40
1.691
1.61)
1.64
1.45
1.66
1
	
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
                                           Table  33
                                FY73 EMISSION FACTOR
PROGRAM
                               FUEL ECONOMY  IN MILtS  Ptk  GALLON
                                       HOUSTON
YEAR N

1967 17
1968 18
1969 21
1970 22
1971 27
1972 30
1973 35
1974 10
ITOTALI180
COLO
TRAM SI
MtAN
10.24
9.99
11.31
1C. 56
1 11.00
10.52
10.77
10.19
10.63
I COLD I HOT | 1972 1 1<>7:>
ENT I STABILIZED | TRANSIENT | FTP | FTP
till
SD I MEAN SD | MtAN SD I MtAN SD | MEAN SO
2.011 10.68 2.17| 12. 2C 2.231 10.57 2.05| 11. C7 ?.CV
1.881 11.17 2.011 12.40 2.061 1C. 57 1.851 11. 2i 1.92
1.911 12.26 1.9U 13.21 2.6fl| 11.61 1.82| 12. 3C 1.9C
2.19| 11.28 2.171 12.87 2.221 10.93 2.171 11.51 2.16
2.79| 11.39 2.79J 13.18 3.091 11.20 2.77| 11.74 2.84
2.49J lLj.97 2.611 12.49 2.9t| 1C. 75 2.52J 11.24 <:.64
2.571 1C. 98 2.551 12.67 2.b2| 10.86 2.50| 11.35 2.58
2.391 10.20 J..94J 11.77 2.231 10.2C 2.15| K'.5t> 2.10
2.331 11.18 2.30| 12.67 2.621 K.91 2.311 11. -.2 2.38
                                               44

-------
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

TOTAL
                                  Table 34
                            FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                  HOUSTON
Percent Meeting
Federal Standards
1972*
Standards
Number
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
5
13
%
0
0
0
0
11.2
3.3
11.4
50.0
7.2
1973/74**
Standards
Number
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
7
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.6
40.0
3.9
          *  PASSING HC AND CO
         **  PASSING HC AND CO AND NOX
                                    45

-------
                                             Table  35
                                     FY73 EMISSION FACTOR  PROGRAM
                                   EMISSION  LEVELS FOR DETROIT
                                       COLD * TRANSIENT
YEAR
11967
1968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
ITOTAL
1 ..
N
MEAN
MILES
(K)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD MEAN SO
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
17| 68.81 47.72 25.341 42.64 1.611 528.24 257.481 481.58 1.541 19.48 7.89
18| 57.41 41.92 61.541 28.70 2.021 396.13 350. 89 1 305.39 2.00| 22.15 10.01
211 54.81 32.98 23.96) 28.00 1.71) 382.62 271.471 316.32 1.86) 22.38 6.6C.
221 44.61 27.53 23.611 23. 1C 1.721 296.17 129.951 265.99 1.66| 25.55 7.28
27| 35.51 22.55 12.64) 20.35 1.541 267.76 116. 40 1 242.26 1.631 21.22 7.26
301 25.51 27.18 30.121 21.87 1.74 1 315.08 261.021 257.17 1.821 21.43 8.13
351 19.01 19.59 16.211 17.25 1.521 209.26 73.561 197.85 1.411 17.33 6.36
101 6.4| 18.71 9.19) 16.37 1.781 200.26 79.631 185.79 1.51| 14.61 6.0C
1801 37.71 28.67 29.211 23.05 1.78| 314.83 225.841 264.10 1.771 20.72 7.87
II II
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
17.44 1.72
19.25 . 1.851
21.24 1.431
1 24.41 1.361
19.90 1.471
19.24 1.721
16.24 1.451
13.7C 1.44|
It. 94 1.5b|
1
                                              Table 36
                                     FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                   EMISSION LEVELS FOR DETROIT
                                            COLO STABILIZED
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
ITOTAL
i 	
1
1
1
IMEAN
(MILES
N | (K)
1
1
HYDROCARBONS -GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
•
MEAN SD MEAN SD
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
171 68.8| 38.20 22.211 33.26 1.701 480.43 221.18
18| 57.41 37.29 65.84) 23.95 2.051 290.02 213.22
21) 54.81 24.64 21.64) 21.01 1.621 287.42 145.86
221 44.61 22.81 22.67) 18.35 1.79| 282.23 136.60
271 35.51 13.81 5.92) 12.81 1.471 188.63 128.39
301 25.51 19.69 23.96) 14.76 1.96) 273.92 208.80
351 19.0) 13.61 6.04) 12.56 1 .49 | 201.24 110.14
10) 6.4) 12.37 7.21) 10.58 1.81) 157.47 139.50
11801 37.7| 21.68 27.48) 16.67 1.871 264.23 181.37
1 ,., | 	 J.,.,r , -- , „ r- -,l „,! 	 _JU,___L_.,. 	 !„__..„___. __
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
442.41 1.50
233.29 1.96
254.99 1.66
246.02 1.78
155.90 1.91
214.06 2.03
168.97 1.92
109.16 2.47
210.56 2.02
L_ — 	 1
NOX -GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
GtOMETRIC
MEAN SD
15.25 7.51 13.32 1.77|
23.20 11.53) 19.85 1.88|
21.89 6.88) 2C.6C l.tOI
21.74 7.26) 20.54 1.43)
18.62 7.3i| 17.12 1.50)
17.66 8.98| 15.37 1.78|
12.92 5.73J 11.88 1.511
11.59 5.26) 1C.63 1.541
17.86 8.481 15.81 1.68|
U 4- 	 „_ .1
                                              Table 37
                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                    EMISSION LEVELS FOR DETROIT
                                       "HOT  TRANSIENT



YEAR


1967
11968
11969
1970
11971
11972
11973
11974
ITOTAL
1
1
1
1
1
1
(MEAN
(MILES
N I (K)
1
1
'
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS

ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD



GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD


CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS

ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO MEAN SD


NOX-GRAMS

ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD MEAN SD


171 68.81 27.34 15.93) 24.18 1.631 337.11 148.45) 312.03 1.49) 19.19 7.331 17.66 1.57)
181 57.41 26.73 44.031 18.25 1.93) 186.39 122.65) 152.56 1.94) 27.36 10.991 24.67 1.66|
211 54. bl 18.20 12.90) 16.06 1.571 191.10 113.41) 162.36 1.801 26.43 6.69) 25.55 1.321
221 44.6) 18.13 18.85) 15. C3 1.64| 165.73 65.94) 152.09 1.56) 28.04 B.47I 26.71 1.40
27) 35.5) 11.95 4.C2) 11.45 1.331 128.64 71.39) 115.40 1.581 2*».42 B.Cbl 22.87 1.4&I
301 25.51 17.12 19.87) 13.70 1.73| 196.86 180.941 151.88 1.931 23.42 10.331 20.49 1.83!
35) 19.01 11.95 3.35) 11.50 1.331 135.39 56.78) 123.55 1.57) 17.51 6.26) 16.54 1.41
10) 6.4| 12.25 4.97) 11.20 1.60) 123.09 54.911 111.45 1.621 15.25 4.51) 14.70 1.33
1301 37.71 17.24 19.15) 14.26 1.661 178.30 124.721 148.54 1.801 22.88 9.C7) 20.88 1.581
1 1
1 1
1 1
II 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 II
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY

-------
                                                Table  38
                                         FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM

YEAR
1967
1968
11969
11970
11971
1972
1973
1974
TOTAL
1
1
(MEAN
[MILES
N.I IK) MC
1
171 68.81 0
18| 57.4) 0
211 54.81 b
22| 44.61 13
271 35.51 14
301 25.51 23
351 19.01 25
101 6.4| 40
1801 37.71 15
1 1
NOX CORRECTED FOR
*
HC 3.4 GM/M1
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 CM/HI

t BELOW |
LtVEL * |
1
1
. CO NOXI
1
0 171
16 221
4 01
9 4|
11 141
23 131
31 201
50 501
17 151
1
HUMIDITY


EMISSION
HYDROCARBONS OM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SO 1
1
11.45 5.421
1C. 56 16.851
7.68 5.071
6.71 6.111
4.65 2.C7I
6.25 7.14)
4.43 2.42)
4.14 2.101
6.71 7.261
1


GEOMETRIC
MEAN
10.41 1
7.13 1
6.69
5.59
4.5C
4.99
• 4.06
3.61
5.41 .

LtVtLS FOR DETROIT
1972 FTP


CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
SO MEAN SO 1
1
.571 134.49 56.431
.991 VI. 49 71.321
.64) 89.34 48.86|
.711 77.12 27.331
.461 60. b5 2&.68I
.751 76.53 60. 18|
.461 54.73 22.491
.76| 47. 7t 27.141
.771 77.21 SO.O'll
1 1

GEOMETRIC
MEAN
125. t«> 1
73. B4 1
77.64 1
76.76
55.70
63.92
50.12
41.26
65.27


NOX GM/M1
ARITHMETIC I
1
SO MEAN SO |
1
.47 4.63
.90 6.05
.Ti 5.90
.61) 6. 30
.521 5.31
.671 .5.21
.551 4.03
.76| 3.49
.771 5.14
1

1.92|
i.70l
1.531
1.851
l.t>4|
2.211
1.54|
1.481
2. C7I
1



GECME1RIC
MEAN
4.15 1
5,3- 1
5.71 1
6.C2 1
4.97 1
4.64 1
3.77 1
3.25 1
4.6o 1


SO
.70
.bO|
.311
.391
.47)
.731
.451
.471
.59|
1

                                                Table  39
                                         FY7? FMIiSIClN FACTOR PROGRAM

                                          EMISSION HVELS FOk DETROIT

                                                1975 FTP


VEAR

11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974


N


ME*N
MILES
IK)

HYDROCARBONS GH/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO | MEAN
1
171 6B.M 9.91 4.9
1
1.571 119.96 50.04) 111.76 1.46) 4.61 l.Vll 4.17 1.641
181 57.4| 9.41 15.56) 6.32 1.98) 75.55 54.571 61.93 .601 6.44 2.811 5.69
211 54.81 6.56 4.5«| 5.74
221 44.61 6.00 5.76.1 4.97
271 35.5) 4.04 1.47| 3.82
301 25.51 5.48 6.361 4.16
351 19.01 3.35 1.4i| 3.62
101 6.41 3.65 1.79) 3.2?
ITOTALIUOI 37.71 5.B5 6.5V| 4.73
1 1 1 1 1

1.611 74.78 38.421 65.74 .701 6.21 1.621 6.00
.701 67.21 25.531 61.42 .611 6.4O 1.941 6.19
.401 50.28 26.651 45.29 .57| 5.56 1.911 i.19
.761 69.55 54.631 55.66 .92! 5.36 2.381 4.74
.411 49.12 21.581 44.38 1.61) 4.05 1.52) 3.80
.731 41.83 25.811 35.29 1.851 3.54 1.35) 3.34
.74| 66. S3 43.34) 56.09 1.811 5.31 2.171 4.82
1 1
.761
.321
.391
.481
.761
.431
.421
.591
1 1
•

        NOX CORRECTED FUR HUMIDITY
                                                Table  40
                                     FY73  EMISSION  FACTOR
PROGRAM
                                    FUtL ECONOMY  IN  MILES  PER GALLON

                                            DETROIT
I
(YEAR
I
I
I
I —-——.••
I 1967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
I 197*
ITOTALJ
I  Tf —I—

N


17
18
21
22
COLD
TRANSI

MEAN
10.58
11.50
11.65
11.70
27| 11.68
301 11.03
351 11.55
10| 10.49
11801 11.34
1
ENT I
1
SD |
2.031
2.881
2.551
2.331
3.131
2.961
2.941
2.161
2.711
COLD
1
STABILIZED I

MEAN
11.81
12.49
12.7fc
12.12
12.52
11.52
11.79
10.70
12. CG
1
SO I
1.94|
2.44|
2.43|
1.99|
3.37|
2.831
2.7C|
1.71|
2.59|
HOT
TRANSIENT

MEAN
13.18
13.91
14.34
13.83
14.04
13.08
13.44
11.91
13.5H
1
1
1
Su I
2.071
2.39|
2.69|
2.40)
3.771
3.251
3.14|
2.181
2.94|
1972
FTP

MfcAN
11.19
11.99
12.21
11.92
12.10
11.28
11.67
1C. 60
11.67
1
1
1
SO I
1.89)
2.611
2.411
2.111
3.221
2.871
2.791
1.9CI
2.6C|
1975
FTP

MEAN
11.86
12.62
12. 9C
12.45
12.71
11. Bi
12.14
1C. 96
12. 2i



SD
1.S1
2.47
2.47
2.12
3.39
2.94
2.64
1.89
2.66
                                                   47

-------
                                 Table 41
                          FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                 DETROIT
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

TOTAL
Percent Meeting
Federal Standards
1972*
Standards
Number
0
0
0
2
3
5
6
4
20
%
0
0
0
9.2
11.1
16.7
17.1
40.0
11.1
1973/74**
Standards
Number
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
5
%
0
0
0
4.5
0
3.3
2.9
20.0
2.8
                      *  PASSING HC AND CO
                     **  PASSING HC AND CO AND NOX
                                     48

-------
                                              Table  42
                                      FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                    EMISSION LEVELS FOR ST. LOUIS
                                        COLD TRANSIENT



YEAR
1967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974



N

MEAN
MILES
IK)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD MEAN SO
-
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SO
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD
NOX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN .SO MEAN SD
17| 67.61 29.84 15.401 27.17 1.53) 424.77 270.571 359.64 1.781 14.80 7.37) 11.96 2.271
181 56.41 24.89 14.131 22.34 1.56| 378.90 206.531 330.62 1.741 . 14.12 5.77| 12.61 1.751
211 59.51- 27.09 22.54| 23.05 1.65) 341.81 172.68) 303.11 1.66) 16.83 5.34) 15.72 1.5i|
22) 57.3) 23.35 11.49) 21.12 1.56) 408.21 280.631 338.17 1.88) 14.75 7.0t> 1 li .64 1.91|
27| 42.01 16.29 4.8C) 15.65 1.33) 252.76 134.61) 223.47 1.651 16.36 4.40 1 15.75 1.34 1
30) 36.7) 15.58 5.27) 14.70 1.421 229.95 147.231 195.26 1.79) 19.37 5.181 16.66 1.331
35) 20.6) 15.29 4.71) 14.73 1.30) 190.48 78.55) 177.35 1.46) 14.52 7.43 1 13 .09 1.5t>|
10| 5.11 11.95 3.79) 11. 50 1.33) 152.98 45.60) 146.89 1.35) 10.89 3.53) 10 .40 1.381
ITOTALI180) 42.71 20.00 12.54) 17.83 1.561 289.55 197.321 241.95 1.801 15.69 6.31| 14.16 1.66!
1 I 1
' '

1 1
                                             Table 43
                                     FY73 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM
                                    EMISSION LEVELS  FOR ST. LOUIS
                                            COLDSTABILIZED i
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
i 	
N
MEAN
MILES
(K)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO MEAN SO
"
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD MEAN SD
NOX -GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO MEAN SD
171 67.61 26.27 11.041 24.38 1.481 394.66 223.55) 310.57 2.311 10.95 6.69) «» .08 1.911
18) 56.41 21.49 14.431 18.60 1.66) 296.81 231.52) 236.82 1.971 10.65 4.191 9.90 1.62J
21) 59.5). 24.88 27.20) 19.17 1.84) 295.07 151. C8| 259.73 1.69) 13.48 5.05) 12.25 1.671
22) 57.3) 15.54 3.461 15.18 1.25) 269.86 138.01) 24G.03 1.65) 12.11 4.55) 10.98 1.68|
271 42.0) 13.13 6.38) 12.04 1.51) 185.52 122.88) 151.64 1.94) 12.09 4.331 11.36 1.44)
301 36.7) 13.01 6.071 11.69 1.64) 184.11 145.21) 125.82 2.751 12.96 4.971 12.13 1.44)
35) 20.6) 11.99 5.77) 11.05 1.47) 158.22 100.73) 131.76 1.85) 9.62 5.94) 8.46 1.64)
10) 5.1) 9.33 2.36) 9. 09 1.271 95.50 60.58) 79.65 1.9C) 8.47 2.67) 8.04 1.421
ISO] 42.7) 16.42 12.80) 14. C7 1.67) 228.94 168.67) 173.92 2.211 11.49 5.19| 10 .3k 1.631
                                              Table  44
                                     FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                   EMISSION LEVELS FOR  ST. LOUIS
                                       HOT TRANSIENT
1
1
1
1
IYEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
1
1
1




N


MEAN
MILES
(K)

HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SO MEAN SD


CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SO
GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD

NCX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD ML AN SD
17) 67.6) 20.44 6.16| 19.57 1.36) 252.68 153.67) 200.66 2.16) IS. 78 7.771 13.31 1.961
18) 56.41 16.50 8.78) 14.97 1.53) 183.24 145.36) 148.87 1.88) 16.23 5.97| 14.58 1.76)
21) 59.51 18.47 17.87) 15.09 1.71) 170.02 108.55) 144.64 1.771 19.03 6.89| 17.49 1.59|
22) 57.3) 12.14 2.921 11.83 1.25) 139.44 57.631 127.35 1.581 18.19 7.051 16.91 1.49|
27) 42.0) 10.59 3.29) 10.14 1.35) 104.20 61.50) 89.39 1.751 17.58 5.021 16.83 1.36|
30) 36.7) 11.07 3.54) 10.54 1.38) 110.58 70.751 88.10 2.081 19.51 5.14| 18.80 1.331
35) 20.6) 11.05 5.91) 10.15 1.46) 99.04 46.41) 86.25 1.64) 14.46 7.66) 12.90 1.61|
10) 5.11 8.54 2.051 8.34 1.26) 78.00 38.16) 68.82 1.73) 10.86 3.2tt| 10.43 1.3o|
180|. 42.7) 13.28 8.44) 11.92 1.521 136.72 100.36) 109.97 1.94) 16.86 6.70) 15.36 1.591
II 1 1
II 1 1
II 1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
49

-------
                                       Table 45
                                FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR ST. LGUIS
1972 FTP

MEAN
MILES
YEAR N IK) HC
-
1967 171 67.61 C
1968 18| 56.4) 5
1969 211 59. 5| 9
1970 221 57.31 9
1971 27| 42. Cl 37
1972 301 36.71 36
1973 351 20.61 51
11974 101 5.11 90
ITOTALI18CI t2.7| 29
1 1 1
NOX CORRECTED FDR
*
HC 3.4 GM/MI
CO 39.0 GM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
* BELOW |
LEVEL * 1
1
1
CO NOXI
1
5 47|
5 331
9 14|
9 27|
25 251
33 13 1
42 621
70 701
25 351
1
HUMIDITY
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SO 1
1
7.48 2.541
6.18 3.611
6.93 6.491
5.19 1.791
3.92 1.361
3.81 1.39)
3.64 1.311
2.84 0.801
4.86 3.171
1


GEOMETRIC
MEAN SU
7.10
5.52
5.68
4.91
3.74
3.57
.3.47
2.75
4.31

CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SO |
1
1.3*1 109.26 59.25)
1.571 90.10 55.74)
1.721 84.92 39.36|
1.3V| 90.41 44.131
1.36) 5B.44 31.711
1.46) 55.21 33.061
1.341 46.49 20.371
1.291 33.13 12.171
1.571 69.13 43.871


GEOMETRIC
MEAN
93.59 1
78.25 1
76.6o 1
81.05 1
51. 1C I
46.34 1
42.52 1
31.03 1
57.96 1

SO
.Bkl
.711
.6C|
.63)
,6i|
.861
•54|
.4b|
.ail
1

NOX
GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SO |
1
3.43
3.33
4. 04
3.ae
3.79
4.31
3.ii
i.se
3.62

i.aol
1.211
1.34|
1.341
1.081
1.281
1.711
C.75I
1.44|
1


GECMtTRIC
MEAN
2.68 1
3.V.4 1
i.75 1
3.i7 1
j.64 1
4.13 1
2.91 1
i.48 1
3.31 1


SU)
.S.7I
.651
.551
.051
.351
.J5|
.Sol
.351
.:>&!
1

                                       Table 46
                                  FY73 FMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM

                                  EMISSION LEVELS FOR ST. LOUIS
YEAR
11967
1968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
1
1
1
1
(MEAN
IMILESJ
N 1 IK)
1
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MEAN SO
1
171 67.6) 6.77 2.141 6.46
181 56.41 5.55 3.26| 4.95
211 59.51 6.27 .191 5.06
22) 57.31 4.33 .08) 4.20
27| 42.01 3.49 .281 3.31
301 36.71 3.47 .29| 3.75
351 20.61 3.31 .401 3.12
I0| 5.11 2.5tt 0.64| 2.52
1801 42.7) 4.34 2.911 3.85
1 1 1
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI

ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MEAN SD
1
.371 96.18 52.291 80.33
.57) 75.23 51.671 63.96
.751 71.86 35.551 64.28
.28) 69.98 29.431 64.40
.381 47.15 26.821 41.25
.461 46.14 29.29) 37.54
.391 39.54 19.211 35.54
.251 27.43 11.85) 25.06
L.56I 57.52 37.811 47.48
1 1
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MEAN SD
1
1.961 3.51
.751 3.49
.621 4.21
.54) 3.84
.68) 3.69
.V9| 4.32
.60) 3.21
.58) 2.58 (
.6B| 3.71
1

1.84| 2.V7
.22) 3.19 1
.44) 3.89
.37) 3.57
.13) 3.72
.26) 4.15
.70) 2.9O
>.74| 2.48
1.461 3.4O
1

1.921
.66)
.58)
.521
.351
.351
.571
.35)
.561

NOX CORRECTED FUR HUMIDITY
                                       Table 47
                             FY73 EMISSION FACTUK PROGRAM

                           FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES PtR GALLON

                                    ST.  LOUIS
1
IYEAR


1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

N


COLD
TRANSIENT

MEAN
17| 12.56
18| 12.66
211 12.63
22
12.16
27| 12.62
301 13.03
351 12.32
101 11.01
|TOTAL|180
1 	
12.47
1
1
1
SD |
2.631
3.26)
2.531
3.091
3.621
3.251
3.231
2.68|
3.101
COLD
1
STABILISED |

MEAN
14. C7
13.98
13.66
13.44
13.45
13.82
13.09
11.10
13.41
1
SD I
2.931
3.86|
2.551
2.821
3.691
3.571
3.19|
2.671
3.271
HOT
TRANSIENT

MEAN
15.58
16.05
15. 6C
15. 62
15.72
15.80
It. 91
12.91
15.41



SD
2.b3
3.58
2.58
3. 1C
3.97
3.70
3.7C
2.96



1972
FTP

MEAN
13
13
13
12
13
13
12
11
3.471 12
.32
.32
.15
.79
. Ct
.43
.71
.06
.94
1
1
1
SD |
2.6i,|
3.t5|
2.471
2.881
3.631
3.311
3. 16 1
2.64)
3.111
19
FT

MEAN
14. 1C
It. 13
13.90
13. 7C
13. faC
14.14
13.37
11.52
13.6o
                                                                                           SD

                                                                                          2.70
                                                                                          3.59
                                                                                          2.49
                                                                                          2.68
                                                                                          3.72
                                                                                          3.45
                                                                                          3.27
                                                                                          2.71
                                                                                          3.21
                                          50

-------
                                  Table 48
                         FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                  ST. LOUIS
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974

TOTAL
Percent Meeting
Federal Standards
1972*
Standards
Number
0
0
1
2
4
5
12
7
31
%
0
0
4.8
9.1
14.8
16.7
34.3
70.0
17.2
1973/74**
Standards
Number
0
0
0
1
1
1
7
6
16
%
0
0
0
4.5
3.7
3.3
20.0
60.0
8.9
                      *  PASSING HC AND CO
                     **  PASSING HC AND CO AND NOX
                                     51

-------
                                             Table 49
                                    FY73 EMISSION FACTOR  PROGRAM

                                   EMISSION LEVELS FOR NEWARK

                                       COLD-TRANSIENT
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
1 1974
1 TOTAL
J 	
1
1
1
IMEAN
INILES
N I (K)
HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SD 1 MEAN SO
1
1
CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MbAN SD
171 62.81 39.99 36.36) 33.34 1.69| 415.13 221.72
181 62.11 24.53 7.221 23.56 1.34| 327.11 160.11
211 53.61 35.44 33.90) 26.9e> 1.951 363.84 2C5.56
221 45.51 35.38 25.981 28.71 1.90) 366. OC 208.4C
271 34.01 24.02 29.95) 17.66 1 .94 1 220.55 116.54
301 26.1) 15.29 7.031 14.18 1.45) 219.28 166.77
35) 18.21 15.05 7.391 13.85 1.481 176.43 136.97
10) 6.31 12.32 5.031 11.37 1.54| 124.15 64. Cl
[1801 37.31 24.45 23.92) 19.31 1.85) 269.93 187.31
L— 1 	 1 	 	 1 	 1 	 	
GEOMETRIC
MfcAN SO
NCiX-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
366.41 1.69) 13. t3 5.53) 12.72 1.551
285.58 1.801 17.14 5.11 16 .4 C 1.371
299.24 2.02) 17.76 7.21) 16.27 1.56
313.53 1.701 14. 38 1-.41I 12.99 1.69
188.34 1.841 17.29 5.39) 16.41 1.41
180.07 1.831 17.35 b.bil 16.4« 1.39)
149.91 1.71) 13.15 4.931 12.21 1.51
111.59 1.61) 9.34 2.34| 9.08 1.281
217. Cl 1.96) 15.41 5.8J| 14.22 1.53
	 _ 1 _ 	 	
                                             Table  50
                                     FY73 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM

                                   EMISSION LEVELS  FOR NEWARK

                                           COLD STABILIZED
1 1



YEAR

11967
11968
11969
1 1970
1 1971
11972
1 1973
(1974
1
1
(MEAN
(MILES
N 1 (K)
1



HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD

17) 62.8) 34.91 38.70)
18) 62.11 19.07 11.41)
21) 53.6) 28.67 32.851
22) 45.5) 17.06 5.781
27) 34.0) 15.33 10.50)
30) 26.1) 11.36 6.011
351 18.2) 11.20 8.78)
101 6.31 8.39 2.94)
ITOTALI1BOI 37.31 17.47 19.26|
GEOMETRIC

MEAN

26.79
16.94
2C.34
16.14
12.88
1C. 27
9.90
7.97
13.70

SD





CARBON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN

1.90) 383.44
1.59) 239.52
2.061 243.39
1.411 233.87
1.81) 156.84
1.55) 172.66
1.54) 150.08
1.40) 94.52
1.84) 2C4.18
1

SD

225.50)
91.84)
114.54)
140.48)
110.481
164.82)
16C.5G)
94.07)
160.71)
1



NDX-GRAMS
GEOMETRIC AR1THMLT1C

MEAN

323.45
218.54
20C.39
186.79
126.74
118.41
10 1 . 04
66.49
147.69

SD MEAN

1.88) 11.63
1.61) 13.76
2.24) 15.13
2.111 12.63
2.06| 11.96
2.511 11.72
2.451 8.30
2.22) 6.83
2.39) 11.53
1

SD

6.05)
3.4E)
4.^4 |
3.22 1
3.55)
4.85)
2.68)
2.021
4.74)
1
tfcOMETKIC

MEAN

1C .27
13.28
14.46
11.73
11 .45
1C .76
7.65
6.56
lt.57

SD
1
1.6b|
1.34)
1.36
1.47
1.36
1.53
1.42
1.35
1.53
                                             Table  51
                                     FY73 EMISSION FACTOR  PROGRAM

                                   EMISSION LEVELS FOR NEWARK

                                        HOTTRANS1ENT
[



YEAR


11967
11968
1 1969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
|
|
1




N




MEAN
MILES
(K)




HYDROCARBONS-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD


.GEOMETRIC

MEAN SD


	 	 	
	 	 7 	

CARBON MONCXIDt-URAMS 1 NuX-tRAMS
ARITHMETIC

MEAN SD


GEOMETRIC I ARITHMETIC
1
MEAN SD 1 MEAN SO
1
1
GEOMETRIC

MEAN iD


17) 62.8) 28.33 33.471 21.85 1.83) 264. 7C 143.84) 226.79 1.82) 15.19 7.L6 | 13.49 1.69)
181 62.11 16.63 7.361 15.46 1.45) 133.97 5C.9C
127.36 1.601 19.68 5.58) 19.08 1.36)
211 53.61 25.16 29.471 17.35 2.121 149.76 62.47) 125.78 1.98) 20.65 7.28) 19.20 1.511
22) 45.51 14.88 5.67) 14.06 1.39| 151.06 97.77) 125. 3C 1.89) 15.59 5.26) 14.68 1.45
271 34.0) 15.89 17.60) 12. 11 1.95) 93.57 64.501 77.12 1.871 lti.94 U.24I 17.14 1.54)
30) 26.11 10.21 4.59) 9.51 1.44) 103.71 98.59) 75.76 2.18) 16.24 6.22) 15.05 1.5CI
35) 18.21 9.68 4.19) 9.14 1.37) 89.77 97.471 67.39 1.99| 12.56 -..081 11.87 1.43
101 6.31 9.26 1.89) 9.08 1.24) 65.62 38.28) 56.42 1.621 9.3i> 3.121 8.93 1.37
1801 37.31 15.57 17.27) 12.46 1.75) 127.25 103.551 96.46 2.111 16.25 7.2U
I 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14.80 1.55



NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
                                                52

-------
                                                  Table 52
                                           FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM

                                            EMISSION LEVELS FOR NEWARK

                                                  1972 FTP
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
1971
11972
11973
1197*
1 TOTAL
1
1 * 8ELOM 1
I LEVEL * 1
1 — -i ii ii i
(MEAN 1
IMILES I
N 1 (K) HC CO NOXI
1 1
17) 62.81 0 t 521
181 62.11 5 11 5|
21) 53.6) C 14 14|
221 45.51 4 9 271
27) 34.01 37 40 29|
301 26.1) 53 SO 261
351 18.21 62 54 54)
10) 6.31 60 80 90!
180) 37.3) 31 33 35 1
II 1
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
* '.
HC 3.4 GM/HI
CO 39.0 CM/HI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SO |.
1
9.99
5.8)
8.55
6.99
5.25
3.55
3.50
2.76
5.59

9.91)
2.18)
a. es|
3.45)
4.65|
1.64).
2.06)
0.92)
5.38)
1

GEOMETRIC
MEAN
8.13
5.50
6.34
6.31
4.20
3.29
3.21
2.61
4. 50 1

SD
.741
.391
.981
.581
.851
.461
.46)
.43)
.8CI
1

CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC I
1
MEAN SO 1
1
106.48
75.55
80.96
79.98
5C.59
52.26
43.53
29.15
63.21

48.311
28.26)
39.321
37.26)
27.C1I
41.651
38. 1C)
20.64)
41.881
1

GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
96.53
69.17
69.44
71.67
43.61
41.78
35.26
24.57
50.96

1.591
1.6*1
1.92)
1.631
1.77)
1.931
1.861
1.791
1.981
1

NOX
GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SD 1
1
3.4t>
4. It
4.38
3.60
3.9C
3.88
2.86
2.16
3.59

1.451
C.98I
1.501
1.271
1.131
1.301
0.951
0.551
1.31)
1



GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
3.12
4.11
4.14
3.38
3.73
3.66
2.7C
2.C9
3.35

1.531
1.291
1.431
1.451
1.37)
1.421
1.421
1.29)
1.47)
i

                                                  Table 53
                                           FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM

                                            EMISSION LEVELS FOR NEWARK

                                                  1975 FTP
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
1 1974
(TOTAL
1
1
1
1
(MEAN
IMILES
N | (K)
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC I
1
MEAN SD 1
1
17) 62.81 9.10 9.711
181 62.11 5.21 2.211
211 53.6) 7.77 8.491
22) 45.51 5.43 1.841
27) 34.01 4.63 3.751
30) 26.11 3.17 1.47)
35) 18.21 3.09 1.841
101 6.31 2.53 C.70I
1801 37.31 4.91 4.961
III 1
1
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
7.24
4.87
5.62
5.16
3.76
2.94
2.84
2.44
3.97
1.78
1.43
2.C2
1.39
1.84
1.46
1.44
1.33
1.77
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SD |
1
95.04
61.25
64.69
63.65
40.93
43.48
36.95
24.71
52.37

46.351
21.20)
29.511
31.29)
23.86)
37.381
35.66)
18.651
36.76)
1

1
1
GEOMETRIC 1
1
MEAN SU 1
- 1
84.95
56.53
55.69
56.19
34.80
33.38
28.55
2C.56
41.31

1.64)
1.581
1.95)
1.701
1.8C)
2.06)
1.971
1.821
2.05)
1

NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SD 1
1
3. 51. 1.561
4.33 1.041
4.60 1.491
3.69 1.261
4.03 1.331
3.79 1.3CI
2.82 U. 891
2.16 0.611
3.65 1.361
1


GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
3.18
4.20
4.36
3.49
3.b2
3.57
2.67
2.1.6
3.39

.661
.311
.421
.421
.39)
.431
.401
.32)
L.46I
1
           NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
FY73
                                                  Table  54
                                            EMISSION FACTC1H
                                     FUEL ECONOMY  IN MILES  P&K GALLON
                                             NEWARK
I-
I YEAR
I
I
I
I	
11967
11968
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974


N


17
18
21
22
27
30
35
1C
80
COLD
TRANSIENT

MEAN SO
12.65 3.C8
! 12.62 2.38
12.36 2.35
12. 1C 2.89
i 12.64 3.68
1 12.72 3.35
I 12.61 3.50
1 11.97 3.02
1 12.53 3.16
COLO 1 HOT
STABILIZED I TRANSIENT
1
MEAN SU I MEAN SC
13.47 3.C5I 15.4V 3.63
14.42 2.331 15.79 2.94
13.84 2.34J li.6t 2.76
13. C9 2.88| 14. S3 3.vl
13.31 3.7».| 15.23 4.14
13.56 3.621 15. VI 4.C1
13.46 3.651 15.37 4.H6
12.35 3.C7| 14.19 3.46
13.47 3.271 15.36 3.OU
l°7L
FTP

MEAN i>D
13. L 6 *: . 9 L
13.51 2.47
13. 0° 2.3C
12. 6v 2.7V
13.* fc J.6iS
13. 1* 3.42
13.0 2.6i
12.1ft 3.cj>
13.01 3.12
1973
Fl P

MEAN SD
12. 7 S 3.. 3
14.34 2.47
13.93 t.29
12.30. 3.01
13.66 3.75
13.93 2.59
12.74 2.8b
12.72 3.15
13.73 3.28
                                                     53

-------
  1967
  1968
  1969
  1970
  1971
  1972
  1973
  1974
TOTAL
                                Table  55
                       FY 73  EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM
                                NEWARK
Percent Meeting
Federal Standards
1972*
Standards
Number
0
1
0
0
7
11
14
6
39
%
0
5.5
0
0
26.0
36.7
40.0
60.0
21.7
1973/74**
Standards
Number
0
0
0
0
1
3
8
6
18
%
0
0
0
0
3.7
10.0
22.9
60.0
10.0
         **
Passing HC and CO
Passing HC and CO and NOX
                                   54

-------
                             Table 56
            SUMMARY OF AIR  CONDITIONED VEHICLE TESTS
             VS. MODEL YEAR IN  HOUSTON AND DETROIT

                    HOT  START TEST PROCEDURE
MODEL tt OF
YEAR VEH.
1967 5



1969 8



1971 9



1972 4



1973 9



1974 5



TOTAL 40



A/C
SIM
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
A/C
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
HC
7.11
7.03
6.80
6.70
4.28
4.60
4.16
4.22
3-67
3-83
3-52
3-39
5.21
6.18
5.41
5.39
3.54
3.72
3-35
3.43
2.76
3.35
2.61
2.46
4.23
4.53
4.10
4.06
CO
124.5
124.5
117.8
116.2
70.9
86.0
72.8
72.9
54.7
65. 01
57.0
55.4
73-0
95.8
82.5
86.3
65.4
66.5
59.4
65.2
30.5
41.7
30.0
26.3
67.9
77.1
67.5
68.1
C02
570.6
565.9
551.0
554.1
647.9
666.4
633.2
620.0
663.1
682.4
644.4
652.5
670.6
684.0
630.5
650.0
701.4
732.8
697.8
711.0
761.3
810.7
741.2
746.9
670.1
692.2
653.2
658.4
f
NOX
3.82
3.66
3.61
3.63
6.40
6.60
6.18
6.12
6.75
7.26
6.36
6.54
5.69
6.04
4.91
5.35
4.50
5.27
4.42
4.48
3.97
4.89
3.45
3.52
5.35
5.81
5.03
5.13
FUEL
ECON
11.25
11.32
11.70
11.69
11.35
10.77
11.52
11.72
11.50
11.00
11.73
11.65
10.99
10.35
11.34
10.98
10.74
10.32
10.91
10.62
10.67
9.88
10.94
10.95
11.10
10.62
11.35
11.26
 EMISSION RESULTS  IN GRAMS  PER  MILE
 FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES  PER  GALLON
FUEL ECONOMY CALCULATIONS ASSUME  A 1:1.85 CARBON:HYDROGEN RATIO
* NOX Corrected for Humidity
                               55

-------
                                             Table 57

                     FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM-LOADED VEHICLE TESTS IN DETROIT

                         EMISSIONS IN GMS/MI - FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL

                               Surveillance Driving Sequence

                 TEST #1*                        TEST #2**                       TEST #3***
YEAR
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
TOTAL
NO.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
42
HC CO NOX _,Fuel
Economy
7.0 109.3 4.73 12.5
14.86 96.0 6.72 12.3
3.93 48.7 8.60 14.4
3.31 43.6 8.25 13.0
2.90 38.0 8.53 12.7
2.75 51.2 7.20 11.7
3.19 62.3 5.89 11.5
5.42 64.2 7.13 12.5
HC CO NOX Fuel
Economy
7.55 139.6 4.51 11.4
15.57 110.4 6.93 11.3
4.15 54.3 9.09 13.6
3.46 52.8 8.43 12.4
3.29 48.9 8.55 12.0
2.95 62.8 7.51 10.9
3.36 65.6 6.36 11.0
5.76 76.3 7.34 11.7
HC CO NOX -,Fuel
Economy
8.83 211.3 5.28 8.7
18.76 177.4 8.25 8.8
5.22 96.7 10.09 10.4
4.04 99.7 9.33 9.6
5.04 102.1 9.29 9.4
3.65 118.1 7.78 8.8
4.17 124.8 6.85 8.6
7.10 132.9 8.12 9.1
  * Test 1 - Inertia weight and road load settings unchanged from the Federal Register.

 ** Test 2 - Test 1 condition with the addition of a maximum rated load of passengers and baggage (500 Ibs)

*** Test 3 - Test 1 condition with the addition of a trailer of a size recommended as suitable
             for that particular vehicle (1000 Ibs).  In this test, an empirically derived additional road
             load setting was applied.

-------
                                                               APPENDIX
                                                            FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                        COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
                                                                     1972 FTP
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
'68
72
140 ,
84
88
108 !
120 '
140
540
MEAN
MILES
(K)
71.7
67.0
69.3
57.9
51.2-
36.8
26.4
14.8
34.4
t BELOK
LEVEL •
HC CO NOX
0 1 47
•0 3 49
0 2 48.
10 14 32
17 13 17
21 24 21 :
37 26 22
60 52 17
32 28 21 ,
HYDROCARBONS GH/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
10.54 8.64
8.64 5.16
9.56 7.11
6.85 5.49
5.54 3.14
5.64 5.04
4.41 2.50
3.42 2.50
4.96 3.95
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
8.81 1.72
7.76 1.54
8.25 1.63
5.73 1.72
5.04 1.48
4.71 1.68
4.00 1.50
3.03 1.63
4.22 1.69
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/Nl
ARITHMETIC
HE AN SO
109.46 53.59
103.63 39.26
106.46 46.69
75.84 41.35
76.73 41.94
66.15 45.67
60.42 39.45
43.79 25.84
62.31 40.40
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
97.82 1.63
95.95 1.51
'96.85 1.57
iK.'.J '1.78
67.23 1.69
•55.16 :1.82
50.94 1.81
36.31 1.91
51.55> 1.89
MOI OH/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
3.09 h.54
3.38 1.64
3.24 [1.59
14.12 jl.67
4.88 1.90
,4.16 ,1.61
'4.24 11.57
4.52 |1.55
4.38 !l.66
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
|2.67 1.82
3.02 1.64
2.84 |1.73
3.75 1.57
4.43 1.62
3.85 1.51
3.89 1.58
4.23 1.47
4.03 1.55
                                                          FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                                           EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
                                                                   1972 FTP
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
17
18
35
21
22
27
30
35
135
MEAN
MILES
(K)
60.6
69.8
65.3
61.4
46.1
31.6
18.2
14.1
29.6
« BELOW
LEVEL •
HC CO NOX
0 0 71
0 0 83
0 0 77
0 0 62
5 0 73
0 0 48
3 7 63
14 9 49
5 4 58
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
10.97 7.41
15.23 9.55
13.16 8.73
8.23 5.22
6.86 1.60
6.36 1.72
' 5.89 2.18
5.61 4.34
! 6.43 3.41
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
9.64 1.59
13.16 1.70 '
11.31 1.68
7.22 1.62
6.67 1.29
6.15 1.30
5.59 1.37
4.97 1.53
5.92 1.46
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
132.73 55.71
172.00 51.43
152.93 56.39
121.51 83.14
113.92 42.50
102.95 37.78
92.04 44.15
90.42 35.79
101.95 49.79
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
122.91 1.49
165.08 1.34
143.04 1.46
103.60 1.74
105.81 1.50
96.49 1.45
83.11 1.58
82.84 1.56
92.10 1.57
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
2.40 1.57
1.67 0.90
2.02 1.31
2.66 ;1.20
2.79 11.38
'3.18 11.09
2.76 1.34
3.00 11.37
2.90 1.28
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
1.92 12.07 .
1.43 '1.81
,1.65 ' |1.95
12.37 1.71
2.50 1.60
13.00 1.44
'2.48 1.58
J2.71 1.60
2.62 11.58
                                                           FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                                         EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
                                                                    1972 FTP
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968'
19691
1970'
1971 i
1972 !
TOTAL
N
17]
18
35
21
22
27
30
35
135
MEAN
MILES
(K)
73.0
66.7
69.7
65.0
49.5
40.2 '
32.1
17.6
37.9
» HELOK
LEVEL •
HC CO NOX
12 6 47
28 11 28
20 9 37
14 19 19
18 9 14
11 11 15
33 10 27
57 31 31
30 17 22 .
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
7.97 11.31
6.25 4.75
7.09 8.50
7.63 5.54
6.24 5.50
7.51 7.18
4.54 1.77
1 4.07 4.87
5.77 5.32
GEOMETRIC
Mt AN SO
5.66 1.96
5.03 1.94
5.33 1.93
6.39 1.77
5.07 1.86
5.94 1.84
4.24 1.44
3.24 1.75
4.65 1.82
CARUON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITMHEMC
MEAN SO
98.81 42.27
87.77 52.25
93.13 47.30
71.74 32.31
84.26 32.63
90.14 42.49
69.39 26.88
55.77 25.41
72.80 33.97
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
88.84 1.67
74.25 1.84
81.01 1.76
64.77 1.61
77.95 1.53
81.01 1.62
65.12 1.43
50.51 1.58
65.53 1.60
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
3.41 1.97
3. 70 1 . 75
13.56 1.84
' 4.94 '1.96
4.60 1.65
1 4.44 1.50
3.78 1.02
3.83 1.15
4.24 1.48
GCONETRIC
MEAN SO
2.81 |2.03
3.27 '1.72
3.04 1.87
14.54 .55
'4.36 .39
4.15 .49
3.65 .33
,3.68 .33 \
4.00 1.42" _
MX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
 LEVELS
HC   3.4 GM/MI
CO  39.0 GM/MI
NOX  3.0 GM/MI
                                                                    57

-------
                                                   FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                             COMPOSITE EMISSION  LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
                                                            1975 FTP
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
196"
1969
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
68
72
140
84
88
108
120
140
•540
MEAN
MILES
IK)
71.7
67.0
69.3
57.9
51.2
36.8'
26.4
14.8
34.4
HYDROCARBONS GM/HI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
9.55 8.65
7.84 4.81
8.67' 6.97
6.18 5.01
4.83 2.53
4.89 4.21
3.94 2.22
3.02 2.22
4.39 3.45
GEOMETRIC
MEAN ' SO
7.80 1.77
7.03 1.54
7.40 1.65
5.14 1.75
4.44 1.47
4.14 1.65
3.59 1.49
2.69 1.60
3.75 1.67
CARBON MONOXIDE &M/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
95.66 45.86
91.43 34.17
93.48 40.18
64.60 34.94
62.38 34.18
'53.23 36.87
51.13 37.02
36.88 24,04
'51.78 34.64
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
85.03 7.66
:84.70 '1.52
84.86 1.58
55.35 1.80
54.27 1.72
44.22 1.84
42.18 1.86
29.74 1.99
42.27 1.93
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
,3.19 .1.61-
3.48 • jl.69
'^3.34 .1.65
.4.32 ,1.71
5.08 1.93
.4.35 !l.67
14.30 !l.58
4.55 1.59
:4.50 '1.70
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
2.75 1.82
3.11 11.64
2.93 11.73
3.94 1.58
4.66 1.56
4.04 11.48
'3.95 1.58
4.25 1.48
:4.15 1.53
                                                    FY72  EMISSION  FACTOR  PROGRAM
                                                     EMISSION  LEVELS  FOR  DENVER
                                                            1975  FTP
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971 '
1972.
TOTAL
N
17
18
35
21
22
27
30'
35
135
MEAN
MILES
(K)
60.6
69.8
65.3
51.4
46.1
31.6
18.2 '
14.1
29.6
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
9.78 6.60
13.92 9.46
11.91 8.35
6.89 3.70
5.97 1.28
5.56 1.56
5.19 1.74
4.75 2.42
5.54 2.33
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
8.58 1.60
11.78 1.76
10.10 1.71
6.28 1.51
5.83 1.26
5.37 1.30
4.97 1.34
4.39 1.45
5.20 1.41
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
123.56 54.33
157.52 51.83
141.03 55.03
101.43 65.83
97.85 38.11
87.52 31.24
80.32 37.27 '
80.36 32.46
87.91 41.28
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
f 113.58 1.52
149.66 1.39
130.89 1.48
87.81 1.70
90'. 31 1.53
82.39 1.43
72.93 1.57
73.45 1.57
79.79 1.56
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
2.30 1.60
1.77 1.10
2.03 1.37
2.86 1.25
2.93 1.47
3.32 1.11
2.74 1.31
3.08 '1.39
2.99 1.31
GCOMCTRIC
MEAN SO
1.79
1.47
1.62
12.62
:2.61
3.14
2.48
2.78
,2.72
2.17
1.92
2.03
1.54
1.65
1.43
1.56
1.60
1.56
                                                     FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
                                                    EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
                                                              1975 FTP
YEAR
1966
1967 :
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970 •
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
17
18
35
21
22
27
30
35
135
MEAN
MILES
(K)
73.0
66.7
69.7
65.0
49.5
40.2
32.1
17.6
37.9
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
7.46 11.98
5.36 4.44
6.38 8.86
6.97 5.50
5.42 5.35
6.64 6.45
3.98 1.73
3.56 4.24
5.10 4.92
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
4.97 2.03
4,29 1.92
4.60 1.97
5.66 1.86
4.39 1.81
5.25 1.84
3.69 1.47
2.80 1.80
4.05 1.84
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
86.90 43.27
75.38 45.21
80.98 44.01
60.05 29.10
71.61 33.01
78.47 38.32
59.66 26.48
46.68 24.06
62.07 31.84
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
76.30 1.74
63.01 1.89
69.15 1.81
53.06 1.70
64.43 1.63
69.91 1.65
54.73 1.52
41.16 1.67
54.56 1.68
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
3.43 1.90
3.77 1.81
3.61 1.84
4.91 :1.81
4.68 '1.69
4.46 jl.59
3.83 ;l.05
3.81 1.21
4.26 1.50
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
2.82
3.32
,3.07
|4.53
U.43
14.13
i 3.68
|3.65
J4.00
2.05
1.74
1.89
1 . 55
1.40
1.53
1.34
1.35
1.44
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
                                                               58

-------
                                                  FTTJ EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM

                           COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES

                                                           1972 FTP
YEAR
TOTAL
PRE-
68**
196H
1969
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
458
69
72
70
BO
291
HE AN
MILES
IK)
68.5
»8.5
39.9
29.5
15.6
32.7
». BELCH
LEVEL •
MC CO NOX
2 5 46
22 28 29
15 13 11
31 36 9
61 49 11
33 32 15
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
9.56 8.06
6.40 7.U2
5.99 5.22
4.22 1.99
3.02 1.47
4.90 0.91
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
8.02 1.70
5.10 1.75
5.07 1.65
3.91 . 1.45
3.16 1.49
4.19 1.65
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
95.2 43.5
7B.91 62.98
70.73 37.73
55.16 26.72
46.33 28.29
62.22 42.81
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
'85.6 1.61
62.59 1.92
62.42 1.66
48.88 1.66
38.89 1.84
51.71 1.83
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
3.51 1.87
4.31 1.85
5.29 2.00
5.02 1.63
4.99 1.79
4.91 l.BS
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
13.01 M.79.
3.85 1.70
4.90 1.50
4.77 1.38
4.65 1.48
4.53 1.53
                                                  FY71 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM

                                                   EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER

                                                           1972 FTP
YEAH
TOTAL
PRE-68
1966
1969
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
97
is
17
17
20
72
MtAN
MILES
IK)
65.1
42.1
38.9
26.0
15.2
30.1
t HELD*
LEVEL •
MC CO N0«
0 1 83
0 0 03
12 6 65
6 U 59
0 5 55
4 3 6S
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
11.31. 6.13
tt.70 4. Ob
7.74 4.89
7.H5 4.23
6.73 2.10
7.70 J.S1.
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
10.27 1.51
f.OO 1.53
6.49 ' 1.09
6.91 1.70
6.44 1.35
6.93 1.62
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
ML AN SU
136.8 55.5
122.92 66.05
92.62 57.72
110.18 39.76
100.04 39.72
106.40 52.00
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
125.8 1.53
109.88 1.60
79.72 1.72
103.04 1.45
92.16 I.b4
95.63 1.59
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
1.93 1.11
2.38 1.11
2.52 1.21
2.72 1.13
3.04 1.55
2.68 1.27
GEOMETRIC
MtAN SO
1.66 1.76
2.19 1.50
2.20 1.78
2.48 1.59
2.73 1.59
2.40 1.61
                                                 FY71 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM

                                                EMISSION  LEVELS FOR  LOS  ANGELES

                                                           1972 FTP
YEAH
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
16
17
33
15
17
16
21
69
MEAN
MILES
IK)
65.7
56.4
60.9
37.3
38.1
25.2
15.8
28.1
t rtELO.
LEVEL •
MC CU NOX
19 19 JO
12 6 S3
15 12 OS
13 13 00
0 0 12
25 19 13
62 33 19
2» 17 25 .
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
0.72 H.64
6.22 3.5?
7.03 0.5S
5.65 2.21
5.86 1.21
5.22 2.7H
3.51 0.99
4.95 2.08
GEOMETRIC
MtAN SU
6.62 2.00
S.52 1.63
(•.03 1.H1
5.29 1.45
5.75 1.22
4.76 l.bl
3.39 1.30
0.60 1.46
CARBON MUNOXIOE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SU
70.12 '38.29
91.03 J8.01
F9.U3 J7.58
78.00 39.77
07.07 25.37
62.59 29.45
51.90 22.49
68.72 31.BB
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
70.25 1.61
74.56 1.52
72.43 1.56
69.87 1.61
83.86 1.32
56.20 1.63
46.91 1.62
61.55 1.63
NOX GM/MI
AKI1HMETIC
MEAN SO
3.23 1.45
3.30 1.45
3.26 1.43
3.76 1.99
5.05 2.12
4.51 1.69
3.81 1.09
4.37 1.82
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
2.91 1.64
2.98 1.61
2.95 1.61
3.34 1.64
5.06 1.50
4.20 1.49
3.63 1.41
4.00 1.53
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
 LEVELS
 HC   3.4 GM/MI
 CO  39.0 GM/MI
 NOX  3.0 GM/MI

' EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA 66-67
                                                              59

-------
                                         FYT1 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM
                   COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ALL CITIES EXCLUDING DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
                                                    1975 FTP
YEAH
TOTAL'
PRt-'
68? '
1968
1969
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
458.
69
72
70
ao
291
MEAN
MILES
IK)
68.5.
46.5
39.9
29.5
IS. 6
32.7
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
8.74 7.63
S.73 7.80
5.25 4.72
3.77 1.83
3.07 1.36
4.01 4.71
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
7.26 1.73
4.46 1.77
4.47 1.62
3.50 1.44
2.83 1.48
3.72 1.64
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
86.5 40.3
£9.33 61.37
59.99 32.57
47.55 £4.41
39. 56 25.62
53.60 39.95
GEOMETRIC
MILAN SO
'77.4 ;l.63
S2.61 2.02
52.77 1.67
41.37 1.73
32.46 1.92
43.51 1.90
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
13.54 11.91
4.44 1.89
5.4S 2.02
5. IS 1.67
5.06 1.84
5.03 . 1.89
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
13.04 '1.79
3.95 1.72
5.06 1.50
4.89 1.38
4.71 1.49
4.64 1.54
                                          FY71 EMISSION  FACTOR PROGRAM
                                           EMISSION  LEVELS FOR UENVLR
                                                  1975  FTP
YEAH
TOTAL
PRE-68
1968
1969
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
97
18
17
17
20
72
MEAN
MILES
IK)
65.1
42.1
36.9
26.0
15.2
30.1
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
10.16 5.59
7.34 i!.73
6.31 3.47
6.71 J.8S
5.59 1.42
6.46 2.97
GEOMETRIC
Mt AN SO
9.24 1.49
6.87 1.46
5.43 1.64
5.93 1.6H
S.42 1.29
S.BS 1.57
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
126.9 48.5
109.20 52.45
76.42 47.67
94. 70 33.80
UH.13 J5.96
92.20 43.74
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
117.4 1.51
99.71 1.53
65.61 1.74
89.30 1.43
80.67 1.57
82.98 1.60
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
" 1.89 1.12
2.20 0.80
2.59 1.24
2.78 1.11
3.05 1.59
2.67 1.25
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
1.61 1.79
2.07 1.43
2.27 1.76
2.54 1.57
2.73 1.62
2.40 1.60
                                         FV71 EMISSION  FACTOR PHOGRni-
                                        tMlsslON LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
                                                   1975 FTP
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
•16
17
33
IS
17
16
21
69
MEAN
MILES
IK)
65.7
56.4
60.9
37.3
38.1
25.2
15.8
28.1
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
7.84 U.34
5.33 3.52
6.55 0.36
4.71 1.87
4.92 1.07
4.45 2.39
3.02 0.7V
4.19 1.75
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
5.81 2.03
4.60 1.70
5.15 1.86
4.37 1.50
4.80 1.25
4.08 1.48
2.93 1.28
3.90 1.45
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
65.16 36.59
67.18 36.99
66.20 36.23
62.43 37.60
68.70 22.87
50.83 26.40
42.26 19.91
55.15 28.25
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
56.84 1.72
59.68 1.63
58.29 1.66
54.31 1.70
65.13 1.41
44.69 1.70
37.83 1.64
48.63 1.67
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
3.40 1.54
3.42 1.50
3.41 1.50
3.86 2.04
5.46 2..06
4.62 1.64
3.83 1.10
4.42 1.81
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
3.04 1.68
3.08 1.65.
3.06 1.65
3.40 1.68
5.10 1.47
4.33 1.46
3.65 1.41
4.06 1.53
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY.
•EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA 66-67
                                                        60

-------