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
------- |