EPA-460/3-77-022
December 1977
AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST
EMISSION SURVEILLANCE
-ANALYSIS OF
THE FY 1975 PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-77-022
AUTOMOBILE EXHAUST
EMISSION SURVEILLANCE
-ANALYSIS OF
THE FY 1975 PROGRAM
by
James A. Rutherford
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emmission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
December 1977
-------
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 em-
ployees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited
quantities — from the Library Services Office (MD-35), 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 Office of Mobile
Source Air Pollution Control, Emission Control Technology Division, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Office of
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-77-022
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE NO.
1. Summary and Conclusions 1
1.1 Summary 1
1.2 Findings 3
2. Emission Factor Program - Background and Design 6
3. Statistical Analysis 11
3.1 Emission Data and Results 12
3.2 Discussion 13
3.2.1 City Effects 13
3.2.2 Performance in First Year of Operation 14
3.2.3 Degradation Effects 15
3.2.A Fuel Economy 16
3.2.5 Highway Fuel Economy Tests 17
3.2.6 Manufacturer Effects 17
3.2.7 Ownership Characteristics 18
3.2.8 Modal Emission Sequence 19
3.2.9 Evaporative Emissions 19
3.2.10 Sulfate Emissions 20
3.2.11 Short Cycle Tests 20
References 23
Figure 1 24
Tables
1. Number of Vehicles Tested by Site and Model Year, EF75 25
2. FY75 Emission Factor Program Summary Table of Emission Levels
Using the 1975 FTP for 1976 Model Year Automobiles 26
3. Mean Emissions After Approximately One Year of Operation from -7
Emission Factor Programs - 1975 FTP
4. Summary of Federal 49 State Standards and 1975 California 28
Standards
5. Percent of 1976 Model Year Vehicles Meeting Standards - 1975 FTP 29
6.. Statistical Distribution of Emission Data from EF75 Emission
Factor Program by City, Year and Pollutant
7. Emission Results for Chicago, 1975 FTP 32
8. Emission Restuls for Denver, 1975 FTP 33
9. Emission Results for Houston, 1975 FTP 34
10. Emission Results for Los Angeles, 1975 FTP 35
11. Emission Results for St. Louis, 1975 FTP 36
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)
Tables Page No.
12. Emission Results for, Washington, 1975 FTP 37
13. Emission Results for Phoenix, 1975 FTP 38
14. Emission Results for All Cities Except Denver and Los Angeles,
1975, FTP 39
15. Percent Meeting Federal Standards, Chicago 40
16. Percent Meeting Federal Standards, Denver 41
17. Percent Meeting Federal Standards, Houston 42
18. Percent Meeting Federal Standards, Los Angeles 43
19. Percent Meeting Federal Standards, St. Louis 44
20. Percent Meeting Federal Standards, Washington 45
21. Percent Meeting Federal Standards, Phoenix 46
22. Percent Meeting Federal Standards, All Cities Except Denver 47
and Los Angeles
23. Percent Meeting California Standards, Los Angeles 48
24. Comparison of Mean Emission Levels of New Vehicles in the FY71, 49
FY72, FY73, FY74, and FY75 Emission Factor Programs
25. 1975 FTP Mean Emission Levels by Model Year for FY71, FY72, FY73,
FY74 and FY75, Composite of All Cities Except Los Angeles and 50
Denver
26. Change in Emissions and Urban Fuel Economy for Vehicles in Both _„
EF74 and EF75 Programs for all Cities Except Denver and Los
Angeles
27. Emission Results for All Cities Except Los Angeles and Denver 54
by Model Year and Inertia Weight
28. Fuel Economy Results for Chicago 55
29. Fuel Economy Results for Denver 56
30. Fuel Economy Results for Houston 57
31. Fuel Economy Results for Los Angeles 58
32. Fuel Economy Results for St. Louis 59
33. Fuel Economy Results for Washington 60
34. Fuel Economy Results for Phoenix 61
35. Fuel Economy Results for All Cities but Los Angeles and 62
Denver
36. Highway Fuel Economy Test for Chicago 63
37. Highway Fuel Economy Test for Denver 64
38. Highway Fuel Economy Test for Houston 65
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)
Tables Page No.
39. Highway Fuel Economy Test for Los Angeles 66
40. Highway Fuel Economy Test for St. Louis 67
41. Highway Fuel Economy Test For Washington 68
42. Highway Fuel Economy Test for All Cities Except Los Angeles 69
and Denver
43. Comparison of Highway Fuel Economy with 1975 FTP Fuel Economy, -JQ
1976 Model Year Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks
44. Emission Results for All Cities Except Los Angeles and Denver,
Results of 1975 FTP for 1976 Model Year Vehicles Presented by 71
Manufacturer
45. Emission Results for Denver, Results of 1975 FTP for 1976 Model 72
Year Vehicles Presented by Manufacturer
46. Emission Results for Los Angeles, Results of 1975 FTP for
Model Year Vehicles Presented by Manufacturer 73
47. Emission Results for All Cities Except Los Angeles and Denver,
Results of 1975 FTP for 1975 and 1976 Model Year Light Duty 74
Trucks Presented by Manufacturer
48. Emission Results for Denver, Results of 1975 FTP for 1975 and
1976 Model Year Light Duty Trucks Presented by Manufacturer 75
49. Emission Results for"Los Angeles, Results of 1975 FTP for 7g
1975 and 1976 Model Year Light Duty Trucks Presented by
Manufacturer
50. Emission Results for 1975 Model Year Vehicles by Response 77
to Question Concerning Hydrogen Sulfide Odor
51. Emission Results for 1976 Model Year Vehicles by Response to
Question Concerning Hydrogen Sulfide Odor 78
52. Acceleration/Deceleration Modes of Surveillance Driving 75
Sequence
53. Modal Emissions for Chicago 1976 Model Year Cars 80
54. Modal Emissions for Chicago 1976 Model Year Light Duty Trucks 81
55.. Modal Emissions for Denver 1970 Model Year Cars 82
56. Modal Emissions for Denver 1971 Model Year Cars 83
57. Modal Emissions for Denver 1972 Model Year Cars 84
58. Modal Emissions for Denver 1973 Model Year Cars 85
59. Modal Emissions for Denver 1974 Model Year Cars 86
60. Modal Emissions for Denver 1975 Model Year Cars 87
61. Modal Emissions for Denver 1976 Model Year Cars 88
62. Modal Emissions for Denver 1975 and 1976 Model Year Light 89
Duty Trucks
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)
Tables Page No.
63. Modal Emissions for Houston 1976 Model Year Cars 90
64. Modal Emissions for Houston 1975 and 1976 Model Year 91
Light Duty Trucks
65. Modal Emissions for Los Angeles 1970 Model Year Cars 92
66. Modal Emissions for Los Angeles 1971 Model Year Cars 93
67. Modal Emissions for Los Angeles 1972 Model Year Cars 94
68. Modal Emissions for Los Angeles 1973 Model Year Cars 95
69. Modal Emissions for Los Angeles 1974 Model Year Cars 96
70. Modal Emissions for Los Angeles 1975 Model Year Cars 97
71. Modal Emissions for Los Angeles 1976 Model Year Cars 98
.72. Modal Emissions for Los Angeles 1975 and 1976 Model Year 99
Light Duty Trucks
74. Modal Emissions for St. Louis 1970 Model Year Cars 100
75. Modal Emissions for St. Louis 1971 Model Year Cars 101
76. Modal Emissions for St. Louis 1972 Model Year Cars 102
77. Modal Emissions for St. Louis 1973 Model Year Cars 103
78; Modal Emissions for St. Louis 1974 Model Year Cars 104
79. Modal Emissions for St. Louis 1975 Model Year Cars 105
80. Modal Emissions for St. Louis 1976 Model Year Cars 106
81. Modal Emissions for St. Louis 1975 and 1976 Model Year 107
Light Duty Trucks
82. Modal Emissions for Washington 1976 Model Year Cars 108
83. Modal Emissions for Washington 1976 Model Year Light Duty 109
Trucks
84. Fuel Evaporative Emissions Using the Enclosure Technique, 1976 110
Model Year Cars in Denver and Los Angeles
85. Results of Sulfate Emissions Testing, 1976 Model Year'Cars 111
86. Results of Sulfate Emissions Testing 1975 Model Year Cars 112
87. Results of Sulfate Emissions Testing, 1975 and 1976 Model Year 113
Light Duty Trucks
88. Short Test/FTP Emission Sample Correlations for 1975 and 1976 114
Model Year Cars and for all Model Year Vehicles
89. Contingency Analysis, Federal Short Cycle 115
90. Contingency Analysis, New Jersey Acid and New York Short 116
Composite
91. Contingency Analysis, Clayton Key Mode 117
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)
Tables Page No.
92. Contingency Analysis, Two Speed Idle 118
93. Contingency Analysis, Federal Three Mode 119
94. Contingency Analysis, Revised Federal Three Mode 120
95. Contingency Analysis, New York City Cycle 121
Appendix I 122
1-1 Emission Results for Chicago, Cold Transient 123
1-2 Emission Results for Chicago, Cold Stabilized 124
1-3 Emission Results for Chicago, Hot Transient 125
1-4 Emission Results for Denver, Cold Transient 126
1-5 Emission Results for Denver, Cold Stabilized 127
1-6 Emission Results for Denver, Hot Transient 128
1-7 Emission Results for Houston, Cold Transient 129
1-8 Emission Results for Houston, Cold Stabilized 130
1-9 Emission Results for Houston, Hot Transient 131
1-10 Emission Results for Los Angeles, Cold Transient 132
1-11 Emission Results for Los Angeles, Cold Stabilized 133
1-12 Emission Results for Los Angeles, Hot Transient 134
1-13 Emission Results for St. Louis, Cold Transient 135
1-14 Emission Results for St. Louis, Cold Stabilized 136
1-15 Emission Results for St. Louis, Hot Transient 137
1-16 Emission Results for Washington, Cold Transient 138
1-17 Emission Results for Washington, Cold Stabilized 139
1-18 Emission Results for Washington, Hot Transient
1-19 Emission Results for Phoenix, Cold Transient
1-20 Emission Results for Phoenix, Cold Stabilized
1-21 Emission Results for Phoenix, Hot Transient
1-22 Emission Results for All Cities Except Denver and Los
Angeles, Cold Transient
1-23 Emission Results for All Cities Except Denver and Los 145
Angeles, Cold Stabilized
1-24 Emission Results for All Cities Except Denver and Los
Angeles, Hot Transient 1^°
1-25 Emission Results for All Cities Except Denver and Los
Angeles by Model Year and Inertia Weight, 1972 FTP 147
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con't)
Appendix I Page No.
1-26 Emission Results for Chicago, 1972 FTP 143
1-27 Emission Results for Denver, 1972 FTP 149
1-28 Emission Results for Houston, 1972 FTP ' 150
1-29 Emission Results for Los Angeles, 1972 FTP 151
1-30 Emission Results for St. Louis, 1972 FTP 152
1-31 Emission Results for Washington, 1972 FTP 153
1-32 Emission Results for Phoenix, 1972 FTP 154
1-33 Emission Results for All Cities Except Denver and Los 155
Angeles 1972 FTP
1-34 Emission Results for Chicago, Idle HC and Idle CO Test lid
Results
1-35 Emission Results for Denver, Idle HC and Idle CO Test 157
Results
1-36 Emission Results for Houston, Idle HC and Idle CO Test 158
Results
1-37 Emission Results for Los Angeles, Idle HC and Idle CO Test 159
Results
1-38 Emission Results for Washington, Idle HC and Idle CO Test 160
Results
1-39 Emission Results for Phoenix, Idle HC and Idle CO Test Results 161
1-40 Emission Results for All Cities Except Denver and Los Angeles 162
.(and St. Louis), Idle HC and Idle CO Test Results
Appendix II
-------
1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Through the Office of Air and Waste Management, EPA contracts with
several Independent laboratories to perform dynamometer emission testing
of In-use light duty vehicles. The Emission Factors Testing Program is
a continuing project administered by the Emissions Control Techonolgy
Division, a part of the Mobile Source Air Pollution Control (MSAPC)
program located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This report summarizes the data
from the fifth year (FY 75) in the series and updates the sample to
include 1976 model year vehicles as well as provides continued monitoring
of previous model years. 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.
The data summarized in this report were generated from a' random sample
of in-use vehicles in seven cities: Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los
Angeles, Phoenix, St. Louis, and Washington D.C. Exhaust emission tests
were performed on each vehicle in accordance with the 1975 Federal Test
Procedure (FTP), a transient driving cycle with an average speed of
19.6 mph. The 1975 FTP exhaust emission test procedure is comprised of
three phases:
(1) a cold transient phase representative of vehicle start-up
after a long engine-off period;
(2) a stabilized phase representative of engine operation after
the normal operating temperature has been achieved; and
(3) a hot transient phase representative of vehicle operation
immediately after a relatively short engine-off period.
The emission test results of the three phases of the 1975 FTP are
weighted 21%, 52%, and 27%, respectively, before they are combined. The
tests were conducted by two contractors and more detailed information on
the FTP tests, other specific tests or test results can be found in the
reports of the contractors, References (1) and (2).
When possible comparisons are made between the results of the FY75
Program and those of previous years, References (3), (4), (5), and (6).
These comparisons are made on the basis of the 1975 FTP. However, FY75
summary results are also presented for the 1972 FTP to facilitate com-
parison if these weighting factors are preferred.
1.1 SUMMARY
The FY75 Emission Factor Program consisted of exhaust emission tests on
1966 through 1976 model year in-use vehicles and light duty trucks (LOT)
under 6,000 Ibs gross vehicle weight in each of seven cites. Measurements
-------
—2—
of hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and
carbon dioxide (CO,.) emissions were performed. The test locations were
selected to represent heavily populated areas of diverse meteorological,
geographical, and usage environments. The northeast sector and northern
Great Plains with long winters are represented by Chicago. The Great
Plains region having moderate winters is represented by St. Louis while
that of a very warm, humid climate is represented by Houston. Mountainous
metropolitan areas are represented by Denver. Los Angeles represents
the temperate, warm western region and different standards and Washington
B.C. is typical of cities on the eastern seaboard. The desert areas are
represented by the inclusion of Phoenix in the group of surveyed cities.
The vehicles tested in each city were selected to be a nationally
representative (random) sample of cars within a model year but the
number of vehicles for each model year are not representative of the
total population of in-use vehicles. A sufficient sample of 1976 model
year vehicles were tested so that average emissions for each manufacturer
could be used to generate composite emission levels on the basis of a
weighting by manufacturers. Therefore, in using the data, comparisons
must be made on a model year basis. The number of vehicles tested in
each model year for each city are given in Table 1.
A summary of the FY75 Emission Factor Program results for 1976 model
year vehicles is presented in Table 2. The most noteworthy differences
displayed in this table indicate that emission rates in Denver and Los
Angeles are significantly different from those of the other cities. Los
Angeles had significantly lower HC, CO, and NOx emissions than the other
cities (presumably because of stricter standards) while Denver had
significantly greater HC and CO and significantly lower NOx emissions
than the other cities (because of the higher elevation). For this
reason, composite tables have been prepared combining all cities except
Los Angeles and Denver. The composite emissions from all test cities
except Los Angeles and Denver are believed to be the best single estimates
representative of all the remaining sections of the country (i.e., non-
California low altitude areas).
More stringent Federal standards went into effect for the 1975 model
year vehicles. The influence of these standards on the emission levels
can be realized by comparing the average emissions for each model year
in its first year of operation. Table 3 presents such arithmetic average
emissions for the composites of all cities excluding Denver and Los
Angeles, as well as for Denver, and for Los Angeles. It is noteworthy
that average 1975 and 1976 model year HC and CO emissions are significantly
lower than those of previous years for the composite, for Denver, and
for Los Angeles. Average NOx levels are not signficantly reduced from
those of the 1974 model year vehicles but are significantly lower than
those of pre-1974 model years.
-------
-3-
The only statistically significant difference between 1975 and 1976
model year vehicles is the 34% decrease in mean NOx levels for Los
Angeles vehicles. The HC and CO reductions occuring in 1975-76 models
are probably attributable to the manufacturers conversion to catalytic
converters and other improvements in emission controls but it should be
noted that the average mileage for these vehicles at the time of their
tests was considerably less than that of the other model years.
The Federal 49 State Standards and 1975 California Standards for emissions
in grams per mile based on constant volume sampling are summarized in
Table 4.
The 1975 standards are expressed in terms of the 1975 FTP while the
other standards are 1972 FTP. A conversion between the 1972 FTP and the
1975 FTP depends upon vehicle mix but approximately equivalent values
for the 1972-1974 model year vehicles are:
HC CO NOx
1972 FTP 3.4 39 3.0
1975 FTP 3.0 34 3.1
The 1975 Federal 49 State Standards for HC and CO are considerably more
stringent than those of previous years while the NOx standard has not
been reduced. It is of interest to note that although average HC and CO
emissions have been significantly reduced in the 1975 and 1976 models,
the 1976 model year composite arithmetic average for CO is still greater
than the standard. Average NOx emissions in Denver for 1976 model year
vehicles are less than the standard but average HC and CO emissions
exceed the standard in this city. The Los Angeles average emissions are
less than the California Standards and thus, are less than the Federal
49 State Standards for all three pollutants.
In addition to the basic FTP test, highway fuel economy tests, modal
emissions tests, evaporative emissions tests, sulfate emissions tests,
and seven (7) short cycle tests were conducted during the FY75 Emission
Factor Program. The data from these tests are also summarized in this
report. Each vehicle owner also completed a questionnaire concerning
usage, maintenance and repair of his vehicle. An attempt was made to
identify relationships between questionnaire responses and emission
rates but for most of the questions no consistent trends were identified.
1,2 FINDINGS
Results of the FY75 Emission Factor Program summarized in this report
reveal that:
1. Individual vehicles of any stratification show wide dispersion
in exhaust emissions. The coefficient of variation (standard
deviation divided by the average) is typically greater than
-------
-4-
50% and quite often is greater than 100%. Consequently, two
groups of vehicles, e.g., 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.
2. The comparison of the average emission differences between
cities indicates that emissions from Denver and Los Angeles
vehicles are significantly different from those of all other
cities. Average HC and CO emissions in Denver are significantly
greater than those of the other cities while average NOx
emissions are significantly lower. These Denver differences
have been observed in past programs and have been attributed
to the effect of altitude on air-fuel ratios. Los Angeles
vehicles had significantly lower HC, CO, and NOx emissions
than all other cities. Some individual differences between
cities for particular model years were significant but such
differences were not consistent for all model years. Note
that the model year by city stratification has relatively
small sample sizes for all model years except 1976.
3. Of the 1976 model year vehicles in Denver 15% met 49 State
Emission Standards. In Los Angeles 71% of 1976 model year
vehicles met California Standards. For the remaining sites
47% of 1976 model year vehicles met 49 State Standards. These
percentages are significantly higher than the equivalent percentages
for new vehicles in the 1974 Emission Factor Program. However,
it must be noted that new vehicles in the 1974 Emission Factor
Program had accumulated lower mileage on the average than new
vehicles in the 1975 Emission Factor Program and this could be
a confounding factor.
4. Model year 1976 vehicles in the FY75 EFP were not statistically
different from 1975 model year vehicles in the FY74 EFP in
terms of mean emissions with the exception that Los Angeles
showed a 34% decrease in mean NOX emissions.
5. Comparison of FY71, FY72, FY73, FY74, and FY75 Emission
Factor Programs indicates a general trend for HC and CO average
emissions to increase with age of the vehicle.
6. There is a general trend toward increasing fuel economy for
individual model year vehicles over the last three programs.
This result could be a spurious result of model mix in the
different programs. A result free from the model mix confounding
is that fuel economy increased for vehicles which were tested in
both FY74 and FY75 programs for each model year.
-------
-5-
7. Vehicles whose owners indicated presence of hydrogen sulfide
odor had significantly higher mean HC levels than other
vehicles. No other consistent effect on emission levels due
to ownership characteristics was detected. Relationships
between fuel economy and ownership characteristics are presented
in separate publications (see References 10 and 11).
8. Correlations of short cycle tests with the 75FTP are generally
greater than .8. A method is presented which attempts to
evaluate short cycle tests on the basis of correct identification
of excess emissions.
-------
—6—
2. EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND DESIGN
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
under 6000 Ibs GVW 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 introduced 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 involved 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 instituted with the 1973 model year and were set at
3.0 grams/mile. For 1975 model year vehicles, the Federal Standards
were again strengthened with the promulgation of tighter Federal Standards
under the 1975 test procedure. The 1975 test procedure produces slightly
lower numerical values thatn the 1972 test procedure. The 1973-1974
standards (3.4 gm/mi HC, 39 gm/mi CO, 3.0 gm/mi NOx) in 1975 FTP terms
wouldbe 3.0 grams/mile for HC, 34 grams/mile for CO and 3.1 grams/mile
for NOx.
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 qualify 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 4000
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.
-------
-7-
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 at or below 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 near the levels specified in
the standard may result in as many as 50% of certified or in-use vehicles
being above the standard for either pollutant. (The 50% figure assumes
that emissions of prototype vehicles are symmetrically 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 standard.
The overall purpose of the Emission Factor Program is to characterize,
quantify, and reduce the air pollution caused by mobile sources, including
automobiles, motorcycles, trucks and buses. The program requires a
large base of accurate data on in-use vehicles from which to make valid
determinations, predictions and decisions. Mobile source emission
factors are used in making important decisions at various levels of
government; they are used by the Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control, Mobile Source Enforcement Division, and the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, the Department of Transportation, EPA
regional offices, and the Federal Highway Administration. They are also
used by city governments, air pollution councils, consulting organizations,
and private citizens. Among other things they are used to file Environmental
Impact Statements, make air pollution inventory calculations, evaluate
inspection and maintenance programs and to assess the compliance of in-
use vehicles with applicable standards.
Since early in 1968 when the Emission Factor Programs were conducted by
the Certification and Surveillance Division, a continuing succession of
programs have been conducted to measure the emissions from in-use automobiles,
trucks, and buses. Each of these programs has kept pace with the
continually changing test procedures in order to provide the EPA with
timely information on the effectiveness of increasingly stringent standards
and to assess the deterioration of vehicles with age and use.
Since the first of these programs which tested vehicles in two cities,
the program has now expanded to seven test cities of various topographical
and climatic conditions. The original program was conducted in Kansas
-------
-8-
City and Houston. Testing is now conducted in Washington, B.C., Chicago,
St. Louis, Houston, Denver, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. In addition
testing has been performed in San Antonio, Newark, and Detroit.
Because these programs are conducted on a continuing basis, a constant
assessment can be made of the mobile source contribution to the national
air pollution problem as well as the effectiveness of various mobile
source compliance strategies.
The FY75 program involved the testing of approximately 2200 vehicles in
seven cities. Vehicles from the 1966 through the 1976 model year have
been tested. The selection of vehicles was based on sales weighting for
make and model and vehicle miles traveled weighting for model year,
assuming that the newer model year vehicles are driven more than the
older vehicles and that the vehicles have a useful life of 10 years.
The primary test performed on each vehicle was a modified version of the
1975 Federal Test Procedure. In order to save costs some shortcuts have
been used in the conduct of these tests as compared to the certification
tests. It is felt that the impact of these shortcuts on the actual
emission values is minimal. One of the major differences is the pre-
conditioning. In emission factor work, preconditioning consists of a 10
minute drive on city streets near each laboratory as compared to certifica-
tion's one hour drive over a prescribed road route. A second major
difference is the certification procedure of running an evaporative test
on each vehicle while in emission factor work, this procedure is not
performed except on a limited number of vehicles. There are other minor
differences which will not be discussed at this time.
In addition to the basic 1975 FTP test on each vehicle, the following
tests were administered on selected subsets of the study sample:
Highway Fuel Economy Test, Federal Short Cycle Test, New York Short/ New
Jersey Acid Composite Test, Clayton Keymode Test, Two Speed Idle Test,
Federal Three Mode Test, New York City Cycle Test, Revised Federal Three
Mode Test, Modal Exhaust Emission Test, Evaporative Emission Test and
Sulfate Emission Test.
In Addition to all of the tests a questionnaire is filled out by each
participant concerning his or her usage and maintenance of the vehicle.
The prime objective of the Emission Factor Program is to provide a valid
estimate of the emissions from the population of in-use vehicles.
Accordingly, considerable care has been exercised in the conduct of this
continuing effort to ensure that a representative sample of vehicles is
selected for testing, that the tests are conducted under identical,
rigidly controlled conditions, and that all resulting data are subjected
to quality inspections.
-------
-9-
The following paragraphs describe the FY75 selection of vehicles and
present a brief summary of the vehicle handling procedure. Futher
details concerning the conduct of the testing can be found in the
individual contractor reports, References (1) and (2) and in the report
of the FY72 Emission Factor Program, Reference (A). Details of the EPA
data validation process can be found, in Reference (12).
The selection of the cities to be sampled in the FY75 Emission Factor
Program were chosen to represent heavily populated areas of diverse
geographical and climatological regions as discussed in Section 1. The
selection of vehicles were not chosen to provide a random sample of
vehicles within a city. Rather, the sample selected was random for each
model year but the number of vehicles for each model year is not representa-
tive of the in-use vehicles for the cities. Note that with the FY75
Emission Factor Program sampling procedure, comparisons with previous
programs must be made on a model year basis and cannot be made on a
basis of results averaged over several model years.
Within each city and within each model year, the particular selection of
the desired number of vehicles was made to provide a random sample based
on national vehicle sales by vehicle make, engine size, carburetor type,
and transmission type. From an automobile registration list, a sample
of vehicles was selected which best fit the required vehicle population
profile. The owners of the selected vehicles were then contacted and
provided with inducements if their vehicles were used for testing.
These included at $50 U.S. Savings Bond, the use of a loan car while
their car was being tested, and a full tank of gasoline.
Upon delivery of a test vehicle to the laboratory it was inspected to
insure that it could be safely run on the dynamometer. Cars which
failed this inspection were rejected. Exhaust emissions were determined
by the constant volume sampling technique in accordance with the 1975
Federal Test Procedure. The vehicles were tested in an as-received
condition so that the resulting emission data would reflect variability
in owner usage, maintenance and repair practices. The additional tests
which were performed on a subset of the vehicles are described in Section
3 of thi.s report. Upon completion of testing, engine diagnostic procedures
were performed which included basic timing, point dwell and idle rpm.
See References (1) and (2) for listing of individual vehicle measurements.
To be assured of receiving accurate data, an elaborate system of laboratory
qualification has evolved over the years. Combined with the initial
laboratory qualification are requirements for continuous verification of
equipment and personnel performance. Various daily, weekly, bi-weekly,
and monthly calibration checks are required. In addition, monthly on-
site inspections (both announced and unannounced) are performed after
testing begins. Errors discovered during these monitorings and subsequent
review of the data could warrant more frequent checks at a site.
-------
-10-
As all of the data derived from the program are backed up by hard copy
evidence such as strip charts and log books, review of the contractors
performance Is also done on a continuous basis. This manual review
process although time consuming can give the first Indication of diffi-
culties In the conduct of the program. The data also undergo a computer
edit before Inclusion In the data file. Assuming that the contractor
also conducts a review of the data before submission to EPA, this three
tiered (on-site, contractor, and EPA) review process should virtually
eliminate all errors. However, experience has shown that errors can and
do slip by even with this extensive review process. Improvements, based
on problems encountered in each past program are Incorporated in the
next program. With each new program, EPA monitoring of actual testing
performance has increased as has manual and computer editing.
-------
-11*
3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The primary purpose of thia report la the exposition of summary results
from the FY75 Emission Factor Program. The primary mode of report Is In
the form of sample means and standard deviations presented for various
stratifications of the total population of in-use vehicles. As discussed
below, emissions are generally given in terms of arithmetic and geometric
means while fuel economy is given in terms of harmonic means. More
extensive analysis of the data can be found in reports and metnos relating
to specific questions.
Theoretical and empirical arguments found in Reference (4) make a strong
case for the assumption that auto exhaust emissions have lognormal
frequency distributions; i.e., if the logarithms of individual emission
observations are utilized, the resultant transformed sample frequency
distribution appears to correspond to that of a sample from a normal
(Gaussian) distribution. The lognormal distribution is completely
characterized by the geometric mean and standard deviation. This is the
motivation for the inclusion of geometric means and standard deviations
in the tables.
If the distribution of an emission were symmetrical and fifty percent of
a sample of vehicles met a standard for that emission, the mean of all
the vehicles would also meet the standard. This relationship does not
apply, however, with a skewed distribution as is the lognormal. If an
indication of total mean emissions is desired and the vehicle population
has a skewed distribution, the mean emission level of a group of vehicles
must be looked at independently of the percent of these vehicles which
conform to a standard. Thus, the arithmetic means are useful in assessing
the impact of groups of vehicles on air quality. The geometric means are
indicative of central tendency. In a lognormal distribution, the geometric
mean indicates the 50th percentile point of the distribution.
A word of explanation is in order with regard to the geometric mean and
standard deviation and their interpretation in an emissions context. 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.
Upon examination by city and model year, the lognormality assumption for
distributions of the emissions measured in the FY75 Emission Factor
Program could not for the most part be rejected at the nominal .01
level. The results of Lilliefors' (Reference 7) adaptation of the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test against general distributional alternatives are
presented in Table 6.
-------
As noted earlier, fuel economy data are summarized in terms of harmonic
mean and standard deviation of the parameter observed, miles per gallon.
The average fuel economy for a group of vehicles can be defined as total
miles divided by total fuel consumed. It can be shown that since all
individual vehicles are driven the same distance in the tests, that
average fuel economy in miles per gallon is the harmonic mean of the
fuel consumed during the tests of the individual vehicles. See Reference
(4) for the derivation of this equivalence and method of statistical
inference regarding the fuel economy parameter.
3.1 EMISSION DATA AND RESULTS
The results of the FY75 Emission Factor Program are summaried in
Tables 1 through 95, Appendix I, and Appendix II. In the event that a
user would prefer other than FTP weighting factors, Appendix I contains
summaries of the cold transient, cold stabilized and hot transient
portions of the FTP test as well as the idle HC and CO test results for
each city and for the composite of all cities excluding Denver and Los
Angeles. In addition, summary tables are also included using the 1972
FTP for ease in comparing with the results of previous years. Appendix
II contains a summary of the questionnaire data concerning the ownership
characteristics of the vehicles.
Tables 7 through 14 present means and standard deviations of the emissions
for each model year by city combination and a composite of all cities
except Denver and Los Angeles. Tables 15 through 22 present the number
and percent of vehicles meeting Federal 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975
standards for each city and for the composite of all cities except
Denver and Los Angeles. Similar results for Los Angeles vehicles
meeting California Standards are shown in Table 23. Comparisons of FY
1974 results with previous years are contained in Tables 24 and 25.
Results for vehicles included in both EF74 and FF75 Programs are pre-
sented in Table 26. The vehicle emissions and fuel economy results by
model year and inertia weight for the composite of all cities except
Denver and Los Angeles are presented in Table 27. Denver and Los
Angeles data are not presented in this format due to the small sample
sizes that result in this stratification of the data.
Tables 28 through 35 summarize the fuel ecomomy results for each model
year by city combination and for a composite of all cities except Denver
and Los Angeles. Tables 36 through 42 present the results of the
Highway Fuel Economy Tests for each city and for the composite of all
cities except Denver and Los Angeles. A comparison of Highway Fuel
Economy with FTP Fuel Economy is presented in Table 43. The vehicle
emission results by manufacturer are presented as a composite of all
cities excluding Denver and Los Angeles and for Denver and for Los
Angeles in Tables 44 through 49.
-------
Tables 50 and 51 present emission levels for each response on the
question from the questionnaire concerning the presence of hydrogen
sulflde odor. The Modal Tests are presented by city and model year in
Tables 52 through 83. Results from the Fuel Evaporative Emissions
Tests, Sulfate Emissions Tests, and the Short Cycle Tests are presented
in Tables 8A through 95.
3.2 DISCUSSION
The following paragraphs present a review of the FY75 Emission Factor
Program in terms of identifying slgnflcant trends or differences with
respect to major sources of possible effects. In particular, the emis-
sion data are considered in terms of city effects, performance of vehicles
in first year of operation, degradation effects, fuel economy, manufacturer
effects, and the correlation of emissions with ownership characteristics.
The results of the highway fuel economy, evaporative emissions, sulfate
emissions, and short tests are also presented and discussed.
3.2.1 CITY EFFECTS
The cities selected for the FY75 Emission Factor Program were chosen to
represent a broad spectrum of regional, geographical, and meteorological
attributes. The term "city effects" is used to describe the accumulation
of all possible factors In a given locality which might combine to yield
emission levels which are characteristic of only that city. The emission
results for the cities as compared by model year using the 1975 FTP
emission levels are given in Tables 7 through 14, the percent meeting
federal standards In Tables 15 through 23, and the idle HC and Idle CO
measurements in Tables 1-34 through 1-40 of Appendix I.
Further confirmation of results gleaned from earlier EF Programs is
evident with respect to the relative homogeneity of non-California low
altitude vehicles and the divergence of Los Angeles and Denver vehicles.
For most model years, Denver shows significantly higher 75 FTP HC and CO
and lower NOx. For 1975 and 1976 model years, Los Angeles shows significantly
lower mean emissions for all three FTP measurements. Though for certain
model years there appears to be significant differences among the remaining
cities, there is no recognizable pattern of disparity among these cities
for the three FTP emissions.
Consideration of failure rates leads to the same homogeneity/heterogeneity
conclusions. For both the 1975 and 1976 model years separately, there
is no significant difference in the 1975 49 State Standard failure rates
among the five city composite while Los Angeles shows significantly
lower failure rates and Denver shows significantly higher failure rates
than the composite.
-------
The probable explanations for the divergence of Los Angeles and Denver
vehicles from the composite vehicles are well known. Beginning In 1975,
California standards were much lower than 49 state standards and different
emission control technologies were employed to meet the lower standards.
Vehicles In Denver run with richer mixtures due to altitude.
Idle measurements of HC and CO lead to slightly different conclusions.
Although mean Idle emissions from Denver are generally higher than
composite means and those from Los Angeles are generally lower than
composite means, these differences are only statistically significant
for Denver model year 1976 vehicles and on idle CO and for model year
19.74 Los Angeles vehicles.
Idle measurements for St. Louis appeared highly paradoxical. Although
no fault has yet been found it is suspected that either the test procedure
was not followed correctly or that the test instruments were malfunctioning.
EPA personnel are presently investigating the problem. Until the matter
has been resolved it is inappropriate to present the data, and thus,
idle results for St. Louis (Including short tests which utilize the same
instruments^ will not appear in this report.
3.2.2 EMISSION PERFORMANCE IN FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION
In order to compare the model year trends of emissions for in-use
vehicles while minimizing the interference of degradation effects the
newest model year vehicles present in each of the Emission Factor Programs
are examined for trends. Table 24 presents the sample size and arithmetic
mean and standard deviation of the emissions using the 1975 FTP for each
model year in its first year of operation. The data for the 1971, 1972,
1973, 19-74 and 1975 new model year vehicles were obtained from reference
(6). The composite means Include all cities except Denver and Los Angeles.
In comparing the 1976 model year vehicles with 1975 model year vehicles,
it is seen that the two have very close mean emissions relative to
earlier model years. The only statistically significant difference in
means for these two model years is the 34% decrease in mean NOx for Los
Angeles vehicles. The average model year 1975 and average model year
1976 mileages in thousands of miles are 8.8/11.5, 13.5/10.9, and 8.1/8.7
for composite, Denver, and Los Angeles vehicles respectively.
It wa.s noted in the FY74 Report (Reference 6) that significant reductions
in HC and CO means were present for vehicles in all three site groups
from 1974 to 1975 model years while only composite vehicles showed
significant reduction in NOX over those model years. However, the data
utilized fo.r 1974 and 1975 model year vehicles were all taken from the
FY74 EF Program and thus mean mileages for model year 1974 vehicles
were about twice those for model year 1975 vehicles.
-------
3.2.3 EMISSION DEGRADATION EFFECTS
It has been reported in previous Emission Factor Programs that as mileage
of a vehicle increases so do the exhaust emissions. This effect is
attributed to a combination of many factors, including aging, engine
maintenance practices, and repair practices. Table 25 presents a summary
of the emission and fuel economy data that were obtained for each model
year in the five Emission Factor Programs conducted to date. The data
were derived using the 1975 FTP and are for the composite of all cities
except Los Angeles and Denver.
The addition of FY75 Program data tends to support previously noted
trends although departures from monotonic trends are becoming more
prevalent. For each model year, mean mileage increases with time as
represented by the five programs. Average HC and CO emissions tend to
increase with age although this trend is not monotonic. It should be
noted that for each model year mean HC and CO emissions are higher in
the last program from which data are available than in the first. NOx
emissions appear to show a decreasing trend with age with about the same
degree of generality although 1974 and 1975 vehicles show no significant
change. All of these trends must be viewed in terms of the uncertainty
in the estimates of the means as would be reflected by confidence intervals
about the observed averages.
Perhaps a more meaningful and valid approach to the question of degradation
is the observation of a particular group of vehicles as they accumulate
in-use miles over time. The beginnings of such an approach were made
possible in the FY75 Program by the inclusion of some vehicles in the
sample which had been in the FY74 Program sample along with an appropriate
identification crossreferencing system. Table 26 presents the data from
these vehicles which were collected in the two programs. These data can
be approached in two different ways. One could be interested in the
deterioration of individual vehicles or in the deterioration of the
group of vehicles. The former is of interest in terms of vehicle
characterization while the latter is of interest in terms of air quality
effects. Summary measures for the former involve the mean of the individual
vehicle deteriorations while summary measures for the latter involve the
deterioration of the means. As seen in Table 26, the deterioration of
the means (DM in the table) results in a smoothing effect which tends to
make the summary measure less erratic than the mean deterioration. An
extreme example of this can be seen for model year 1970 vehicles in the
table. The relatively large mean deteriorations for the three emissions
and fuel economy were caused by a few vehicles with very high rates.
The effect of these few vehicles is toned down in considering the deteriora-
tion of the means. It should be noted that positive deterioration for
NOx occurs only for 1974 and 1975 model year vehicles. These are the
only vehicles in the table for which NOx was regulated.
-------
3.2.4 FUEL ECONOMY
In conducting the emission test for a particular vehicle, the amount of
CO2 emitted is measured in addition to the pollutants HC, CO and NOx.
Since a fixed quantity of gasoline contains a known amount of carbon and
the total carbon emitted was measured, the amount of gasoline used to
traverse a fixed distance an be determined by the carbon balance method.
This method was employed and the fuel economy data are reported in terms
of miles per gallon, i.e., the Inverse of the variable gallons per mile
which is measured. As previously mentioned, these data are summarized
in terms of harmonic means and standard deviations using the methods
defined in Reference (4).
As seen in the above mentioned Table 25, there is a general trend in
fuel economy over programs which appears to be consistent for each model
year. This profile includes an increase from FY71 to FY72 programs, a
decrease from FY72 to FY73 programs, and an increase over the last three
programs. This observation should also be tempered by the uncertainty
involved with the estimates. A possible explanation of these results
could reside in model mix from year to year.
From Table 26 an important genealization is that fuel economy increased
in the period between the FY74 and FY75 programs for all model years
except 1970. This is an increased for a specific sample of cars and the
results are not confounded by varying model mix.
Table 27 presents the 1975 FTP emissions data and fuel economy by combina-
tions of model year and 500 Ib increments of inertia weight for the
composite of all cities except Denver and Los Angeles The known effect
of inertia weight on fuel economy can easily be seen in this table by
observing the significant decreases in fuel economy as weight increases
for any particular model year. If there is an adverse effect on fuel
economy due to the addition of emission control devices, it cannot be
detected in these data. In addition, there is some evidence of increased
fuel economy for 1975 and 1976 model years within inertia weight groups.
Tables 28 through 35 present summaries of the fuel economy data for each
model year and city as well as the composite of all cities except Denver
and Los Angeles. Included in these summaries are the cold transient,
cold stabilized, and hot transient portions of the tests and the averages
using the 1972 FTP and 1975 FTP weighting factors.
Perusal of these tables gives one the immediate impression that model
year 1976 vehicles have distinctly higher fuel economy than all other
model years. When comparing fuel economies across model years and
across cities the only comparisons which are statistically significant
are those between 1976 model year vehicles and any earlier model year
group for the composite (all except Denver and Los Angeles) vehicles.
This result reflects the fact that the comparisons among composite
vehicles utilize the largest sample sizes and therefore are the most
powerful tests statistically for detecting differences.
-------
-17-
3.2.5 HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY TESTS
The Highway Fuel Economy Test was to be performed on forty-four 1976
model year vehicles (34 passenger cars and the 10 light duty trucks)
in each city with the exception of Phoenix. The only deviation from
this plan was that four of the light duty trucks from St. Louis were
lost from the sample and not replaced. The passenger cars from Chicago
and St. Louis were selected to correspond with the chacterlstlcs of the
other cities, thus permitting valid comparisons among cities. Details
of the test procedure can be found in Reference (6).
The results of the HFET are summarized in Tables 36 and 42. For passenger
cars, mean HC and CO in Denver were significantly higher and mean NOx
lower than in the composite group consisting of vehicles from Chicago,
Houston, St. Louis and Washington. Mean HC was significantly lower and
NOx higher in Los Angeles than in the composite group. Mean CO was
significantly higher in Washington than in St. Louis. There were no
significant differences among cities for mean fuel economy.
To compare the HFET results with those from the 1975 FTP, the average
1975 FTP fuel economy was calculated for the same set of vehicles which
had a HFET for each city. These data are summarized in Table 43 which
also presents the ratio of the highway fuel economy to the 1975 FTP
fuel economy. This ratio is relatively constant for all cities and
indicates that the HFET yields results which are approximately 40%
greater than those of the 1975 FTP. This result (i.e., HFET 40% greater
than 1975 FTP) is equivalent to that found in the FY74 program for model
year 1975 vehicles although both sets of fuel economies are generally
higher in the FY75 program (see Reference 6).
3.2.6 MANUFACTURER EFFECTS
The emissions data for the 1976 model year vehicles were summarized for
each manufacturer and these data are presented in Table 44 for the
composite of all cities except Denver and Los Angeles, in Table 45 for
Denver and Table 46 for Los Angeles. Similarly, the data for the light
duty trucks are summarized in Tables 47 through 49. Other analyses
were not performed on the Denver-Los Angeles and light duty truck data
due to the small sample sizes.
Figure 1 presents 1976 model year emission averages and 95% confidence
limits about the averages for each domestic manufacturer, the composite
of foreign manufacturers, and the composite of domestic manufacturers.
For FY74 data this type of analysis indicated that the foreign composite
had significantly lower HC and CO emissions than the domestic composite.
Although mean HC and CO emissions for the foreign 1976 model year vehicles
are lower than the domestic composite, there is a large overlap in the
confidence intervals and the difference is not significant. Of interest in
Figure 1 is that Chrysler vehicles show significantly higher mean HC and
CO emissions than any other group. For the composite of 431 domestic
vehicles the arimetic means and standard deviations are as follows:
-------
=16-
STANDARD
MEAN DEVIATION
HC 1.36 1.05
CO 18.86 20.11
NOx 2.60 1.17
3.2.7 OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS
As in the FY74 Emission Factor Program, each owner was required to
complete a questionnaire concerning the vehicles' usage, maintenance,
and damage history. The questions and response percentages are presented
in Appendix II, The responses summarized are those given by the owners
and as such the accuracy of the responses is not under program control.
The extent to which owners misinterpret the questions or gave the
answers they thought were "correct" rather than true is not known although
there is some indication of both of these sources of inaccuracies.
There is. ostensible improvement in the FY75 Program responses in that
fewer owners replied "don't know" to questions where such an answer
was possible than in the FY74 Program. Most of this improvement is probably
due to our new requirement for the questionnaire to be filled out by
the contractor during an interview with the person most familiar with
the use and maintenance of the vehicle. However, it is impossible to
determine how much of this change is due to increased owner knowledge.
The purpose in obtaining the questionnaire response is to associate
emission and fuel economy levels with various ownership characteristics.
Efforts along these lines must be questioned based upon the sources of
inaccuracies cited in the preceding paragraph. With this qualification
results of such analysis based upon parametric and non-parametric
analysis of variance and "eyeballing" of means and standard deviations
will be presented in the following paragraphs.
For model year groups prior to 1975 very few signficiant trends or
differences were located. Those significant items which did show up were
for isolated model years and could reasonably be attributed to randomness.
For model years 1975 and 1976, many of the maintenance type classifications
Ce,g., frequency of oil change, frequency of tuneup, etc.) appeared to
account for nominally significant differences in mean emission levels
although such significance appears generally to be a result of the
response categories tendency to group vehicles into age and mileage
categories. In the FY74 Emission Factor Program (see Reference 6)
questions relating to use of leaded fuel and hydrogen sulfide odor were
found to account for signficant differences in mean emission levels for
model year 1975 vehicles. In the FY75 Program there was too little
variability in response to the use of leaded fuel question to permit
proper analysis. However, analysis of emissions with respect to hydrogen
sulfide odor tended to support the previous findings. Tables 50 and 51
present mean emission levels and fuel economy for all 1975 and 1976
model year vehicles grouped on the basis of the owner's response to the
-------
questlon. For both model years, vehicles in the "regularly" category
have significantly higher mean HC emissions than vehicles in other
categories. There appeared to be no other significant differences
accountable to this question.
Although the answers to the questions appeared to show little relationship
to emission levels, interesting results are discussed in References
1Q and 11 with respect to the relationships of questionnaire responses
to comparisons amoung EPA measured, certification, and owner perceived
fuel economies.
3,2,8 MODAL EMISSION SEQUENCE
To develop models which are capable of predicting emissions/fuel economy
oyex arbitrary driving sequences, it is necessary to have available
emission factors from a variety of steady states and driving modes (see
References C8) and (9).}. The Surveillance Driving Sequence (SDS) has
been established and is composed of average acceleration/deceleration
transition rates between all combinations of 0 mph, 15 mph, 30 mph, 45
mpK, and 60 mph. In addition, acceleration/deceleration rates both
higher and lower than the average values were defined as transitions
between all pair combinations of 0 mph, 30 mph, and 60 mph. The SDS for
transitions thus consists of 32 acceleration/deceleration modes and 7
(seyen) steady conditions defined as idle, 5 mph, 10 mph, 15 raph, 30 mph
45 mph,, and 60 mph. Table 52 lists the various transition modes of the
sequence with the corresponding time in mode, average speed, average
acceleration/deceleration rates, and distance traveled.
Modal Tests were performed on the same vehicles that were subjected to
the Highway Fuel Economy Test in Chicago, Houston, and Washington. All
vehicles from Denver and Los Angeles underwent the Modal Tests. Modal
tests were administered to a sample similar to the Los Angeles and Denver
samples in St. Louis, Tables 53 through 83 present the average emission
and fuel economy obtained in each mode of the Surveillance Driving
Sequence. Each table represents a city - model year combination.
3,2.9 EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
The venting of fuel vapors from the carburetor front chamber and vehicle
fuel tank can constitute a sizable source of HC emissions in the absence
of appropriately functioning control devices. A determination of the
mean evaporative losses was made for twenty 1976 model year cars in both
Denver and Los Angeles. Two types of losses were measured while the
vehicles were enclosed in the Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determinations
(SHED). Losses occurring over a one hour period while fuel (in the
vehicle tank) was raised in temperature according to a prescribed schedule
are termed Diurnal Soak Losses. Losses occurring during a one hour
period while the vehicle cools following the completion of a complete
cold start 1975 FTP are termed Hot Soak Losses. Further details concerning
the test procedure can be found in References (1) and (2).
Summary results from the SHED tests are presented in Table 84. Also
included are the means and standard deviations for Combined Losses which
are the results of calculations from each vehicle which are intended to
-------
-20-
represent the total average loss for a vehicle in a day. All three mean
losses are significantly higher for Denver than for Los Angeles as would
be expected due to the altitude difference.
3.2.10 SULFATE EMISSIONS
With increased concern about acidic rain and lack of information about
the effects of pollution control devices and unleaded fuels, sulfate
emission levels are an important issue. All 1975 and 1976 vehicles in
the samples from Denver, Houston, St. Louis and Phoenix which were
operated on unleaded fuel and which, upon arrival at the test facility,
had fuel which contained less than 0.05 grams of lead per gallon, were
tested for sulfates. These vehicles were tested over the Congested
Freeway Driving schedule.
Tables 85 through 87 present the results from the tests for 1975 and 1976
model years and light duty trucks. Means and standard deviations for
HC, CO, NOx, fuel economy, and H_SO, are presented separately by city
for vehicles with and without air pumps. The composite group shown in each
ta.hle consists of the appropriate vehicles from Houston, St. Louis,
and phoenix.
The general trends in evidence are that mean HC and CO levels are lower
while mean sulfate levels are higher for vehicles with air pumps
than for those without air pumps. The following results were found in
comparing the air pump groups with the no air pump groups. NOx and
fuel economy showed no significant differences. HC and CO differences
were statistically significant for all Denver comparisons except CO for
light duty trucks. None of the Denver sulfate comparisons were statistically
significant. For composite vehicles Ci.e., vehicles from Houston,
St, Louis and Phoenix] the CO comparison was statistically significant
from all three tables, the HC comparison was statistically significant
for model year 1975 cars, and the sulfate comparison was statistically
significant for both 1975 and 1976 model year cars.
3.2,11 SHORT CYCLE TESTS
Section 207 O) of the Clean Air Act specifies that the EPA can develop
regulations requiring manufacturers to cover repair costs for vehicles
which are penalized for failing a FTP correlatable short emission test
so long as those vehicles have been properly maintained and used. As
prerequisite for promulgation of such regulations the CAA states that
short test methods and procedures must be developed with the essential
requirements of "availability", "conformance with good engineering practices",
and "reasonable correlation with certification test procedures". To
provide information concerning the correlation aspects of certain tests
which are believed to satisfy these requirements, seven short cycle
tests were administered as part of the FY75 EFP.
-------
-21-
Comparisons of short test results with FTP results take two general
forms. Conventional correlation analysis attempts to determine the
actual correspondence of short test data to FTP data. Contingency table
analysis evaluates the ability of a short test to correctly pass or fail
vehicles with the FTP criterion as a standard. The former is a measurement
of the pure tracking ability of the short test with respect to the FTP
while the latter is an investigation of the tests' ability to make
proper decisions and the relative frequency of different sorts of errors.
It should be emphasized that in the latter sort of analysis the algorithm
for decision making is evaluated in addition to the actual emission test
results. The nature and scope of this report allow only for a representative
presentation of each of the two types of analysis.
Table 88 presents the product-moment sample correlation coefficients by
individual emissions and for each mode of the multiple mode tests. The
correlations shown are for the group of all vehicles tested. Correlations
from single mode tests are nearly all above 0.800 with the Federal Short
Cycle and the New York City Cycle tests both showing consistently higher
correlations than the New Jersey Acid/New York Cycle Composite Test for
CO and NOx while HC correlation is slightly higher for the NJ/NY then
for the New York City. Individual modes of the multiple mode tests show
correlations ranging sporadically between 0.070 and 0.850. Although
individual modes of the multiple mode tests show lower correlations than
the single mode tests, appropriate combinations of the individuals mode
results can be defined which result in emission levels that track the
FTP as well or better than single mode tests.
Tables 89 through 95 present the results of a form of contingency table
analysis developed at EPA. This analysis includes the procedure whereby
short test emission results are utilized in passing or failing the
vehicle. For the purposes of this presentation, 30% of the 1975 and
1976 model year vehicles tested by each short test were designated as
failed according to the prescribed procedure. The remainder were designated
as passed by each short test. In the tables, the sample sizes are
exhibited as cross-classified by the short test pass/fail designation and
the pass/fail 1975 FTP Standards designation for each vehicle. The emission
numbers following these sample sizes are the "nondimensionalized" emission
totals of interest in determining the ability of the test to correctly
identify excess emissions. The philosophical emphasis in this method of
analysis is the identification of a maximal portion of the excess emissions.
The interpretation of the emissions figures in the tables for each group
of vehicles is as follows:
Fail/Fail - relative amount of emissions in excess of standards
correctly identified.
Pass/Pass - relative margin of emissions by which vehicles passing
the short test passed FTP standards.
-------
-22-
Incorrect Pass - relative emissions In excess of FTP standards
contributed by vehicles Incorrectly passed by the short test (error
of omission), and
Incorrect Fall - relative margin of emissions by which vehicles
incorrectly failed by the short test passed FTP standards (error of
comission).
Thus, the worth of the short test is evaluated positively on the basis
of relatively large (in absolute magnltutde) emission figures in the
Pass/Pass and Fail/Fail cells of the table and relatively small (in
absolute magnitude) emissions figures in the incorrectly designated
cells. A more traditional measure, number of errors of comission/
(number of errors of comission + number of fail-fail vehicles), is a
measure of the burden on the manufacturers. This measure is very low
for Tables 86 through 95 with the maximum being .12. Two points should
be emphasized. This analysis is not of the pure test results but is
influenced by the internal methodology of designating pollutant specific
short test passing and failing points. Further, this analytic tool does
not obviate the need for policy decisions as to the relative value of
different types of errors. This valuation is still left to the judgment
of the user of the data.
It should be noted that the repeatability of the short tests is generally
very poor. Also, the short tests as administered in the Emission Factor
program are subject to a great deal of quality control. The procedures
with, the garage type instruments as envisioned in the warranty provisions
would be subject to very little review in terms of such measures as
periodic calibration. Hence, the proposed procedures would probably
be much, more variable than the results represented in this report.
-------
-23-
REFERENCES
1. Study of Exhaust Emissions from 1966 through 1976 Model Year Light
Duty Vehicles in Denver, Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix, EPA-460/3-
77-005, August 1977.
2. Study of Exhaust Emissions from 1966 through 1976 Model Year Light
Duty Vehicles in Los Angeles, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. EPA-
46.0/3-77-004.
3, Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - A Summary, EPA Report
4. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - Analysis of the FY72
Program, EPA Report EPA-460/ 2-74-001.
5. Automobile. Exhaust Emission Surveillance - Analysis of the FY73
Program, EPA Report EPA-46Q/3-75-OQ7.
6. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - Analysis of the FY74
Program, EPA Report EPA-460/3-76-019.
7, Lilliefors, Hubert W. , "On the KolmogorovStnirnov Test for Normality
with Mean and Variance Unknown," Journal of the American Statistical
Association 62; 339402.
8. Automobile Exhaust Emission Modal Analysis Model, EPA Report EPA-
460/3-74-005, January 19.74.
9 Automobile Exhaust Emission Modal Analysis Model Extension and
Refinement, EPA Report EPA-460/ 3- 74-024, October 1974.
10, Comparison of EPA Measured Fuel Economy with the Mileage Guide,
CAB Technical Report, August, 1977.
11. Comparison of Owner Perceived and EPA Measured Fuel Economy, CAB
Technical Report, August, 19.77.
12, Edit Procedures Applied to In-Use Vehicle Data, CAB Internal Reoort,
April, 19J7.
-------
—24-
General Motors -4-
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Foreign
Domestic Composite-^-
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors ~T~
Foreign
Domestic Composite-l—
General Motors |
Ford
Chrysler -
'American Motors _J_
Foreign
Domestic Composite-}—
Federal
Standard
0.5
1.0
HC (gm/mi)
Federal
Standard
I
1.5
2.0
2.5
M» ••^•V^BIVB
1 ... 4,
I
. 1
1
1
[
\
\ ..
1 1 1 . 1. , 1
10 15 20
CO (gm/mi)
25
30
Federal
Standard
35
40
... • • ••••
- _J L — 1 1 I, I
. 1
.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
NOx (gm/mi)
3.0 3.5 4.0
Figure 1 Average Emission and 95% Confidence Limits for Manufacturers
1976 Model Year Vehicles, 1975 FTP
-------
Table 1
Number of EF75 Vehicles Tested by Site and Model Year
MODEL YEAR
Site
Chicago
Denver
Houston
Los Angeles
St. Louis
Washington
Phoenix
76
150
34
34
34
146
34
151
76LDT
10
10
10
10
7
10
0
75
50
28
28
28
48
28
49
75LDT
7
7
7
7
6
7
0
74
50
27
27
27
50
27
50
73
50
27
27
27
50
27
50
72
45
25
0
25
45
0
45
71
40
22
0
22
40
0
40
70
35
20
0
20
34
0
35
69
30
0
0
0
30
0
30
66-68
50
0
0
0
50
0
49
TOTAL
517
200
133
200
506
133
499
I
to
Total
583
57
259
41
258 258 185 164 144
90
149
2188
-------
Table 2
FY75 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
SUMMARY TABLE OF EMISSION LEVELS USING
THE 1975 FTP FOR 1976 MODEL YEAR AUTOMOBILES
Number
of
Vehicles
City Tested
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
St. Louis
Washington, DC
5* Cities
Averaged
4* Cities
Averaged
Los Angeles
Denver
150
34
151
146
34
515
369
34
34
Mean
Miles
(Thou-
sands)
7.3
11.5
12.8
16.1
4.8
11.5
9.7
8.7
10.9
Hydrocarbons
CMS /MI
Arithmetic
Mean S.D.
1.27
1.78
1.22
1.52
0.93
1.34
0.72
2.34
0.97
1.30
0.97
0.96
0.61
0.99
0.40
1.23
Carbon Monoxide
CMS /MI
Arithmetic
Mean S.D.
19.23
20.81
15.10
21.59
11.69
18.30
7.95
45.09
21.40
19.45
14.91
20.67
12.65
19.03
8.12
25.40
NOx
CMS /MI
Arithmetic
Mean S.D.
2.46
2.76
2.51
2.63
2.73
2.56
1.57
1.82
0.92
1.14
1.08
1.33
1.03
1.12
0.64
0.72
Fuel Economy
MI/GAL
Harmonic
Mean S.D.
15.01
14.32
15.02
14.70
15.07
14.88
14.02
15.19
3.42
3.27
3.36
3.30
3.25
3.34
3.34
3.40
Idle Hydrocarbons
Parts per Million
Hexane
Mean S.D.
177
200
120
-
77
-
146
69
303
195
209
169
-
74
-
181
93
355
Idle Carbon
Monoxide
Percent CO
Mean S.D.
2.09
2.77
1.31
-
0.75
-
' 1.71
0.88
3.44
2.01
3.36
2.35
-
1.93
-
2.75 K>
1.73
3.20
* Idle raeasurements are only averaged for four cities—St. Louis is deleted.
-------
TABLEl 3 .
MEAN EMISSIONS AFTER APPROXIMATELY ORE YEAR OF OPERATION
FROM EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAMS 1975 FTP
Location
Average
Mileage
(Thousands)
HC
GM/MI
CO
GM/MI
NOX
GM/MI
City Composite*
FY 71
FY 72
FY 73
FY 74
FY 74
FY 75
EFP,
EFP,
EFP,
EFP,
EFP,
EFP,
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Models
Models
Models
Models
Models
Models
15.
14.
18.
20.
8.
11.
6
8
1
2
8
5
3.
3.
3.
3.
1.
1.
07
02
59
58
32
34
39.
36.
46.
41.
22.
18.
56
88
96
77
92
30
5.
4.
3.
2.
2.
2.
06
55
47
89
44
56
Denver
FY 71 EFP, 1971 Models
FY 72 EFP, 1972 Models
FY 73 EFP, 1973 Models
FY 74 EFP,.1974 Models
FY 74 EFP, 1974 Models
FY 75 EFP, 1976 Models
Los Angeles
FY 71 EFP, 1971
FY 72 EFP, 1972
FY 73 EFP, 1973
FY 74 EFP, 1974
FY 74 EFP, 1975
FY 75 EFP, 1976
15.2
14.
14,
24,
13.
10.9
5.59
4.75
4.54
5.15
2.22
2.34
88.13
80.36
84.70
83.67
48.52
45.09
3.05
3.08
1.96
1.85
1.62
1.82
Models
Models
Models
Models
Models
Models
15.8
17.6
21.5
22.6
8.1
8.7
3.02
3.56
3.85
2.57
0.52
0.72
42.26
46.68
39.39
37.05
6.59
7.95
3.83
3.81
3.04
2.47
2.38
1.57
*FY 71 and FY 72 — Chicago, Houston, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
FY 73 — Detroit, Houston, St. Louis, Newark
FY 74 and FY 75 — Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
-------
Table 4
Summary of Federal 49 State Standards
and 1975 California Standards
Federal 1972 (1972 FTP)
49 State 1973/1974 (1972 FTP)
1975 (1975 FTP)
1975 Trucks (1975 FTP)
California 1975 (1975 FTP)
1975 Trucks (1975 FTP)
HC
3.4
3.4
1.5
2.0
0.9
2.0
CO
39.0
39.0
15.0
20.0
9.0
20.0
NOx
-
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.0
2.0
-------
Table 5
PERCENT OF 1976 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
MEETING STANDARDS ~ 1975 FTP
Meeting 1975 Federal 49 State Standards
Five City Composite Denver Los Angeles
Pollutant (515 Vehicles) (34 Vehicles) (34 Vehicles)
HC 73% or 374 32% or 11 97% or 33
CO 62% or 317 15% or 5 91% or 31
NOx 81% or 416 94% or 32 94% or 32
All Three 47% or 243 15% or 5 85% or 29
Meeting 1975 California Standards
Los Angeles
(34 Vehicles)
85% or 29
79% or 27
91% or 31
71% or 24
VO
I
-------
-30-
Table 6
STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION* OF EMISSION DATA FROM
FY75 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM BY CITY, YEAR AND POLLUTANT
Chicago Denver Houston LA St. Louis Washington Phoenix
65-68 N
HC
CO
NOX
1969 N
HC
CO
NOX
1970 N
HC
CO
NOX
1971 N
HC
CO.
NOX
1972 N
HC
CO
NOX
1973 N
HC
CO
NOX
1974 N
HC
CO
NOX
1975 N
HC
CO
NOX
50
L
NL
NL
30
U
NL
NL
35
L
NL
NL
40
U
NL
NL
45
L
NL
NL
50
L
NL
NL
50
U
L
NL
50
L
L
NL
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
20
NL
NL
NL
22
U
NL
NL
25
U
NL
NL
27
NL
NL
NL
27
NL
NL
NL
28
L
NL
NL
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
27
NL
NL
NL
27
NL
NL
NL
28
L
NL
NL
0
—
-
-
0
—
—
-
20
L
NL
NL
22
L
L
NL
25
NL
NL
NL
27
U
L
L
27
U
NL
NL
28
NL
NL
L
50
L
L
NL
30
L
NL
NL
34
L
NL
NL
40
L
L
NL
45
L
L
NL
50
NL
N
NL
50
L
L
NL
48
L
L
NL
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
0
—
-
-
27
NL
NL
NL
27
NL
NL
NL
28
L
L
L
49
L
NL
NL
30
NL
L
NL
35
L
L
NL
40
NL
NL
NL
45
L
NL
NL
50
L
L
L
50
U
L
NL
49
L
L
L
-------
-31-
Chicago Denver Houston LA St. Louis Washington Phoenix
1976 N
HC
CO
NOx
LDT N
HC
CO
NOx
150
L
L
L
17
NL
L
NL
34
NL
NL
L
17
NL
NL
NL
34
N
NL
NL
17
NL
NL
NL
34
L
L
L
17
L
L
NL
146
L
L
L
13
NL
NL
NL
34 151
L L
L L
L L
17 0
U
NL
NL
The distributions listed could not be rejected at the nominal .01
level. N - normal not rejected. L - lognormal not rejected.
U - unclassified, both distributions rejected.
Note that N In the left margin Indicates sample size.
-------
Table 7
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Chicago
1975 .FTP
HYDROCARBONS (JM/MI
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
50
30
35
40
45
50
50
50
150
17
MEAN
MILES
-------
Table 8
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Denver
1975 FTP
HYDROCARBONS CM/HI
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
MEAN
MILES
(K)
0.0
0.0
73.4
58.6
46 ..1
39.3
28.2
19.6
10.9
13.7
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
6.05
6.91
5.65
4.71
4.64
2.37
2.34
2.18
SO
0.0
0.0
2.09
3.66
3.78
.75
.55
.16
.23
• 15
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
0.0 0.0.
0.0 9.0
5.73
6.21
5.01
4.43
4.39
a. 11
a. 06
1.92
1.41
.57
.56
.43
.41
.65
.68
.69
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/Ml
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
65.37
94.42
71.62
62.18
61.42
47.86
45.09
39.82
SO
0.0
0.0
36.08
59.37
21.47
38.30
27.38
27.67
25.40
24.69
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
77.02
82.50
68.62
73.44
76.99
39.70
37.34
32.11
SO
0.0
0.0
1.65
1.66
1.35
1.65
1.41
2.01
1.99
2.11
OXIDES OF NITR06CN «M/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
2.73
2.58
2.74
2.20
2.03
1.81
1.82
1.79
SO
0.0
0.0
0.90
i.tz
• •92
1.08
1.08
0.68
0.72
• •70
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
2.58
2.32
2.59
1.96
1.81
1.68
1.69
1.6*
SO
0.0
t.o
1.0
1.78
.41
.65
.62
.55
.48
.45
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 9
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Houston
1975 FTP
HYDROCARBONS CM/HI
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1973
1973
197*
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
3*
17
MEAN
MILES
(K)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
51.6
35.6
28.5
11.5
18.4
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.03
4.19
1.88
1.78
2.65
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.01
2.00
1.17
1.30
2. 29
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.79
3.81
1.62
1.44
1.96
SD
0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.90
1.55
1.74
1.93
2.18
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
o.n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.39
64.32
32.91
20.81
37.58
SD
0.0
O.n
0.0
0.0
O.n
40.63
41.20
32.48
19.45
44.51
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.75
53.96
23.57
12.49
17.80
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.87
1.81
2.32
3.07
3.98
OXIDES Of NITROGEN 6M/WI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.65
2.57
2.55
2.76
2.87
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.11
.31
.09
.14
.97
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
0*0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0*0
0.0
2.44
2.28
2.36
2.S6
2.71
.0
.0
.0
.52
.ft*
.49
.48
.42
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 10
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Los Angles
1975 FTP
HYDROCARBONS
YEAR
66-8
19ft*
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
MEAN
MILES
N
-------
Table 11
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for St. Louis
1975 FTP
HYDROCARBONS
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
197*
1975
1976
LOT*
N
50
30
34
40
45
50
50
48
146
13
MEAN
MILES
(K)
84.9
84.3
65. S
66.3
58.5
45.3
35.8
23.9
16.1
15.0
ARITHMETIC
MFAN
9.23
5.98
6.15
5.80
4.29
3.58
4.25
1.83
1.52
1.79
SO
8.37
6.17
5.01
6.00
2.79
1.35
2.78
1.53
0.96
1.13
GM/Ml
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/Ml
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
7.34
4.88
5.14
4.55
3.81
3.33
3.77
1.47
1.27
1.50
sn
1.84
1.73
1.72
1.A5
1.56
1.47
1.56
1.90
1.87
1.85
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
114.48
71.63
82.06
66.87
57.23
51.34
60.49
34.40
21.59
33.28
SO
70.28
39.38
60.58
47.69
38.34
23.63
45.92
63.24
20.67
26.02
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
95.41 .88
61.23 .80
68.25 .82
56.30 .78
48.24 .81
45.28 .73
47.54 2.02
18.88 2.78
13.68 2.80
23.88 2.43
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
3.54 2.11
4.24 .74
3.77 .28
4.01 .48
4.79 .76
3.37 .35
3.08 .47
2.67 .26
2.63 .33
2.50 .05
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
2.93 .92
3.88 .55
3.52 .51
3.63 .70
4.48 .46
3.12 .50
2.76 .62
2.40 .62
2.38 .55
2.35 .42
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 12
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fjnission Results for Washington
1975 FTP
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
YEAR .
66-9
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
3*
17
MEAN
MILES
(K)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.6
28.8
19.2
4.8
9.*
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.14
3.23
1.60
0.93
1.03
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.30
l.Ofl
1.29
0.61
0.73
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
H.90
3.05
1.24
0.80
0.82
SO
O.P
n.n
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.52
1.41
2.03
1.74
1.97
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
o.o
48.56
41.59
23.47
11.69
13.79
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.21
25.24
21.45
12. *5
12.29
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.55
35.48
16.12
7.77
9.24
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.01
1.79
2.48
2.48
2.90
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.12
3.13
2.72
2.73
2.42
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.11
1.51
1.45
1.03
0.79
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
a. 91
2.80
2.44
2.59
2.32
SO
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.48
1.64
1.60
1.38
1.36
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 13
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Phoenix
1975 FTP
HYDROCARBONS
YEAR
ft(S-%
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
197S
1976
LDT»
N
49
30
35
40
45
50
50
49
151
0
MEAN
MILES
(K)
9?. 4
84.7
75.5
68.8
56.1
44.0
34.8
25.8
1?.B
0.0
aRITHMETIC
Mf AN
6.20
S.22
5.45
3.84
3.53
3.35
4.11
1.73
1.22
0.0
SO
2.76
2.07
3.30
1.10
1.80
1.45
3.64
1.20
0.97
0.0
f'M/Ml
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
t>.7l
'•.SB
4.79
3.70
3.25
3.11
3.33
1.40
0.99
sn
.49
.45
.63
• ?1
.47
.45
.80
.92
.83
o.o o . n
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
93.53
80.17
77.51
51.57
47.50
50.08
56.56
25.12
15.10
0*0
SD
49.50
50.75
59.01
24. S6
21. SO
32.92
38.31
22.50
14.91
0.0
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
82.05 1.68
69.17 1.69
61.39 2.04
46.49 1.59
42.84 1.60
41.85 1.84
47.07 1.82
16.74 2.56
10.07 2.50
0.0 0.0
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
2.54 1.18
3.45 1.40
3.18 .28
3.39 .30
3.25 .08
2.82 .21
2.81 .40
2.76 .32
2.51 .08
0.0 0.0
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
2.27 .66
3.19 .51
2.88 .66
3.16 .46
3.08 .40
2.54 .66
2.50 .63
2.50 .58
2.34 .46
0.0 0.0
i
u>
oo
I
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT OuTY TRUCKS
1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 14
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for All Cities Except Denver and Los Angeles
1975 FTP
VO
I
MFAN
MILES
YEAR N (K)
66-8 149 85.0
1969 90 77.1
1970 104 66.3
1971 120 63.7
1972 135 52.2
1973 204 43.2
1974 204 31.7
1975 203 22.4
1976 515 11.5
LOT* 64 13.4
HYDROCARBONS
ARITHMETIC
MFAN SO
7.62 6.16
5.77 4.91
5.78 4.36
4.84 4.89
3.82 2.25
3.65 3.18
3.97 3.17
1.72 1.49
1.34 0.99
1.66 1.54
OM/HI
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/Ml OXIDES OF NITROGEN GH/HI
GEOMETRIC ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN
-.43
4.95
4.91
4.Q4
3.44
3.17
3.4Q
1.35 1
1.08 1
SP MEAN SO MEAN SD MEAN SD MEAN SD
.69 98.66 56.94 83.79 1.83 3.16 .67 2.73 .75
.60 70.04 40.79 60.70 1.70 4.13 .75 3.77 .55
.•sB 74.98 52.45 62.40 .84 3.50 .34 3.20 .59
.64 56.12 34.21 48.82 .69 3.84 .47 3.53 .55
.52 50.61 30. ?9 43.33 .77 4.03 .57 3.75 .46
.58 49.12 29.86 41.14 .85 2.97 .21 2.73 .55
.64 52.19 37.35 42.43 .90 2.90 .38 2.60 .62
.96 27.42 37.65 17.32 2.57 2.59 .24 2.34 .58
.91 18.30 19.r>3 11.30 2.78 2.56 .12 2.37 .47
1.22 ?.14 25.36 29.05 14.77 3.01 2.45 0.88 2.31 .41
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 15
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Chicago
PERCENT MEETING FEDEPAL 49 STATE STANDARDS
YEAR
75LDT*
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1972* STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
197? FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/1974«« STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
13
76.47
11
64.71
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1975»»« STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
-p-
o
66-68
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
3
0
3
5
12
11
20
41
121
6.00
n.n
fli57
13.50
26.67
22.00
40.00
82.00
80.67
0
0
1
1
3
7
7
32
97
0.0
0.0
2.86
2.50
6.67
14.00
14.00
64.00
64.67
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
19
78
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.00
38.00
52.00
13
76.47
* The 1972 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
** The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC, 39 gin/mi for CO, and 3.0 gin/mi for NOx
*** The 1975 Standards are 1.5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for passenger cars and
2.0 gm/mi HC, 20.0 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for light duty trucks
-------
Table 16
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Denver
PERCENT MEETING FEDERAL 49 STATE STANDARDS
YEAR
1072 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973* STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
75LDT*
197? FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/1974»« STANDARDS
NUMBFR PERCENT
35.29
29.41
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1975»»» STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
66-68
19*9
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
10
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.81
0.0
35.71
35.29
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
10
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.11
0.0
35.71
35.29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.57
1^.71
23.53
* The 1972 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
** The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC, 39 gm/mi for CO, and 3.0 gm/mi for NOx
*** The 1975 Standards are 1.5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for passenger cars and
2.0 gm/mi HC, 20.0 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for light duty trucks
-------
Table 17
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Houston '
NJ
I
PERCENT MEETING FEDERAL 49 STATE STANDARDS
YEAR
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1972* STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/1974»» STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCFNT
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1975»«» STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
66-68
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
0
0
0
0
0
7
3
16
24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.93
11.11
57.14
70.59
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
12
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.81
11.11
42.86
50.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
13
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.43
38.24
75LDT*
10
58.82
41.18
29.41
•v Th* 1Q72 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
*t The W73/74 Standards arc 3?* gm/mi for HC, 39 gm/mi for CO, and 3.0 gm/mi for NOx
*" E: tandlrdrare 1.5 gm/*i HC, IS gm/mi CO. 3.1 gm/mi for Passenger cars and
2.0 gm/mi HC, 20.0 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for light duty trucks
-------
Table 18
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Los Angeles
OJ i
i
PERCENT MEETING FEDERAL 49 STATE STANDARDS
1972 FTP TEST DATA 197? FTP TEST DATA 1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1972* STAND4RDS PASSED 1973/1974** STANDARDS PASSED 1975»»» STANDARDS
YEAR NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
66-68
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
0
0
1
3
6
.6
5
27
32
0.0
0.0
5.00
13.64
24.00
22.22
18.52
96.43
94.12
0
0
1
0
5
4
5
24
30
0.0
0.0
5.00
0.0
20.00
14.81
18.52
85.71
88.24
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
21
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.00
0.0
3.70
75.00
85.29
75LDT* 15 88.24 12 70.59 11 64.71
* The 1972 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
** The 1973/7A Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC, 39 gm/mi for CO, and 3.0 gm/mi for NOx
aft* The 1975 Standards are 1.5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for passenger cars and
2.0 gm/mi HC, 20.0 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for light duty trucks
-------
Table 19
FY75 Emission Factor Program
St. Louis
PERCENT MEETING FEDERAL 49 STATE STANDARDS
YEAR
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1972* STANDARDS
NUMbER PERCENT
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/1974«« STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1975««« STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
66-68
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
75LDT*
1
1
2
3
7
6
12
32
109
7
2.00
3.33
5.88
7.50
15.56
12.00
24.00
66.67
74.66
53.85
0
0
0
1
1
2
8
20
74
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.50
2.22
4.00
16.00
41.67
50.68
38.46
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
11
56
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.92
38.36
46.15
* The 1972 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gin/mi for CO
** The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC, 39 gm/mi for CO, and 3.0 gm/mi for NOx
*** The 1975 Standards are 1.5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for passenger cars and
2.0 gm/mi HC, 20.0 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for light duty trucks
-------
Table 20
Fy75 Emission Factor Program
Washington
PERCENT MEETING FEDERAL 49 STATE STANDARDS
YEAR
75LDT*
1973 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1972* STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/1974»» STANDARDS
NUM9FR PERCENT
16
94.12
13
76.47
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1975»«» STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
66-68
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
197*
1975
1976
0
0
0
0
0
7
10
20
32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.93
37.04
71.43
94.12
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
18
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.81
11.11
64.29
64.71
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.41
0.0
35.71
58.82
11
64.71
* The 1972 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
** The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC, 39 gm/mi for CO, and 3.0 gm/rai for NOx
*** The 1975 Standards are 1.5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for passenger cars and
2.0 gm/mi HC, 20.0 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for light duty trucks
-------
Table 21
PY75 Emission Factor Program
Phoenix
o\
I
PERCENT HEFTING FEDERAL 49 STATF. STANDARDS
YEAR
- 1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1972* STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
1973 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/1974»« STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1975»»« STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
66-68
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
197*
1975
1976
0
1
2
3
7
16
11
32
133
0.0
3.33
5.71
7.50
15.56
32.00
22.00
65.31
88.08
0
1
0
1
2
10
8
22
96
0.0
3.33
0.0
2.50
4.44
20.00
16.00
44.90
63.58
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
15
76
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.61
50.33
75LDT*
0.0
0.0
0.0
* The 1972 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
** The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC, 39 gm/mi for CO, and 3.0 gm/mi for NOx
*** The 1975 Standards are 1.5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/rai CO, 3.1 gm/mi for passenger cars and
2.0 gm/mi HC, 20.0 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi for light duty trucks
-------
Table 22
FY75 Emission Factor Program
All Cities Except Denver & Los Angles
PERCENT MEETING FEDERAL 49 STATE STANDARDS
YEAR
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1972« STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
197? FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/1974»» STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1975«»» STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
66-68
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
4
2
7
11
26
47
56
141
419
2.68
2.22
6.73
9.17
19.26
23.04
27.45
69.46
81.36
0
1
1
3
6
27
29
104
306
0.0
1.11
0.96
2.50
4.44
13.24
1*.22
51.23
59.42
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
61
243
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.83
0.0
0.98
0.49
30.05
47.18
75LDT* 46 71.88 36 56.25
> LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976
35
54.69
* The 1972 Standards are 3.4 gin/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
-V* The 1975 sLSHanH3rdS a" 3'* P"'"1 for HC> 39 gm/mi for CO, and 3.0 gm/mi for NOx
20 *n/mi HP 20 n "/ t'rn**^ "^ 15 ^^ C°' ^ *™/m± f°r Passenger cars and
2.0 gm/mi HC, 20.0 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gra/mi for light duty trucks
-------
Table 23
FY75 Emission Factor Program .
Emission Result.s for Los Angles
Percent Meeting California Standards
1972 FTP Test Data 1972 FTP Test Data 19.72 FTP Test Data 1975 FTP Test Data
Passed 1972* Standards Passed 1973* Standards Passed 1974* Standards Passed 1975* Standards
Year Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT
0
0
5
5
5
24
30
12
0.0
0.0
20.0
18.5
18.5
85.7
88.2
70.6
0
0
5
3
5
24
- 30
12
0.0
0.0
20.0
11.1
18.5
85.7
88.2
70.6
0
0
1
o.
5 .
19
29
10
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
18.5
67.9
85.3
58.8
0
0
0
0
0
10
24
9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.7
70.6
. 52.9
* The 1972 Standards are 3.2 gin/mi for IIC, 39 gra/ni for CO and 3.2 gm/ni for NOx
The 1973 Standards are 3.2 for IIC, 39 for CO and 3.0 for NOx
The 1974 Standards are 3.2 for IIC, 39 for CO and 2.0 for WOx
The 1975 Standards are 0.9 for IIC, 9.0 for CO and 2.0 for NOx
OB
I,
-------
TABLE 24
COMPARISON OF MEAN EMISSION LEVELS OF NEW VEHICLES* IN THE FY 71,
FY 73, FY 74, AND FY 75 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAMS
FY 72,
COMPOSITE
1975 FTP (gm/mi)
DENVER
LOS ANGELES
MODEL YEAR
HC
CO
NOX
SAMPLE
SIZE
MEAN
S.D.
SAMPLE
SIZE
MEAN
S.D.
SAMPLE
SIZE
MEAN
S.D.
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
19.71
19.72
19.73
1974
19.75
1976
80
140
140
193
587
515
80
140
140
193
587
515
80
140
140
193
587
515
3.07
3.02
3.59
3.58
1.32
1.34
39.56
36.88
46.96
41.77
22.92
18.30
5.06
4,55
3,47
2,89
2,44
2.56
1.36
2.22
1.61
2.37
1.03
0.99
25.62
24.04
32.90
25.69
23.56
19.03
1.84
1.59
1.63
1,40
1.01
1.12
20
35
35
30
35
34
20
35
35
30
35
34
20
35
35
30
35
34
5.59
4.75
4.54
5.15
2.22
2.34
88.13
80.36
84.70
83.67
48.52
45.09
3.05
3.08
1.96
1.85
1.62
1.82
1.42
2.42
1.79
2.74
1.12
1.23
35.96
32.46
41.27
38.54
28.46
25.40
1.59
1.39
0.87
0.84
0.65
0.72
21
35
35
30
35
34
21
35
35
30
35
34
21
35
35
30
35
34
3.02
3.56
3.85
2.57
0.52
0.72
42.26
46.68
39.39
37.05
6.59
7.95
3.83
3.81
3.04
2.47
2.38
1.57
0.79
4.24
4.24
1.38
0.26
0.40
19.91
24.06
32.72
28.14
6.87
8.12
1.10
1.21
1.13
1.49
1.14
0.64
VO
I
*Vehicles tested in approximately their first year of operation.
-------
TABLE 2 5
L975 FTP MEAN EMISSION LEVELS BY MODEL YEAR FOR
FY 71, FY 72, FY 73, FY 74, and FY 75
COMPOSITE OF ALL CITIES EXCEPT LOS ANGELES AND DENVER
Emission in GM/MI, Fuel Economy in MPG
Average Mileage in Thousands
1971 Program 1972 Program 19.73 Program 1974 Program 1975 Program
Year Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S,D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
65-67
1968
1969
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
458
68,5
8,74
86,5
3,54
14,2
69
48.5
5.73
69.33
. 4.44
13.6
72
39.9
5.25
59.99
5.45
13.7
-
-
7.63
40,3
1.91
2.8
_
-
7.80
61.37
1.89
3.3
_
. -
4.72
32.57
2.02
2.9
140
69.3
8,67
9.3.48
3.34
14.40
84
57.9
6.18
64.60
4.32
14.37
88
51.2
4.83
62.38
5.08
14.28
-
-
6.97
40.18
1,65
2,66
_
-
5.01
34.94
1.71
2.63
_
-
2.53
34.18
1.93
2.59
68
68.1
8.65
108,28
4.04
12.57
72
61.0
7.09
74.75
5.21
12.95
84
57.8
6.30
67.69
5.56
13.22
-
-
5.
53.
1.
2.
_
—
8.
44.
2.
2.
_
-
5.
34.
2.
2.
84
09
84
67
59
63
48
85
77
29
16
37
126
80.8
8.93
108.54
2.89-
13.71
77
69.5
6.30
82.59
3.60
13.60
88
62.5
5.98
78.46
4.25
13.66
-
-
7.51
52.31
1.44
2.83
_
-
6.72
44.76
1.78
2.63
_
-
3.64
38.51
1.71
2.47
75
87.0
8.85
110.10
2.83
13.77
74
83.0
6.37
87.07
3.49
13.40
90
77.1
5.77
70.04
4.13
14 . 19
-
-
7.19
59.98
1.41
3.38
_
-
4.61
51.53
1.85
2.19
_
-
4.91
40.79
1.75
2.76
Ui
o
-------
TABLE 25
Emissions in GM/MI, Fuel Economy in MPG
Average Mileage in Thousands
1971 Program 1972 Program 1973 Program 1974 Program 1975 Program
Year
1970 N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
1971 N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
1972 N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
1973 N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
1974 N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
Mean S.D. Mean
70 - 108
29.5 - 36
3.77 1.83 4
47.55 24.41 53
5.15 1.67 4
13.7 3.5 14
80 - 120
15.6 - 26
3.07 1.36 3
39.56 25.62 51
5.06 1.84 4
13.3 4.4 14
140
14
3
36
4
13
.8
.89
.23
.35
.55
.4
.94
.13
.30
.48
.8
.02
.88
.55
.54
S.
4.
36.
1.
3.
._
-
2.
37.
1.
4.
_
-
2.
24.
1.
3.
D.
21
87
67
48
22
02
58
14
22
04
59
40
Mean
88
51.4
5.07
65.02
4.95
12.68
108
37.4
4.22
51.53
4.83
12.93
120
28.7
4.17
56.74
4.80
12.85
140
18.1
3.59
46.96
3.47
12.58
40
5.8
3.08
35.92
2.90
11.39
S.D.
-
3.17
26.91
2.08
2.62
_
-
2.39
35.29
2.01
3.45
_
-
3.85
42.60
2.09
3.34
_
-
1.61
32.90
1.63
3.20
__
-
1.22
24.20
1.19
2.46
Mean
99
58.8
5.34
63.88
3.66
13.86
113
48.5
5.21
52.69
3.90
13.58
176
41.9
4.23
51.79
4.03
13.40
128
29.0
3.33
45.31
3.01
13.02
193
20.2
3.58
41.77
2.89
12.77
S.D.
-
7.67
31.83
1.33
2.89
_
—
6.20
37.55
1.33
3.52
_
-
4.50
48.71
1.48
3.75
_
-
1.78
40.42
1.62
3.43
-
2.37
25.69
1.40
3.33
Mean
104
66.
5.
74.
3.
13.
120
68.
4.
56.
3.
13.
135
52.
3.
50.
4.
13.
204
43.
3.
49.
2.
13.
204
31.
3.
52.
2.
13.
3
78
98
50
82
7
84
12
84
81
2
82
61
03
81
2
65
12
97
07
7
97
19
90
18
S.D.
—
4.36
52.45
1.34
3.07
_
—
4.89
34.21
1.47
3.37
_
-
2.25
30.29
1.57
3.51
—
3.18
29.86
1.21
3.43
_
—
3.17
37.35
1.35
3.52
-------
TABLE 25
Emissions in GM/MI, Fuel Economy in MPG
Average Mileage in Thousands
1971 Program 1972 Program 1973 Program 1974 Program 1975 Program
Year Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
1975 N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
587
8.8
1.32
22.92
2.44
13.51
-
—
1.03
23.56
1.01
3.31
203
22.4
1.34
18 . 30
2.56
13.86
—
—
0.99
19.03
1.12
3.60
-------
TABLE 26
Change in Emission and Urban Fuel Economy for Vehicles in both EF 74
and EF 75 Programs from all cities except Denver and Los Angeles
1975 FTP
Mileage (K) HC gm/mi CO gm/mi NOx gm/mi Fuel Economy ml/gal
Model FY74 FY75 Mean* FY74 FY75 DM* Mean FY74 FY75 DM* Mean FY74 FY75 DM* Mean FY74 FY75 DM* Mean Year
Year N Mean Mean Increase* Mean Mean CPTM* Mean Mean CPTM* Mean Mean CPTM* Mean Mean CITM
1966-
1968 55 69 80 10 6.78 7.39 .06 .05 96.1 100.4 .39 .73 3.53 3.05 -.04 -.09 13.3 13.4 .01 -04
1969 21 55 66 11 5.83 4.66 -.11 -.11 76.3 61.6 -1.3 -1.3 4.61 4.65 .00 -.06 14.1 14.7 .07 -05
1970 39 53 62 9 4.31 6.36 .23 190 59.5 70.7 1.2 387. 4.00 3.56 .05 -16.8 13.9 13.8 -.01-4-09
1971 43 47 57 10 3.83 4.28 .05 .03 44.3 47.9 .36 .14 4.10 4.03 .01 -.02 14.2 14.2 .0 -01
1972 44 38 47 9 4.17 3.45 -.08 -.09 48.1 46.1 -.22 -.72 3.87 3.87 .0 -.01 13.7 13.9 .02 '°*
1973 52 29 40 11 3.31 3.44 .01 .04 46.3 41.7 -.42 -.89 2.91 2.91 .0 -.16 12.7 13.2 .05 -09 ^
C*i
I
1974 73 9 12 5 1.39 4.16 .92 .98 25.0 32.9 2.6 3.71 1.38 1.55 .06 .26 13.1 13.5 .13 -05
1975 115 8 21 14 1.32 1.62 .02 ..03 22.4 24.7 .18 .17 2.54 2.65 .01 .26 13.6 14.1 .04 -07
*DM Deterioration of the mean, i.e., (FY75 mean outcome - FY74 mean outcome) / (FY75 mean mileage (K) - FY74 Mean
Mileage (K). CPTM: Change per thousand miles. Mean Increase: Average of the per car mileage increases.
-------
Table 27
FY7S Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for All Cities Except Los Angeles and Denver by Model Year and Inertia Weight 1975 FTP
INERTIA WT.
(LES.) .
<2001
HC
CO
: NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
. 2001-2500
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
2501-3000
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
3001-3500
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
3S01-4000
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
4001-4500
HC
CO
NO*
FUEL ECONOMY
4501-5000
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
>5000
HC
CO
NOX •
FUEL ECONOMY
TOTAL
HC
CO
NCX
FUEL ECONOMY
66-8
1969
1970
MEAN
SO
MtAN
SD
MEAN
SO
1971
MEAN SO
19/2
1973
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
1974
MEAN SO
1975
MEAN SO
1976
MEAN so
LOT-
HtA* SO
N=
8.27
128.09
1.91
O.OS
N«
S.f>6
70.63
1.81
23.55
u-
5.62
74.70
3.04
17.76
N3
7.?7
83.47
3.29
14.33
7.61
98.19
3.23
13.17
NS
9.43
109.22
3.40
11.56
9.06
187.79
2.59
10.30
M:
10.65
223.99
1.66
9.15
1
0.0
A.O
0.0
0.0
3
2.67
26.98
0.74
0.70
23
2.27
36.61
1.59
2.37
37
S.38
61.06
1.72
2.10
52
S.9n
45.18
1.60
1.70
26
9.62
49.39
1.99
1.23
4
3.79
90.53
1.15
1.30
3
5.60
107.00
n.44
;.36
N = 149
7.62 6.16
98.66 56.94
3.16 1.67
13.59 2.82
H=
5.31
2.18
22.47
n-
3.41
4P.06
6.09
19.24
8.32
54.55
3.51
13.13
MS
5.27
64.01
4.4ft
14.58
5.74
70.80
4.16
13.42
MS
5.52
93.32
4.14
11.89
3.61
63.13
4.63
11*15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N*
5.77
70.04
4.13
14.19
4
2.9?
27. in
1.00
1.52
3
1.2*
29.3?
3.70
2.53
13
10.81
23.83
1.08
2.79
22
1.84
32.27
1.6*
1.44
29
3.92
30. 9n
1.57
l.*2
15
2.3n
67.92
2.0?
1.27
4
33.0S
1.8?
1.24
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
90
4.91
40. 7«
1.75
2.76
3.39
41.69
2.SS
24.17
Ns
7.04
40.33
4.07
?.2.78
4. 57
47.54
3. SO
16.04
N«
6.34
95.00
2.9A
14.00
Ns
6.37
75.93
3.54
13.09
Ns
5.29
P1.17
4.16
11.74
M>
4.64
iifl.30
3. 59
9.77
Ns
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.01
15.17
0.61
1.9?
6
10.65
27.7fl
1.19
2.8
1.4«
11
2. e» ;
37.4*
l.»
1.33
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
8
0.
0.
0.
0.
64
1.54
29.05
0.88
1.81
-------
Table 28
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Chicago
FUEL ECONOMY IN
COLD
TRANSIENT
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
50
30
35
40 .
45
50
50
50
150
17
MFAN
12. 42
12.94
12.58
12.79
12.86
1?.46
12.33
13.15
13.83
12.17
SO
2.47
2.25
3.06
3.40
3.26
3.32
3.69
3.33
3.21
1.56
COLO
STABILIZED
MEAN
14.09
14.44
14.06
13.94
13.81
13.14
13.02
13. b3
14.88
12.67
SO
2.62
2.41
3.30
3.42
3.76
3.49
3.91
3.48
3.37
1.83
MILES PER GALLON
HOT
TWANS1ENT
MEAN
15.73
16.08
15. Rl
16.13
15.93
15.14
14.15
15. 57
16.36
14.23
SD
2.88
2.29
3.98
3.70
3.83
4.02
4.14
3.97
3.80
1.76
1972
MEAN
13.24
13.68
13.31
13.37
13.35
12.80
12.68
13.50
14.35
12.42
FTP
SD
2.47
2.25
3.13
3.32
3.47
3.38
3.73
3.38
3.26
1.62
197S
MEAN
14.10
14.50
14.15
14.21
14.11
13.47
13.32
14.11
15.01
12.95
FTP
SO
2.58
2.27
3.35
3.42
3.64
3.55
3.87
3.53
3.42
1.71
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 29
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Denver
FUEL ECONOMY IN
COLD
TRANSIENT
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
Mt AN
0.0
0.0
13.50
12.22
13.45
13.02
13.63
13.37
13.85
12.57
SO
0.0
0.0
2.89
3.45
3.51
3.55
3.34
3.40
3.26
1.87
COLO
STABILIZED
MEAN
0.0
0.0
15.03
13.53
14.35
13.79
14.24
14.52
15.21
13.35
SO
0.0
0.0
3.00
3.fl3
3.64
3.81
3.39
3.38
3.33
-------
Table 30
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Houston
FUEL ECONOMY IN
COLD
TRANSIENT
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
2S
34
17
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.82
11.63
12.45
13.09
12.33
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.57
3.32
3.24
2.82
2.11
COLU
STABILIZED
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.42
12.12
12. H4
14.19
12.78
SD
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
J.86
3.36
3.49
J.38
2.09
MILES PEW GALLON
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN
O.n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.34
13.96
14.73
15.68
14.37
SD
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.36
3.66
3.93
3.57
2.2*
1972
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
12.13
11.88
12.65
13.65
12.56
FTP
50
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
3.66
3.30
3.34
3.06
2.06
1975
MEAN
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
12.75
12.*6
13.22
14.32
13.08
FTP
SD
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
3.87
3.39
3.52
3.27
2.10
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 31
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Los Angeles
i
Ul
oo
FUEL ECONOMY IN
COLO
TRANSIENT
YEAR
66-8
19
-------
Table 32
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for St. Louis
FUEL ECONOMY IN
COLO
TRANSIENT
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
50
30
34
40
45
50
50
4H
146
13
MEAN
11.71
12.56
12.17
12.47
12.67
11.94
12.18
12.65
13.70
11.67
SO
2.79
2.69
2.8B
3.27
3.28
3.06
3.25
3.62
3.03
1.58
COLO
STABILI7EO
MEAN
12.86
13.14
12.96
13.06
13.24
12.41
12.71
13.06
14.40
12.51
SD
3.01
<".46
3.05
3.19
3.44
3.04
3.35
3.66
3.27
1.64
MILES PER GALLON
HOT
T«ANSIENT
MPA.N
14.91
15.78
IS.ftl
15.40
15. b2
14.76
14. «3
14.^9
16.26
13. SO
SO
3.17
2.81
3.24
3.46
3.72
3.61
3.69
4.38
3.77
1.67
1972
MEAN
12.28
12.86
12.57
12.77
12.96
12.18
12.45
12.86
14.06
12.10
FTP
SD
2.82
2.45
2.63
3.17
3.31
3.00
3.27
3.61
3.12
1.55
1975
MEAN
13.09
13.63
13.44
13.49
13.66
12.87
13.11
13.42
14.70
12.65
FTP
SO
2.90
2.48
2.73
3.
-------
Table 33
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Washington
FUEL ECONOMY IN
COLO
TRANSIENT
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1973
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.97
12.62
12.92
1.1.83
12.21
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.37
3.40
3.10
2.99
1.49
COLO
STABILIZED
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.27
13.09
13.62
14.89
13.13
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.12
3.71
3.23
3.29
2.56
MILES PER GALLON
HOT
TRANSIENT
MFAN
o.n
o.o
o.n
o.n
o.n
14.61
IS. 33
15.45
16.57
14.56
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.70
3.94
3.63
3.59
1.69
1972
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.12
12.86
13.28
14.36
12.67
FTP
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.16
3.53
3.13
3.10
1.83
1975
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.76
13.52
13.92
15.07
13.28
FTP
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.24
3.68
3.28
3.25
1.93
O
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 34
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Phoenix
FUEL ECONOMY IN
COLO
TRANSIENT
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
1
N
49
30
35
40
45
50
50
49
151
0
MEAN
12.27
12.77
12.52
12.47
12.45
12.11
12.33
13.10
13.77
0.0
SD
2.86
3.18
3.57
3.41
3.23
3.53
3.32
3.44
3.08
0.0
COL"
STABILIZED
MEAN
13.44
14.35
13.62
13.55
13.35
12.9?
13.03
14.31
14.92
0.0
SO
?.fl4
J.63
3.15
.1.43
J.49
-T.57
J.33
3.76
-1.36
0.0
MILES PER GALLON
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN
15.21
16.40'
15. «3
15.44
15.<-5
14.99
15.02
15.89
16.35
O.n
SD
3.18
3.56
3.41
3.83
3. 90
3.93
3.72
3.93
3.71
0.0
1972
MtAN
12.85
13.55
13.07
13.01
12.91
12.52
12.03
13.71
14.35
0.0
FTP
SD
2.77
3.31
3.18
3.41
3.32
3.38
3.25
3.52
3.19
0.0
1975 FTP
MEAN
13.61
14.47
13.90
13.77
13.65
13.23
13.33
14.43
15.02
0.0
SO
2.87
3.45
3.17
3.51
3.50
3.51
3.37
3.67
3.36
0.0
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 35
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for All Cities but Los Angeles and Denver
FUEL ECONOMY IN
COLD
TRANSIENT
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1973
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
1*9
90
10*
120
135
20*
204
203
SIS
64
MEAN
13.13
12.75
12.42
12.58
12.67
12.09
12.21
12.89
13.72
12.12
SO
2.72
2.71
3.15
3.34
3.24
3.33
3.38
3.37
3.07
1.68
COLO
STABILIZED
ME AN
13.44
13.95
13.54
13.51
13.46
12.69
12.83
13.58
14.70
12.78
SO
3.»9
2.89
3.17
3.34
3.54
J.39
J.52
J.5B
3.34
2.02
MILES PER GALLON
HOT
TRANSIENT
MFAN
15.38
16.08
15. H2
15.65
15.63
14.83
14.82
15.34
16.29
14.26
SO
3.10
2.89
3.53
3.65
3.80
3.88
3.82
4.02
3.73
1.84
1972 FTP
MEAN
12.78
13.35
12.98
13.05
13.07
12.40
12.53
13.24
14.22
12.46
SO
2.73
2.70
2.96
3.28
3.35
3.28
3.40
3.43
3.17
1.75
1975 FTP
MEAN
13.59
14.19
13.82
13.81
13.81
13.07
13.18
13.86
14.88
13.00
SD
2.82
2.76
3.07
3.37
3.51
3.43
3.52
3.60
3.34
1.82
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Table 36
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Highway Fuel Economy Test for Chicago
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/MI)
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NOX
(GM/MI)
FUEL ECONOMY (
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
MPG)
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
1976
0.32
0.27
0.24
2.30
3.10
3.95
1.40
4.51
407.57
10?. S9
30J.74
1.32
2.9?
1.12
2.7?
1.46
21,47
5.28
1976 LOT
0.33
0.38
0.18
3.11
4.35
6.91
1.51
5.14
476.41
61. ?3
472.60
1.15
2.75
0.94
2.5H
1 .49
18.33
2.2*
TOTAL
0.32
0.30
0.22
2. 47
3.38
4.7?
1.4?
4.5f>
423.2?
9R.5S
410.42
1.30
2.8R
1.08
2.60
1.46
20.66
4.71
-------
Table 37
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Highway Fuel Economy test for Denver
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/Mll
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/HI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NOX
(GM/HI)
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
1976
1.09
0.7fl
0.81
2.32
26.84
19.96
16.10
3.82
3R7.91
99.34
374.09
1.33
2.23
1.11
1.98
1.66
20.47
4.76
1976 LOT
1.07
0.90
0.76
2.44
30.59
26.54
20.45
2.83
426.54
116.44
412.52
1.32
2.35
1.23
2.14
1.53
18.57
3.98
TOTAL
1.08
0.80
0.80
2.32
27.69
21.35
17.00
3.56
396.69
103.34
382.49
1.32
2.26
1.12
2.01
1.6?
20.01
4.59
-------
Table 38
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Highway Fuel Economy test for Houston
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/MI)
CARSON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NOX
(GM/MI)
FUEL ECONOMY (
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
MPG)
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
1976
0.50
0.49
0.33
?.59
3.15
3.89
1.35
4.42
427.88
96. 20
M5.74
1.29
3.07
1.32
2.84
1.48
?0.43
4.42
1976 LOT
0.55
0.5?
0.41
2.16
6.02
7.R5
2.66
4.32
O3.20
65.66
428.20
1.18
3.81
1.57
3.50
1.56
19.97
3.10
TOTAL
0.51
0.49
0.35
2.49
3.80
5.10
1.5R
4.45
429.09
89.50
418.53
1.27
3.24
1.40
2.93
1.50
20.33
4.11
-------
Table 39
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Highway Fuel Economy test for Los Angeles
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/MI)
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NOX
(GM/MI)
FUEL ECONOMY (
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
SD
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
so
1076
0.14
0.14
0.11
1.94
1.26
3.63
0.08
186.09
^51.37
113.09
<»35. 61
1.33
1.97
0.69
1.87
1.38
19.56
4.84
1976 LOT
0.26
0.50
0.12
3.01
4.00
10. ?6
0.81
4.92
447.32
43.82
445.31
1.11
2.50
1.49
2.13
1.86
19.53
2.23
TOTAL
0.17
0.2(S
0.11
2.16
l.BH
5.70
O.ll
114.33
450.45
101.10
437.70
1.2
-------
Table 40
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Highway Fuel Economy Test for St. Louis
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/MI)
CARBON MONOXIDE
(CM/HI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
•(GM/MI)
NOX
(GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG>
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
so
1976
0.55
0.56
0.37
2.54
5.25
12.13
1.85
4.36
415. 29
107.76
399.96
1.34
3.06
1.68
2.60
1.85
20.87
4.94
1976 LOT
0,77
0.95
0.48
2.72
13.92
17.04
7.98
3,21
471,93
64.63
467.82
1,16
3.66
1.58
3.39
1.53
17.88
2,65
TOTAL
0.59
0.64
0.39
2.55
6.77
13.29
2.39
4.56
425.20
103.18
411. Ofl
1.32
3.16
1.66
2.73
1.81
20. 2B
4.61
-------
Table 41
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Highway Fuel Economy Test for Washington
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/HI)
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARRON DIOXIDE
•< GM/MI)
NOX
< GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
SD
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
SD
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
1976
0.23
0.21
0.17
2.19
1.88
3.10
0.70
4.61
MO. 7*
96.35
398. 87
1.29
2.96
1.34
2.69
1.56
P1.42
4.95
1976 LOT
0.32
0.39
0.17
3.38
2.81
3.44
1.09
5.13
461.09
67.56
455.75
1.18
2.66
1.01
2.50
1.43
19.02
2.63
TOTAL
0.25
0.26
0.17
2.43
2.09
3.16
0.77
4.69
422.19
92.39
411.14
1.27
2.89
1.26
2. 6^
1.53
20.8?
4.4H
OO
I
-------
Table 42
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Highway Fuel Economy Test for all Cities
Except Los Angeles and Denver
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/MI)
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NOX
(GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
FUEL ECONOMY
-------
-70-
TABLE.43
COMPARISON OF HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
WITH 1975 FTP FUEL ECONOMY
1976 Model Year Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks
Average
Highway Fuel
Average
1975 FTP Fuel
Location
Chicago
Houston
St. Louis
Washington
5 City Composite
Denver
Los Angeles
N
44
44
40
44
172
44
44
Economy
20.66
20.32
20.28
20.82
20.52
20.01
19.55
Economy
14.7
14.24
14.71
14.70
14.59
14.84
14.00
Ratio
1.40
1.43
1.38
1.42
1.41
1.35
1.40
-------
Table 44
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for all Cities except Los Angeles and Denver
Results of 1975 FTP for 1976 Model year Vehicles Presented by Manufacturer
HYDROCARBONS (GM/MI)
MANUFACTURER
GEN. MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
4MER. -MOTORS
OTHERS
TOTAL
N
229
120
65
17
84
515
MEAN
MILES
12.5
10.8
10.7
12.4
10.3
11.5
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
1.33
1.04
2.14
l.CB
1.20
1.07
0.69
1.23
0.49
0.61
0.99
GEOMETRIC
MEAN Sl)
1.04
0.91
1.83
0.98
1.03
1.08
2.01
1.62
1.79
1.62
1.83
1.91
CARBON MONOXIDE
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
2.52
2.40
3.08
3.19
2.37
2.56
1.00
1.01
1.68
1.44
0.77
1.12
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
2.36
2.23
2.77
2.90
2.24
2.37
1.43
1.47
1.55
1.59
1.45
1.47
% BELOW
FED STNO
HC CO NOX
69
88
41
63
78
72
57
87
30
64
59
61
81
84
72
52
85
80
-------
Table 45
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Denver
Results of 1975 FTP for 1976 Model year Vehicles Presented by Manufacturer
to
HYnKOCAPBONS (GM/MI)
MANUFACTURER .
GEN. MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
AMER. MOTORS
OTHERS
TOTAL
N
15
8
4
I
6
34
MEAN
MILES
13.8
8.4
7.7
7.7
9.8
10.9
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2.78
1.06
3.92
2.14
1.93
2.34
SD
1.02
0.14
1.49
0.0
0.55
l.?3
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
2.61
1.06
3.64
2.14
1.86
2.06
SO
1.43
1.14
1.63
0.0
1.34
1 .68
CftRBON MONOXIDE (GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
56.40
17.66
69.44
56.52
35.27
45.09
SD
23.43
10.58
16.91
0.0
13.81
25.40
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
52.75
15.02
67.71
56.52
33.29
37.34
SD
1.44
1.85
1.31
0.0
1.44
1.99
OXIDES
OF NITROGEN (GM/MI >
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
1.91
1.35
2.30
1.41
1.96
1.82
so
0.75
0.50
0.69
0.0
0.78
0.72
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
1.79
1.27
2.23
1.41
1.82
1.69
SD
1.41
1.46
1.33
0.0
1.57
1.48
* BELOW
FED STNO
HC
6
100
0
0
33
32
CO NOX
0 93
62 100
0 75
0 100
0 100
14 94
-------
Table 46
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Entission Results for Los Angeles
Results of 1975 FTP for 1976 Model year Vehicles Presented by Manufacturer
u>
1
HYD^OCAPBONS KM/MI)
MEAN ARlTHMEl 1C
MANUFACTURES
GEM.-.CTOHS
FOQD
CHRYSLER
A!-'£R. MOTORS
OTHERS
TCTi'_
N;
15
6
4
1
6
34
MILES
(K)
9.8
9.3
5.2
22.5
1 4.9
8.7
MEAN
0.70
0.64
1.C8
0.48
0.63
0.72
SD
0.22
0.28
0.90
0.0
0.44
0.40
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.67
0.59
0.87
0.48
0.54
0.64
SD
1.37
1.S6
2.05
0.0
1.33
l.SB
C.-.RBON MONOXIDE (GM/MI >
ARITHMETIC
MEiN
6.47
5.59
10.83
6.77
13.09
7.95
SD
4.23
2.17
10.05
0.0
16.25
8.12
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
5.29
5.00
8.29
6.77
8.14
5.98
SD
1.95
1.80
2.23
0.0
2.72
2.05
OXIDES
or NITROGEN (GM/MI >
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
1.62
1.56
1.54
1.61
1.44
1.57
SD
0.70
0.83
0.36
0.0
0.49
0.64
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
1.54
1 .43
1.51
1.61
1.35
1.48
SD
1.34
1.51
1.24
0.0
1.53
1.39
% BELOW
FED STNO
HC
100
100
75
100
IOC
97
CO
93
100
75
100
83
91
NOX
93
87
100
100
100
94
-------
Table 47
FY73 Emission Factor Program
LnLssion Results for All CLtie:, Expect Los Angeles and Denver
Results of 1975 and 1976 LU-.l'.t Duty Trucks Presented by Manufacturer
.£>
1
r.r')-t'JCAPBON5 (f-M/MI;
MVH.'r ACT1-'"! •'
G£N. MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
AMEP. MOTORS
OTHERS
Tor."..
N
27
24
11
0
2
Si
MILES
(K)
li.6
12.8
13.6
0.0
4. 1
13. i
AVI rH~tf
«E»'i
1 , -V3
1 «-»3
1.82
0.0
1 .09
l.fA
:i ic
so
I.ft7
1.03
2.23
0.0
0. 19
I. Si
C-FOMET&IC
«EiN
1.32
1.14
1.22
0.0
1.06
1.22
S'.)
Z.2?
2.02
2.32
0.0
1.44
2.14
c.\*ao
N MONOXIDE (GM/MI)
A'RTT- MF.TIC
MEA-;
J0,?1
Id. 06
31.27
0.0
13.90
?5.36
SO
10. 3S
17.73
43.07
0.0
6.07
29.05
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
17.36
10.63
19.09
0.0
13.23
14.77
SD
2.93
3.35
2.59
0.0
1.57
3.01
OXIDES
OF NITROGEN
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2.39
2.37
2.56
0.0
3.61
2.45
5.D
0.7i»
1.04
0.74
0.0
1.06
0.38
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
2.29
2.19
2.47
C.O
3.53
2.31
SO
1.33
1.51
1.31
0.0
1.35
1.41
* BELOW
FEO STND
HC
59
66
63
0
100
64
CO
55
58
45
0
50
54
NIOX
85
83
81
0
50
82
-------
Table 48
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Denver
Results of 1975 FTP for 1975 and 1976 Light Duty Trucks Presented by Manufacturer
HYDROCARBONS UiM/MI)
MANUFACTURER
GEN. MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
AMER. MOTORS
OTHERS
TOTAL
N
7
6
3
0
1
17
MEAN
MILES
13.7
isle
0.0
5.2
13.7
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
1.78
1.66
4.21
0.0
1.97
2.18
0.53
0.91
0.39
0.0
0.0
1.15
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
1.72
1.47
4.20
0.0
1.97
1.92
1.33
1.73
1.10
0.0
0*0
1.69
CARBON MONOXIDE (GM/Ml)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
32.79
31.22
73.86
0.0
38.55
39.82
19.55
14.50
32.73
0.0
0.0
24.69
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
26.23
26.97
68.72
0.0
38.55
32.12
2.25
1.96
1.61
0.0
0.0
2.11
OXIDES
OF NITROGEN IGM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
1.68
1.92
1.61
0.0
2.3*
1.79
0.45
1.06
0.52
0.0
0.0
0.70
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
1.63
1.70
1.55
0.0
2.34
1.68
1.32
1.70
1.39
0.0
0.0
% BELOW
FED STND
HC CO NOX
42
66
0
0
0
41
28
16
0
0
0
17
100
83
100
0
100
94
-------
Table 49
FY75 Emission, Factor Program
Emission Results for Los Anceles
of 1,75 FTP for 1975 a/1976 Light But/trSta Presented by Manufacturer
1
1
HYDROCARBONS (fiM/MI)
MANUFACTURER
GEN. MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
AMER. MOTORS
OTHERS
TOTAL
N
7
6
3
0
1
17
MEAN
MILES
(K)
13.8
14.5
14.0
0.0
13.4
14.1
ARITHMETIC
MEON
0.90
1.60
1.09
0.0
0.32
1.15
SO
0.46
1.52
0.16
0.0
0.0
0.98
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.81
1.08
1.08
0.0
0.32
0.89
SO
1.61
2.61
1.15
0.0
0.0
1.98
CARBON MONOXIDE (GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
10.04
33.27
14.65
0.0
4.89
18.75
SD
8.60
44.01
2.57
0.0
0.0
27.59
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
7.49
12.46
14.50
0.0
4.89
9.82
SD
2.26
4.76
1.19
0.0
0.0
2.89
OXIDES
OF NITROGEN (GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2.15
1.68
2.00
0.0
1.70
1.93
SO
1.19
1.39
0.51
0.0
0.0
1.10
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
1.88
1.36
1.96
0.0
1.70
1.68
so
1.76
1.93
1.28
0.0
0.0
1.71
% BELOW
FED STND
HC
85
66
100
0
1QO
82
CO
71
66
66
0
100
70
NOX
71
83
100
0
100
82
-------
Table 50
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for 1975 Model Year Vehicles by Response to Question
Concerning Hydrogen Sulfide Odor 1975 FTP
Response
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Reqularly
Don't Know
N
194
17
41
44
5
HC
GM/MI
Mean
1.55
1.52
1.82
2.06
1.02
SD
1.38
1.75
1.23
1.40
0.35
CO
GM/MI
Mean SD
23.73
22.76
32.59
36.93
11.74
35.85
28.57
27.19
33.65
6.68
NOx
GM/MI
Mean SD
2.32
2.78
2.60
2.36
2.72
1.10
1.84
1.15
1.18
0.72
Idle
Mean
1.08
0.92
2.15
1.69
0.18
CO
%
SD
1.77
1.79
2.32
2.22
0.15
Idle HC
PPM
Mean SD
114
77
160
145
60
170
98
172
170
42
Fuel Economy
MPG
Mean SD
14.02
13.18
12.84
13.15
12.58
3.08
3.60
2.30
2.47
2.6.0
Question: Have you or others noticed a hydrogen sulfide
(rotten eggs) odor in this vehicles exhaust?
-------
Table 51
Response N
Never 443
Rarely 34
Occasionaly 82
Regularly 73
Don't Know 7
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for 1976 Model Year Vehicles by Response to Question
Concerning Hydrogen Sulfide Odor 1975 FTP
HC
GM/MI
Mean SD
CO
GM/MI
Mean SD
NOx
GM/MI /
Mean SD Mean
Idle CO
%
SD
1.21 0.88 15.85 17.82 2.46 1.07 1.06 2.07
1.43 1.13 23.23 19.67 2.29 1.15 1.36 2.40
Idle HC
PPM
Mean SD
Fuel Economy
MPG
Mean SD
102 162 15.04 3.55
97 124 14.27 2.26
1.79 1.61 28.03 30.02 2.45 1.08 2.13 3.10 182 258 14.26 2.50
2.06 1.20 35.34 22.52 2.47 1.29 2.98 3.12 225 266 13.80 2.63
1.73 1.38 38.62 38.68 2.41 0.81 3.16 3.99 234 177 14.26 2.29
00
Question: Have you or others noticed a hydrogen sulfide
(rotten eggs) odor in this vehicles exhaust?
-------
TABLE 52
ACCELERATION/DECELERATION MODES OF SURVEILLANCE DRIVING SEQUENCE
x MODE
MO.
1
2
^
3
4
5
0
w
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
X
20
27
20
20
30
31
32
TYPE
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
ACCEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
DECEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
ACCEL
DECEL
DcCEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
ACCEL
DECEL
DECEL
SPEED RANGE
{mph)
0-30
30-0
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-30 .
30-CO
60-45
45-60
GO- ID
15-60
60-0
0-60
CO-30
30-15
15-0
0-45
45-15
15-45
45-0
0-60
CO-0
0-30
30-60
60-30
30-0
0-GO
CO-0
' 0-30
30-GO
60-30
30-0
TIME IN MODE
decl
12
10
8
11
13
12
17
12
14
30
26
21
32
23
9
0
22
1G
18
19
25
20
15
25
10
10
33
35
18
21
14
13
AVEHAGC SPEED
tmph)
18.05
16.68
9.04
23.07
37.65 :
30.00
45.80
63.0 1
52.64
40.40
43.42
33.83
-------
Table 53
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission Chicago 1976 Model Year Cars (34 Vehicles)
HOOP
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
H
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1H
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2«
?9
30
31
32
HC
2.95
O.S3
3.r,R
1.15
0.69
0.17
1.^1
0.16
0.62
0.4?
1.J3
O.Jfl
1.19
0.?5
0.35
1.66
1.41
0.2*
1.09
0.45
2.10
0.60
I.*]
0.7ft
0.22
O.o2
0 . 95
0.60
1.7?
1.13
0.21
O.S7
0.*?
CO C'V
_-__r,M/"i->-—-
Sfi.53 1037.77
1".00 34n.B?
71.73 1137.72
23.69 709.54
M.S1 61*.66
•^.37 2?3.20
6i .69
<-.30
51 .56
".61
3-.7t
3.19
6?7.<
235.1
2S6.57
272.61
2-*.2 I B3H.01
4.98 ^32.6M
. 70
13. «2
22.12 735.29
7.31 2^fl.77
3*. 46 831.35
253.58
9?7.57
6^7.69
222.34
221
.._ t <.<'-I
5.97 7.MI
0.77 >4.?4
2.37 7. (I 3
3.'i7 u.»n
4.?- 13.99
0.9? J9.ii?
5.^1 1 n.. 55
1 .H" 3S.r>?
5.61 11.44
1.2? Jf-.SO
^.7- IM.IQ
l.i»a ^i».!i4
7.4-, V.97
1.3^ 3«.l4
O.Kf ,\? . 76
0.61 12.13
6.7' 9.99
O.H/> 3>-,77
^.'.V 1.».76
".HI 11.13
6.^1 ,-.S9
I.?-- 33.4«
S.2-« «.93
6.5s 11.43
l.lH
492.41
OHUH 0.4Q
1.9ft
1.21
0.41
0.22
0.21
1 OMi'H
15MPH
60MPH
10X.71
4r'.8^
2".11
77.41
94?.07
34^.03
J71.5P
435.80
ri)F.| ECONOMY IN MjAiAL
FMISSIONS IN 1JM/MIN FOV 0
1 . n n 7 .
o.S? 1^.
0.4s 10.
1.2- Sf.
\.*1 S).
J.97 <;,!.
0 M-'l IlJ
-------
Table 54
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission for Chicago 1976 Model Year Light Duty Trucks (10 Vehicles)
MODE
NO.
i
2
3
7
ft
o
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1H
19
20
?1
22
23
2*4
25
?6
27
2H
29
10
31
12
BAG
HC
3.«H
0.44
2.34
1.37
0.69
O.^H
l.in
o.?<<
0.39
0.63
1.15
0.6H
0.09
0.78
2..14
0.4P.
1.29
0.74
'«?.np
0.97
2.36
0.4B
0.63
0.?2
0.^2
O./l
1.90
O.S4
0.69
0.27
O.KO
1279.71
790.04
cn cm
r,M/Ml
81.37 10W7.11
2?. 60
"-.31
^..H
>~.0<»
.1.1*
3".56
J.96
31.1*
..<.10
J.52-
2.7.4.2
sV47.
6'-.. 99
*.61
51 .57
7.30
^-.97
"•.^
1^.5*
-.1 J
3-..25
..B.I
HS9.37
279.4S
714.87
271.21
861.83
277.21
895.39
259.10
30^.69
767.Irt
879..3H
265.50
J07.14
9*2.11
290.2?
249.99
41S.67
296.71
HO?.HI
245.70
407.7H
560.6.1
5.3?
O.S ;
2.51
2.9"
4.9)
0 . f- -
6.^S
1.5-1
7.1^
1.0*.
H.^---
1.12
ft.».f>
1.1 n
0.5 '
6.1-'.
0.^1
M.lr.
!.(•-'
1.)-.
ii. 7^
7.27
1.01
3. *''
M. (IP
1.2-
0.^7
f'ltl
'•>.«5
In. ^-9
11. ?5
12.26
.11 . '-> \
^. '?
1').90
•1.16
.11. 15
2". 1<*
1C. 94
ll.«4
1 -1. 74
•> (.91
«.2?
I ii. 74
l^.f) 4
3.7s IS.15
OM^H 0.20
SMi»H 2.48
IOMPH 0.92
0.20
0.20
*«.09 90.01
5i.'.9e 1125.24
11.7h 518.67
1.30 4*8.3*.
^.08 4.17.48
O.d ' "I .*.l
d.fl^ 7. »?
n.*;> n.cp
n.5i l^.H7
l.(l« ^(i.nO
FUFL ECONOMY IN MI/C,rL K
^MISSIONS lit GM/HIN KOW J "Ph.
3.7-
(I M'
IN
-------
Table 55
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission for Denver 1970 Model Year cars (70 Vehicles)
IOOE
\f\
'*' 9
1
2
3
ft
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1ft
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2ft'
25
26
27
28
29
10
31
32
HC
11.20
3.65
11.^0
5. ?o
ft. 79
1.77
7.ftl
1.-9
ft.H4
3.S5
7.L:3
ft. IP
7.95
2.^5
2.71
8.27
7.9ft
2.«2
7.11
ft. 12
9'. ^7
ft.M
9.19
5. 37
2.*2
3.90
6. "5
ft ,S?
7.M9
6.u-5
2.35
ft. <5
r -1 Ci>2
' MIX
2ft5.7J 796.17 ft. 6,1
3V. 91
20<-.07
9-5.76
9s. OH
2''.ft9
233.27
2". 59
1 1^.66
2- . H9
222.21
2". 76
20^.88
2-. IS
2*4.29
122.32
187.75
2-. S3
166.02
3?. 25
291.21
3'"1 .79
1 6 ' . 0 •}
13-. 20
2<*.6()
3s. Ob
151.71
3^.1 3
12« .12
19^.**
2 <.ft*
37. S6
258.96
870. 3H
578.26
ft(>6.39
175. ft?
57ft. ft :>
19ft. 2ft
ft97.12
lHft.97
5^i6. 09
1^7.33
-3C5.22
177.60
Ifft. 91
ftSO.61
623.73
1 77.66
596.8?
203.60
635.6*
192.21
716.9?
507.97
17ft. ft •»
271.12
55H.5?
l«6.«ft
6S1 . ftS •
b30.91
173.03
255. «5
0.7'»
2.1--
3.H 1
ft . 1 *•
1 .5'.
3.31
2.5ft
5.1 7
1 . '< •'
3.7^
2.0'.
ft. 7*
1 .9/»
0.71
0.52
ft. 76
1.2H
ft.M
1 .39
3. ft"
1 . 7 <
5.2H
ft.<*->
2 . f ' '-
0.9 >
5.21
1.7-
s.o-
3.ns
2.^-1
0.7-^
*• t ' • *
1 . 2"
i"-.* 1
7.21
1 1 .'<"
i \. n
ft i ."?
".(")
V7. 1 ^
1^.7*-
.< 7.21
<',4ft
3' .11
••i . ^ft
3'-'. 1'J
3i. 1 3
1 3.?7
•^.ftf)
« '. 1 <*
1 1 ,'1M
.* ;<.?'">
.' . *O
< -4 . •' ?
.- ,rt7
I2.D1
•'•(I.')H
?->.?!
1 i.'-iS
'»(.-
-------
Table 56
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission For Denver 1971 Model year cars (22 Vehicles)
MC
3
it
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
IS
16
17
IB
19
20
21
23
2*.
2S
26
?7
2*
29
30
31
32
HAG
12. «2
14.M
6.71
b.-'4
2.14
7. »7
2.23
S. i; 3
3.7(1
7.-.11
3.^3
3.SS
H. /O
3.14
7.22
4.10
10. 2
6.73
i it
r,*/"
271.0.1
5 ^ • ^* rt
-(-'I.
13/.I 3
3' .76
221.72
.4.3
r.S7
31.S9
Ifi ..SI
32. .^7
37.35
177.67
Z.-'.S**
b.^./'fi
3"^4
lb^.71
b/,-17
10.'.. TO
^73.07
b27.7H
564.96
201.44
SnP.OH
1S1.61
213.22
b!5.6T
lfft.62
669.3H
200.06
7S1.0b
51H.99
177.63
704.76
537.94
1HU.O?
277.lt
4.3-
O.b"
2.1 1
4.3'.
l.S/
r.7i
4.M
0.4^
0.4^
S.I i
1 .0^
<* . 3 >
1.11'
S.l-
4.IM
1.7f.
,Jf,
1 l.
1 1
•»!
06
11 . 17
1.4 V. »1
4.4) i.\*
3.1 • 1. -•>
OMUH 1. Irt
12.33
S.M6
3./I
30MPH 3.u7
4SMPH ii.-i7
60MPH 2.^3
I/. 09 e.9.7h
3". 22
b72.77
396.21
- «. n
/.-,<*
I 1. /"
17 . ,J 7
4.7
L ECONOMY IN
FMISSIONS IN
iAL EXCFPT 0
FOR 0
-------
Table 57
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission for Denver 1972 Model year Cars (25 Vehicles)
MODE
kjf\
Nl ' •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?3
24
2^
?6
27
?a
29
30
31
32
RAG
OM«JH
SMPH
IOMPH
15MPH
30MPH
4SMt>H
60MPH
HC
11.14
4.92
13.69
6.10
4,52
2.17
6.-J1
2.21
4. J?
3.64
7.03
4.41
7. JO
3.i'9
3.43
8.2H
7.^4
3.?7
6.47
4.?0
9.-S6
4.52
9.61
5.00
3.01
5.16
•3.B6
4.36
8.04
6.14
2.99
5.13
4.97
1.04
12.21
b.13
3.62
3.10
2.64
t!.57
FUEL ECONOMY
ro
_. _ fl • 4
• v*v«i^ ^,
217.66
5^.57
23*. ?0
11 1.-34
7<-. 68
2. '.7^
22". 48
22.71
9/.05
2<- . 6 1
20-.. 53
2-. 26
18-.. n3
2:1. 5rt
3^.74
12^.0'»
16^.22
Zr.Qf
13/.9H
3-. 34
28-^.3*
3^.77
15^.74
11«.H7
2^.03
53.4-1
12-1.72
3.1.30
1 3" . 1 M
17<-.*0
2S.16
54.15
8".4«
1".75
18. -.71
8^.?9
53.10
2/.40
2^.16
34.02
IN "I/-
rn?
/r« 1 _•__•_•>.
I™
854.13
2H1.77
949.55
615.85
5?8.66
1^6.64
534.43
2nft.l?
5?0.22
106.34
596.99
204.85
641.14
1*»9.0*
209. OM
535.10
670.00
191. SI
639.31
225.52
6S5.9*
2"*>.89
769.81
533.2?
182.71
2R6.49
b-5S.46
21 1.01
6l»5.7ft
555.94
1H1.18
276.54
407. HO
69.26
8*0.39
5*5.69
404.79
2^3. 9S
316.94
380.81
iflL EXCFPT
f'MX Fi'f'l.
»^^ ((""('^l
<» . 7 •'• t . ^ 1
0.5<' >?.-\H
I.Qf h.s?
3.3^ l'.'.-»6
<».bS 1 J.<»4
).2o r->.^4
3.5.-- •-».•5
0.07 -V./O
U.7^ 7.'^
C.4J 1P.J7
0.3> 17.76
O.H ^1.59
2.9.< P4.65
5. In ?u.i>6
0 v •-, it* MlN/RAL
00
EMISSIONS IN GM/HlN FOR 0
-------
Table 58
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission For Denver 1973 Model Year Cars (27 Vehicels)
MODE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2*.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
OMPH
5MPH
10MPH
15MPH
30MPH
45MPH
60MPH
MC
11.78
2.66
11.08
5. 42
4.47
1.49
6.88
1.72
4.49
2.93
7.60
3.66
7.81
2.67
1.80
5.01
8.26
2.37
6.53
3.07
9.99
3.70
8.62
5.18
2.44
2.64
6.59
3.38
7.72
6.34
2.50
2.85
4.55
0.71
7.59
3.70
2.31
1.69
1.78
2. 18
CO
305.44
53.34
26b.86
133.47
109.25
21.06
264.11
25.67
132.89
24.72
260.40
27.67
244.17
24.92
33.5*
125.80
225.57
26.33
183.51
33.46
349.25
32.08
188.90
156.50
24.28
49.14
191.26
32.30
167.68
221.90
24.61
51.08
106.92
lt>. 85
181.55
8H.26
57.35
32.49
26.32
41.93
C02
839.64
295.23
973.00
6?3.23
527.04
193.18
574.68
213.60
518.69
204.10
590.36
213.53
631.36
196.90
227.35
540.72
658.30
197.39
633.67
232.27
648.69
215.78
762.84
534.95
193.28
307.55
579.91
220.02
689.45
552.57
188.41
291.61
410.09
66.43
821.85
532.05
404.34
307.18
317.95
375.26
NO*
3.84
0.6H
1.6H
2.74
3.73
1.18
2.88
1.80
4.45
1.39
3.3S
1.4*
4.11
1.43
0.47
0.42
3.99
0.96
4.10
1.04
3.01
1.28
3.74
4.13
1.4H
0.62
4.27
1.30
3.34
3.42
1.51
0.51
2.50
0.05
0.58
0.41
0.37
1.00
2.61
4.08
FUEL
ETON
b.54
?2.90
6.22
10.44
12.45
38.4?
8.77
34.22
11.97
35.19
8.f>7
33.04
B.54
36.29
31.06
11.77
8.54
36.06
9.41
30.13
7.22
31.93
8.17
11.13
37.11
22.57
9.85
31-.53
v.08
9.63
37.77
23.30
14.98
93. 2«
7.85
13.00
17.69
24.41
24.32
19. 81
FUEL 'ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCEPT 0 MPH IN MIN/GAL,
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOR 0 MPH.
-------
Table 59
Fy75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission For Denver 1974 Model Year Cars (27 Vehicles)
MODE
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
?0
?j
22
23
24 '
25
26
?7
?8
29
30
31
32
RAG
OMPH
SHPH
1 OMPH
15MPH
30MPH
45MPH
60MPH
FUEL t
HO
11.72
2.^8
12.15
5.45
4.13
1.67
8.10
1.-/9
4.34
3.16
7.13
3. "8
7.0
2.78
2.18
5.H7
8.07
2. '4
6.25
3.^2
10. '08
3.H6
8. '8
4. -'6
2.71
3.08
6.13
3.66
7.^5
5.^5
2.-31
3. <**
4. 70
0.".?
9. IS
3.-<7
2.77
1.71
1.77
2.14
I 0 C02 N'tX
26^.45 d21.8S
53.67
25". 61
13^.93
10s.?2
2-. 07
23/ .9?
2f.hr
133.44
2*.K4
24 '.IS
2^. 1 •<
22H.*»9
2^.11
34.57
115.76
20«. 3V
27.89
1 71* . 9 J
3** .00
31 7.?8
33.23
19S.54
15^.52
2- .17
4^. a 3
181.81
33.46
17s. t>7
21--.17
2^.4^
5'.. 56
10'.. 41
1^.59
174. *>4
9". 06'
6^.76
3^.44
31 .74
4f>.!7
IN MJ /(,
2P4.00
^45. 60
5°0. 15
514.64
190.60
583.09
216.76
517.26
201 .94
587.89
2ll9.28
6?5.9?
193.73
220.16
533.20
b42.23
192.63
615.48
226.01
655.93
212. 4^
747.61
5?0.3l
190.40
298.37
-370. 3n
218.21
&77.41
<344. 13
188.24
2«3.03
406.72
65.70
8P5.36
512.67
37H.03
295.19
3?4.10
385.19
>(. EXCrp)
3.54
0 . 4 '•>
1 .5<*
2.1"
3.4<*
f..7.
3.31
1.3J
3.94
1 . ft •'
3.5'-,
1 . 1 '
4. IT
l.OH
0.3'i
0.4?
3.7S
0 . h <
3.5'
0.67
3.bl
(1.91
3.3»
3.5s
1.11
0.5s
.l.H^<
O.t*^
2.5-
3.4 •!
1.0-,
0.4 /
2.17
0.0H
*. / ' 1
r « i
>> <.M
^.. TK
r • . 7 3
1 -' . - 1
3/.^*
> . i.i 3
3 1.30
11.5°.
."•"••.'-I3
•' .'-i^
3 ) . 1 ;>
»• .^0
.1''.44
31 .-,4
1 ,• . 1 n
•"• . 9 ?
3»-.20
••.f,7
3( ,t;7
7.4K
3 -*..:> 5
- ..-"1
1 1 . ?'->
3- . -ji^
/» 1 . 0 «>
11.14
31 .43
^.07
'•'.-^
:-.1.76
1^.1^
C -, ,f>T
7.r(A
1 i. <1
! • .^?
r"-.->2
<.i.
-------
Table 60
Fy75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions For Denver 1975 Model Year Cars (28 Vehicles)
MODE
HO
"I1.* •
1
2
3
it
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
1«
19
?0
21
22
?3
24-
?5
?6
27
?8
?9
30
31
32
R4G
OMPH
Sf'PH
IOMPH
ISMPH
30MHH
45MPH
60MPH
5.J9
1.-S5
5.11
2.ri?
2.05
0.'*7
4. no
1.02
2.19
1 .'»7
4. 14
1 .48
4. ('9
1.4?
1.35
3. •>?
3.V7
1.44
3.X7
1.H7
5.f>5
2.00
4..M
2.-->3
1. in
1 .^4
3.04
1.76
3.^4
3. "5
1 .26
1.81
2.33
0.12
3. /9
1 •'•">
1.31
0.<*3
0.77
0.99
3.3!l9
16^.H6
811.6ft
66.7-*
1'-. lb>
24] .R9
2.;. 60
llr.30
17.20
23/.()b
1^.73
211.32
lc ,P6
24.^6
7*. 76
153.50
21.47
13^.02
2^.2s>
3lr .3d
2<-.nr»
127. H8
13''.94
2". 3 3
3^.04
13^.76
2r . 1 2
lli-.l'i
197. ft2
2;.. 19
31.36
85 . ft<»
M.H1
9^!lft
4H.52
21.91*
1ft. 5ft
17.37
2^.36
.319.87
1033.4ft
6c.9.n 1
S71 .Hi)
21?. Oft
619.77
2.15.70
5ft2.23
2?4.56
648.81
239.59
701.01
212.9ft
234.72
596.88
741.01
213. ft*
697. OH
2S?.i)H
7?1 .90
237.94
85ft. 56
575.19
211.02
3??. 77
6S2.21
2^4. 5>>
771.9ft
^02.1 ft
212.24
318.29
448.63
75. 7M
9<-6.?2
571 .b»
396.4"
319.33
353.7?
418.85
4.01
0.4O
1 .fl
2.^''
3. I"
0.6^
3.4 •
1 .?•<
3.*- I
(l.H <
3.3-
f i . 9 y
3 . f 1
11.9)
0.4'«
0 . 4 :*
3.71
0.47
3.5 /
0 .4v)
3 . '-' '•>
0.Q.'J
3.3-
3.13--
0 .9-f
o.h>->
3.f • «
u.b\
?.5 -
3.1°
0.9-
O.^/
2.11
o.o -i
(1 .84
0.4S
0.3-
1.2'-
1.3"
3. OS
/ . '.' 7
/ <.il
-, . yq
'I .in
1 S . - 9
<-,.
1 1 .•>'•>
'<•-. ^'t
-i.^'i
:' •• . ^ i
•• .43
< T.^1-)
-'I . '«?
1 '/ , 1^
H. -)?
1 • • . ? ?
l..',f'
''^.HI
7.^1
11 .4ft
-1. -"^
1 1 .r"1
'«".. '••' ?
-• \. il«»
1 '•• . 1 ?
<1 ,1ft
• ; . <' -s
•<.'•!
?'-. 7"
> <./7
is.,.,
'•7.^7
••i . 1 ft
13.. -4
I tj . -' Q
•*•••. '.'f
'-"'.14
1 -'.'-'1
i
OO
tCONOMY IN
EMISSIONS IN
E*CL~PT 0 N>> •" 1';
n MPH.
-------
Table 61
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Denver 1976 Model Year cars (34 Vehicles)
MODE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1«
19
• 20
?1
22
?3
24
25 '
2ft
27
28
29
30
31
32
R«0 '
OMPH
SMPH
10MPH
1SMPH
30>"PH
45MPH
fiOMPH
HC
6.22
1.61
6.0A
2.H6
2.12
0.7fl
3.63
0.*6
2. in
1.2ft
3.94
1.53
3.93
1.05
1.10
3.37
3.^9
l.Uft
3.17
1.S3
5.36
l.ifc
3.95
2.63
0.^6
1.-59
3.17
l.el
3.5ft
3.^1
0."7
l.SH
2.26
O.S1
6. J4
3.28
2.(>4
O.-^l
0.74
1.03
in
201. S9
2'). 17
14/.52
8^.62
7H.32
13.76
2 17. 9ft
1*.2H
106.05
1^.06
21:1.12
lf>.91
193. S2
1^.26
1«.98
6<».82
160.15
1^.93
13^.97
1^.17
297.15
1H.25
11^.52
13^.54
lf>.02
29. 5W
143.41
lv.31
103.1*
181.3ft
17.39
26. S6
7'i.S9
11.4*
127.f..l
66. 9b
4<».19
1H.49
13.03
2b.H6
C02
902.33
297.10
1002.2ft
630.5ft
54S.98
207.33
625.64
239. SS
551.02
217.87
6SS.21
234. 6«
fn2.4<>
215.04
230.59
5*e.54
726.41
211.65
677.79
243.52
7?l.h9
235.08
837.5]
5f6.53
213.38
339.20
6&4.15
237.44
754. 3S
593.43
216. 7«»
1.9«S
0.0*.
0.f>->
0.4S
0.3H
0.93
1.6b
3.37
HT|
*• •. '"••'
/.!«•
?">.SO
/.o*
1 \ .4*.
n.n
3''.3^
w..|«,
31.13
}f.<"^
3^.14
>'.»•.«;
3 .« . 3S
•*.s»
3^. S3
33.^3
1.<.43
«.9»>
3'..^^
t(.M#,
31.17
'.3<>
3^.v9
-..ss
ii.. n
T...74
??. ?0
1;'.00
3/^.S'
>i.S7
v. vP
:v-.^l
^^.->h
IN. SI
1 ln.-^Q
'•.17
1".14
?:>. ^7
?"..i =
?^.S<»
1 ^ . 1 "
00
oo
I
FUEL 6CONOMY IN MI/GftL EXCK^T 0 MPH IN --1I
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOH 0 n(-H.
-------
Table 62
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission for Denver 1975 and 1976 Light Duty Trucks (17 Vehicles)
MODE
Ufi
f"il 1 •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
RAG
OMBH
S^^H
10MPH
15MPH
30'*PH
^^MUH
60M^H
MC
7.20
1.73
4.S9
3.07
1.14
O.MQ
3.33
0.95
1.59
1.25
3.34
I.ft7
3.44
1.11
0.^4
j.?o
4.45
1.32
3.11
1 .SH
•5.15
1 .46
4.24
2.20
1 .16
1.^4
2. HI
1.49
4.10
3.11
1.15
1.45
2.02
O.-l
4.93
2.31
1.70
O.nO
0.70
0.72
< n
25.72
10'7.3h 1
67.04
5<*.5b
1*. 02
217. 49
Ift.Hrt
63.32
13.4')
17?. 24
15.3B
15^.53
1««.24
11 .01
5?. 66
14«* .91
1^.09
13i; .20
2!>.33
271-. .37
17.59
111'. 53
104.31
15.53
2" .73
103. 1'9
17.14
107. Q7
1R1 .09
I'-'.Jd
17.92
66.9'i
7.Sh
BM.?M 1
3^.4B
2^>.6ri
14.52
14.49
22.72
C02
937. 5«
378. 9S
113.9ft
bfi7 .49
5H9.52
267.91
667. 4S
309.54
636.15
27^.41
7??. 83
301 .62
773.71
273.01
306.63
720.74
77K.79
272.99
709.91
316.12
7ft9.07
3nf).42
843.65
631.44
271.4ft
4ns. BP
712.2?
3P2.65
B13.R7
639.11
275.84
3«0.79
5,1.44
"4.34
0?ft .OH
613. H3
454.33
367. 4fi
340.97
445.35
M'.X
3.4 <
0.4'J
1.93
1.7-i
2.f <
11.57
2.M
1 .5ft
3.77
1.0'.
3.ft<»
1.1 ^
4.21
1.11
tl.4-
0.5>-
3.41
0.5'-1
3.3?
o.si
3.2''
1.0 i
3.2?
3.21-
1.1-
n.ft 7
4. 1 1
1 . (M
2.5ft
2.7.
1.2-*
0.5-^
2.0ft
0.1"
n.4?
0.5'
0.4T
O.HS
1.4/
3. 4 3
, h"'.":L
/."l
;••>!. -
-.. ^
UI.^H
) 3.H3
?'>.ftB
M. 71
'• ft . 1 7
1 1.9«
?'V. 20
H. ,rt4
^(,. n i
•^.ftl
24.^9
?ft.ft4
1 " . V 1
•^.70
?0.fl4
•a . • , o
r"~>. 1 1
7.29
?ft.ft3
H.-M
1 ] ,'ift
?^.f.3
c'0.0?
1 n.fi«;
?ft.K^
W.'->1
O.SI
?•*. 1 7
r'O.vft
!4.,->4
•i.T.'»4
7.-,?
1 2.ft5
17. /5
c' > . o 1
?1 .34
I*>.ft4
I
00
RL ECONOMY IN MI/G^L EXCEPT u
^MISSIONS IN GM/MJU row o «PH.
-------
Table 63
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions For Houston 1976 Model Year Cars (34 Vehicles)
MOOC
hi 1*1
N» J •
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?3
24.
25
26
27
?8
29
30
31
32
SAO
OMPh
SMPH
IOMPH
15MPH
30MPH
45MPH
60MPH
HC
3.59
O.H9
4.o2
1.U2
0.*9
0.*2
1.^7
0.34
G.-<5
0.90
1.55
l."5
l.«»9
0.64
0. »R
1.92
1.70
0.^4
1.45
1.03
2. 10
1.06
2.29
0.^5
0.57
O.M
1.21
1.-4
2.<>4
1.25
0.<»6
0.74
1..19
0."7
5. 42
2.H2
1.7S
0.^6
0.44
0.33
( r»
_ f- L« i
6*>.67
V.74
8f ,HM
2^.03
11.01
1.98
60.95
2.14
1-.91
3.77
4U.85
4.30
36.64
2.99
5.R7
S> . 04
33.97
4.07
27.42
6.72
8(1.67
*>.H1
4L.72
21.11
3.01
1 •• . 1 <*
2^.42
*.77
37.46
3'».60
3.33
12.47
It. 31
1 'I . 1 6
11S.26
4ft. S7
3H.52
3.0**
1.35
1.97
C02
1100. 9«
375.52
1194.90
753. 4S
656.69
23R.53
821.20
257.29
66R.57
251.3')
831.17
268.26
873.10
241.1K
279.69
705. OB
HR4.05
247.36
823.44
293.00
953.47
273.90
979.29
700.51
23^.86
3*4.74
77R.49
273. 1?
H78.3P
7S9.93
235. 9S
371.17
522.56
R2.24
9Q3.50
5VR.61
404.53
354.40
3R3.9P
453. 8«
NOR
«<.9A
1.01
3.17
3. ft.)
5.2"
0.9<»
7.4.J
1.9^
6.72
1.31
R.3<»
1.5s
8.7*
1.4<
U.9)
0.9>
7.51
0.77
6.7-+
0.8-.
1.H?
1.3*
h.2'i
6.V*,
1.5)
1.2-
7.*r
1.33
5.2<.
7.3?
1.6^
1.1-
4.13
O.U
1.42
C.7^
0.4'(
1.4-
1.87
4.22
^ I'r.l
7.^-5
2/^.55
6,S>>
1 1 .0-5
13.11
.f..Sl
••*.e.2
M.^l
12.7"
3^.13
>./9
•»1 .^9
^.40
;^.nn
.•-.59
11.1"
l'.*1
^.70
1^.1"
2^. ^3
-«. lfc
.•(i>.-<<>
f .nS
1 --.o--.
.^.o2
'-•P. OS
10.70
:<«i.39
-.«.')
In.AS
.'r..T'<
2/e.3«
I'-.on
>- -J . o l
I .u,t*
l^.^R
1 '.3-1
^i.so
^2.^i»
1^.3^
I
10
o
FUEL ECONOMY IN Ml/OflL EXCEPT 0 M.-n |M :-T-i/r,A|
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOR 0 "I-H.
-------
Table 64
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Houston 1976 Model year Light Duty Trucks (10 Vehicles)
MOOE MC <.0 CO2 *nlX K-.-i
NO. G'-I/M ^r.r~1
1 7.J9 99.44 1027.93 9.2" /.
2 2.16 Aip.SS 339.41 O.S'. 21. i
3 «.21 173.46 1120.70 2.0M *.,
4 2.-i>7 5H.56 faQ3.5? ?.0n 1|,
5 l.i>? lt^.64 61B.53 7.24 ri.
6 0.44 S.71 237.OA 1.42 3-,.
7 l.«*7 3.H.*7 813.65 9.5*1 in.,
8 0.26 e.74 260.96 2.31 :<:<.
9 O.b7 f^.'ib 662.17 8.f-..| l;i.
10 1.^5 '>.20
11 I.b3 44.Art
12 2.16 ?.«J3
13 1.'3 37.(*S ri45.44 10.7^. ^.f-
14 1.1ft S.ftH 242.6*. 1.7S .lu.f;
15 l.'ll 2o.40 2"St>.12 O.hl 2).^.'
16 3. ?.S 10f>.3? 669.93 0.4i. l.i.^t
17 3.12 6f..(>4 M37.67 9.0^ ~.M
13 1.49 11.73 2'-2.3n 1.14 Ti.^'
19 2.'13 41.71 773.17 M.*.^ la.^f
• 20 2.44 17.07 278.14 1.1*> 2-.1'
21 3.08 6V.13 918.4S 1o.34 «.s*
22 2.19 11.31 270.24 1.7-- 3'.n'
23 4.23 7b.JO 914.(>1 M.O-' .".u>
24 0.73 11.31 6«4.67 V.3/ !>-.-.,<
2b ' 0.99 S.i)4 237.80 1 .«*- 3s. t>»
26 1.^0 39.49 3S2.70 0.77 ^l.l<
27 l. 2.0'i 3">.**'
32 1.91 4J.ftl 342.77 0.^" «•!.*'
RAG ' 1.68 24.4S
OMPH 1.D2 1H.79 70.00 0.0-^ >-^.17
5MPH 10.13 22*.01 flP0.9T 0.40 ',.^t.
10MPH 3.72 lOti.03 624.21 i'.42. 11.19
l^MPH 2. <•? 6».iib 4^5.24 H.33 lb.16
30MPH 0.93 24.97 321.95 0.9« ?4.37
0.3H ' 4.R6 3M2.6H 2.4> <•'-'.67
0.16 o.b2 ««29.9h 4.2rt 'd ' . Sft
FDtC fcCONOMY IN Ml/i»fU EXCFPT 0 Mm J-j ~iII,/r,AL,
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FO^ 0 -'M-i.
-------
Table 65
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Los Angeles 1970 Model Year Cars (20 Vehicles)
"ODE
»»/*
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
RAG
HC
7.35
3.30
9.56
3.95
2.^3
2.38
3.96
2.45
2.^1
3.44
3.*5
4.4A
3.*1
3.11
3.05
6.20
4.47
3.08
3.14
3.94
4.62
4.23
5.78
2.47
2.*4
3.84
3.24
3.95
5.15
2.72
2.67
3.90
3.31
CO
f* fcJ /
C02
39.59
136.45
3*. 05
IS. 46
1^.58
61.82
1".94
1^.4«
17.61
4«. .57
22.31
31 .26
13.77
2<« . 15
11". 62
3^.?9
17.90
3i .83
2-3.71
64.94
2<> .86
61 ,4B
1^.59
1J.25
33.52
27.47
20.72
53.«»5
2u.80
1-1.28
37.27
27.00
326.42
954.21
658.54
550.49
*J?1 .26
667.3?
267.65
558.98
225.37
6P6.02
242.09
682.37
265.22
299.77
607.05
6H1 .89
262.41
592.65
288.13
722.89
2'<3.9?
741 .65
492.32
322.30
446.36
583.86
309.76
6?9.10
495.80
344.96
412.35
441.70
NOX
12. 1H
1.01
4.5'
7.6')
9.73
2.0^
10. 6S
3.6 -
11.31
2.31
12. 9S
2.6l
12.9n
3.3*
1.37
1.00
11.9?
2.2'-
9.6'.
2.4S
12.1 I
3. ?M
9.3.1
9.?9
4.51
1.9^
11.29
3.h4
6.5,?
9.13
5.2'.
1.5*
6.50
F'.ir.L
nf 1
'1
?t .?<*
7.40
1 ^.^^
l1-..^"
3S.71
11.42
3.1.33
1^.01
33.6?
1 I.h6
3 II. 4 ft
11. 79
29.91
?l>.b<5
11.09
11.71
c>V.SS
U. 5S
^^.01
M.S7
?n.KS
1 0 . 36
lh.H7
''"-'. 21
17.36
1 3.93
?•->. 'Jl
12.17
16. b?
'd J.71
1H.36
1 7.94
VO
N)
I
QMPH 0.)2 16.16 65.39 O.OS Q4.69
5MPH 10.11 190.68 840.37 0.61 7.57
10l*PH
15MPH
30MPH
45MPH
60MPH
4.33
2.73
1.64
l.tJl
1.91
76.08
41.68
12.28
S.88
11.08
b98.34
447. 7S
322.69
335.35
395. 2H
0.6?
0.^3
1 .''^
4.5S
7.3<*
1?. 13
17.01
^5.56
--S.33
21.19
FUEL ECONOMY IN MlA.flL EXCEPT 0 MOH IN
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOW 0 MPH.
-------
Table 66
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Los AngeJ.es 1971 Model Year Cars (22 Vehicles)
MOOE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
If
19
20
21
22
23 .
24
25
26
?7
28
29
30
31
32
PAG
OMPH
5MPH
10KPH
15MPH
31MO)-j
45MPH
60HPH
HC
9.54
3.77
11.59
5.V3
4.46
2. /ft
6.4?
2.*2
4.?n
3.?4
5.*7
4.1*
5.73
3.30
3.?.9
6.9»
5.-J5
3.26
5.07
4.11
6.H6
4.?6
7 ,40
4.nis
3. ?4
4.iif)
4.M?
3.9f>
6.S7
4.'»5
3.sl
4.*4
4. (3
1.H7
12.™
5. /?
3. /3
2.-V3
2.^7
2. /R
CO C02
NOX
39^77
161.29
5-*.2'>
34. 14
lb.75
124.H
1-1.58
41.3'*
2'!.*ilJ
7«.7u
2^. 16
6-'. 68
2 'i.9ft
2H.1.1
10^.6^
63. 4S
22. ^<^
51 .20
3'1. ^B
122. 7J
27.35
8S.39
4'". 2^
2^.30
40.07
5ti. 10
2».37
73.10
5^.78
?5.23
4>.7H
4'1,-IS
lu.3,
163.15
7',.^b
4J.?0
lV.%4
17.13
2^.59
351. 5S
1 197.7?
76^. (S3
b?2. 7B
237.67
743.09
2"9. If*
622.74
250.92
7^7.6^
239.74
774.84
2ft6.5(S
324.98
650.02
7M9.24
278.40
715.13
320.52
H)l. 53
2^5.60
877.31
578.32
303.39
4^4.69
6V?. 77
315.7;*
7fi7.2i*
5^5.50
332.63
440. hf
4,4.54
74.73
929.7?
592. 2rt
446.62
354. 7. M
J71.4?
"34.93
0.99
4.39
5.9?
rt.ll
1.77
d. 14
3.14
9.9K
2.31
10.H*
2.35
10.99
2.91
1.1H
0.71
9.6a
1.83
H.hii
1 .9f;
9.67
2.^3
7.2**
8.45
3. n<>
1.9?
9.91
3.11
5.74
rt. 1 -)
4.4>
l.e^
5.4'J
o.io
O.P''
0.5 •
0.4-1
1 .4?
3.54
b.tio
Fra
7.04
20.M3
b. yis
10.2?
12. h5
32. S4
9.?^
30. H 3
1 2.^*
30.2H
'-. /c'
30.47
y.r<3
2^.->3
23. <«
in.nl
c». /P
?7. 37
1 0 . -) 3
23.23
H.O5
2S.?1
K.SP
1 1.0^
2-5.43
1 f-. . <-, 7
11 .57
? t. /i
'.-1
1 /•' . -1 '?
23. 14
lf>.9*>
1...5
n-<.^n
/.24
1^.15
1 1 . 3 *
'Ss '.«*'•
2 ! . rt 3
1-^.34
to
I
FUEL ECONOMY IN Ml/G^L E^CF.PT n MMI-,
FM1SS10NS IN GM/MIN FOR 0 "PH.
j.% ^
-------
Table 67
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Los Angeles 1972 Model Year Cars (25 Vehicles)
MOO£
MA
™\/ •
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24 •
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
RAG
OVIPH
SMPH
10MPH
15KPH
30HPH
45MPH
ftOMPH
HC
7. IS
1.H9
7.64
3.51
2.7R
1.7?
5.02
l.*5
2.70
2.*9
5.32
3. 15
3.28
2.u3
1.*?
3.?7
4.M
2.1?
2.<*8
2.54
4. 14
2. IS
4.S5
1.^6
1 . '8
2.?3
2.39
2.41
5. ~7
2.-<8
!.<•»*
2.26
2.»7
o.ss
6. 16
2.^9
1.7S
1.0 1
1.03
0.4(6,
rn
^ f I*
..._ .f^M
7r>.06
27.65
106.42
31. 9d
lh.42
7.49
10u.3.+
7.87
3''. 57
11.23
81.41
13.42
57.13
1-.90
1^.0?
72.31
4S.S7
11.07
33.18
14.37
113.84
13.09
52.71
22.93
*.SS
lv.31
se.oo
1 3 . P 7
51.54
42.39
l'i.12
22.94
31.31
10.71
117. ?7
4.1.73
2J.02
*.84
5.82
7.90
C02
XU T ___
/I* I ^^^^^«»«
1091.38
403.07
• 1223.99
764.83
623.83
281.41
707.95
340. 6»>
621.08
243.04
778.93
325.04
79T.33
332.50
3M.B7
dl0.7"»
3P8.65
338. d7
7r,5.2S
392.91
800. 10
373.00
693.67
5*3.75
407.95
560.80
674.50
401.21
718.50
560.18
437.87
494.10
532.55
85.41
1041.H)
60S. 07
515. 8U
398.03
397.21
461 .98
MOX
e.24
0.8S
3 . 4 }
4.4 f
7.16
1.97
7.03
3.92
H.6-
2.6'»
8.83
3.07
9.23
3.62
1.11
0.63
W.<»S
2.4*,
6.6.:.
2.54
'.62
3.6.?
5.61
7.4/
4.77
1.76
8.6u
3.H»>
3.9«
6.7"
5.5'
1.51
S.2-.
0.06
0.6^
0.5 )
0.6n
1.1H
3.67
6.6S
F.'M.
F- 1> . . .
i- 1 .'
7.1')
l''.(-|
r-.^f
In. 74
13.4?
2-. 7?
):'..|0
2u. 73
13 . 1 0
27.^6
4.M
24.-J.3
4,-ii
2s. 15
22. f«5
4. SO
'"' . 4 ?
2<..HC;
1 1.60
2f.4*,
-.44
p^.,)11;
f. . •-»<,
i <* . '••=;
2-i. M
1^.14
12.04
2. .^5
!• ."1
1.1. '»5
l^..'5l
16. S?
l^.'i?
H-5. 35
'.13
1 1 ,l>7
r-..^?
21. b4
21 ,*7
M.S9
I
VO
_ ECONOMY IN Ml/("iAL EXCEPT 0 H'«i I,i -1
EMISSIONS IN GH/MIN TOR 0
-------
Table 68
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Los Angeles 1973 Model Year Cars (27 Vehicles)
MODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 '
25
?6
27
28
29
30
31
32
PAG
OMPh
SMuh
10M(Jh
15M°M
30MPH
45MPH
60MPH
FUEL
nr
5
?
6
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
'£
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
0
H
6
3
1
1
1
I.
() f.')2 N
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
?7
V9
13
,>2
(JR
OS
30
12
nc;
••7
•^6
<>4
67
53
^9
^3
:>O
99
99
••
IN
.30
.32
.6t>
.'-10
.fi?
.77
.4V
.23
.64
.44
.ft 7
.57
. ?n
.20
.52
.R4
,4f1
.21
.17
.66
.03
.67
.35
.53
.54
.71
.13
."2
.02
.? r
.6<*
.SR
.00
.St>
.03
.17
.03
.47
.85
Ml/(
3^5
1155
7?!?
6?7
277
71 9
300
^0 I
4
.95
.57
.61
,R4
.57
.37
.17
.7*
.5«
.7S
.30
.2li
.44
• 1^
.04
.53
.6H
.01
.19
.07
.*!
.66
.20
.17
.41
.9=;
.77
.17
.01
.57
.94
.HS
.77
.HI
4
1
4
S
7
1
8
3
•i
2
10
'.'.
4
?
1
0
H
1
7
1
V
2
6
fi
3
1
7
2
4
6
3
I
4
(i
0
'?
n
1
3
6
•T 0
~- k -' i 1
r , • j I
. 5 ( / . • i •'
. r-^i r/.^i
,2V -.66
.(, \ 11. IIP
.2 1 l.S.'f
.91 /-.. n
.H.I l'..';6
. 0-; ^^.-^
.44 ) 1. >7
.17 '•!.}*
.0'' Jl. .17
.4-! '•>••>. ^6
. Sk 1 .1 . ?6
.Si ?s.-i^
. 0 '- .-> 5 . ^ 1
* h^ ] "l • 1 7
.43 l-l.ll
.7'; ^-,.l«
.3 i 11 .(3^
.9* 71. S3
. 0>i '.2?
.4-1 ;*s.'-j'.'
.61 •*.<•<
.7^ |^."7
.4-.) ,'«.74
.^1 1 T. Jl
.>"- 11. "I
.(••' ? 1 . "Ji
.9.1 lii.Vft
.7 - 1 >.4S
. •* 1 ^ ! . « 1
,2i> 1-..^^
.h<» 1~-.S1
.06 >-..?!
.7- ^.[S
• f*3 11.^7
. t>«. 1 *•• . •- 3
.3 i > 1 . "H
.4' ->l.<«3
.OM 1-^.7'S
M.-.M IM ,-iI-j/r,fl|
I
vO
IN
-------
Table 69
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Los Angeles 1974 Model Year Cars (27 Vehicles)
MOOli HC CO CO?
NO. ——. G'V»-'I (-roM
1 10.39 h^.SV 1151.00 6.17 f^70
2 3.33 22.03 4?4.2
5 4.»5 29.58 669.15 <».2" 12.17
6 2.HR 7.96 2PH.44 0.9Q 2*.<>?
7 6.16 11S.R2
8 3.07 ".19
9 3.11 51.38 638.37 b.l^J 12.18
10 3.08 9.07 298.67 1.2' ?7.S')
11 7.20 97.37 815.2S 6.8) *.l>6
12 4.23 12.19 32^.37 1.4- ^»<».52
14 3.05 *.t»2 327.41 1.71 ^.29
IS 2.23 l.'i.23 397.4>» 0.74 r-n.M?
16 S.v3 5^,56 84?.60 0.7^ o.jj
17 7.20 67,82 «JiSl.49 5.PS rt.96
Id 3.OS lf;.?4 334.Si l.O/. i^*.i3
19 5.75 6«*.84 760.70 fe.6--< l<-.26
20 3.74 1<«. 25 387.64 1.1^ ?1.(|4
21 .7.70 129.R4 876.23 6.(S- p.r»3 •
22 3.81 1^.74 JS8.30 1.7» ??,73 ON
23 7.&1 5^.63 9Uf,.i? 4.0'» -<..n '
J4 *,08 43.92 610.09 4.4J J^.HT
25 2.39 ^.98 3M4.<»n 2.3', £-1.^9
26 3.SO 22.8t> 549.77 1.11 li.^7
27 S.78 5*-.87 726.72 5.S' ]n.64
28 3.48 l/'.aO 38S.92 1.9? -M.31
29 S.^9 4S.20 829.21 2.9 i H.f,7
30 4.65 60.18 6?5.7fc 4,S'i 12.07
31 2.98 12.11 414.31 2.^' ?c.04
32 3.72 24.38 5nl.71 1.0*« I*.'j8
BftG 4.27 3^.84 SSI.47 3.27 l^.^S
OMOH 0.94 9.29 P6.M O."r^ "S.19
SM^H 10.23 9.3.32 10L>7.4H n.7-'* ^i.^S
10MPH <*. 11.03
1SMPH 2.77 2f-..93 5J6.90 «.'"> lc-.*3
30MJM 1.98 V.7S> 411.18 1.0* i"l.Sl
45MPH 1.77 6.79 422.76 1 .M/. ?.i,31
60MUH 1.71 V.66 477.7S 3.9-; l/.^l
ECONOMY IN Ml/OAL EXCK^T 0 »"l> IN MlN/r,A(
^MISSIONS IN GH/MIN FOB 0
-------
Table 70
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Los Angeles 1975 Model Cars (28 Vehicles)
MDOE
HO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
IB
19
• 20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
2H
29
30
31
32
PftG
HC
( O
O.JO
0.31
1.23
O.J*
0.33
O.M
0. 78
O.S*
0.^8
0.32
0.19
O.H«
0.63
0.
1.3o
S.71
1.3*
S.*-
3.97
2.S-
1.1-
F !•- I
Hi'
/.'I 3
s>. u 3
<. /I
'. '«?
0.7S If. .-••
4.7-i vi.ui
1.1» 23.^
S.7S
1.7'
3.6.1
3. "4
2.3?
1.3*
*.ftl
•vj
I
1.12
'••.-.7
OMPH
5MPH
1 OMPH
1SHPH
30MOH
4SMPH
60HPH
0.20
1.33
O.'-c)
0.29
0.22
D.13
0.1?
1.3^ Qn. *v;
lu.74 11)7.17
7.46 67«.4ft
I..47 bll.82
••:.9-> 4PS.1S
o.7S **1.9^
n.97 509.**
0.07 ° -, . i c;
0.6' /./S
o.b' I.1.-?
0.51 17.-;H
1.3,J ?i-. 77
i.p« 2n. -n
.J.Sf- 17.>ft
tCDNOMY IN Ml/'i*L EXCFPT o K-M ir, -;T
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOP o "^H.
-------
Table 71
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission for Los Angeles 1976 Model Year Cars (34 Vehicles)
MODE
Kin
"(V.I •
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1H
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
OMPH
5MPM
1QMPH
15MPH
1DMPM
45MPH
f.OMPH
HC
0.72
0.17
0.*>8
0. JH
0.12
0.19
0.9IS
0.15
0.25
0.1?
0.54
0.15
n.«»4
0.11
0.09
0.25
0.<*4
0.15
0.39
0.19
0.^2
0.15
0.3R
0.27
0.13
0. 1R
0.35
0.17
0.18
O.fcO
O.I?
0.17
0.27
0.0*
1 .')2
O.uO
0.?2
0.19
0.14
0.09
r.n co2
NMX
M 'r 1.
1>>.15 1201.11 4.»V /.Al
2.52
1^.48
<•. 52
c-.?9
<>.8b
5*.. 19
C.49
K.Ob
' .93
29. P8
) .58
22.98
f> . 75
1.64
*.7S
11.71
1 .92
l^.ov
:j.o2
5S. 85
) .76
>- .44
1 ;i.R 1
1 .26
3.4b
1 '-» . 1 5
/.. I/
i- .Sn
2< .10
1.11
to. 41
-.22
0.62
lu.67
?.89
1.16
0.80
i' i52
0.84
409.20
130?. HZ
797.23
6"?. 1 3
277.60
3fH.3H
326.64
t>«3.79
290.70
953.3?
318.10
353.22
323.27
3S8.7*
7»-y .61
*J71 .79
327.66
7^,2.57
3P1.79
904.27
3S7.55
946.01
606.47
380.24
519.69
7?fc.ftO
3»3.76
7H7.19
blO.4'
413.55
4HS.33
553.40
90.88
1 113.05
6t,2.66
464.06
384.0?
3«4.bl
464.61
o.s.
2.7?
?.f~^
3.21
0.61
a. 6 i
1.2^
«*.!'•
0 . K l>
5.4 '
1.0 ...
s.r,
1 . 1 •••»
0.64
O.HI
4.2 i
O.fc »
3.6"
0. 7a
5.5S
1.1 .
3.39
3.4-
1 .SS
O.V?
4.1 \
} ,?.°.
2.S'
3.51
1.73
O.HI
2.-)
0.0 i
n.v<
O.Sa
O.SO
O.fo
1 . 1 •*
2.H'J.
i> \ .^^
-../n
ll.n?
\ /.>•'•*
<1 . ^5
). -«n
? 7.n7
1 ^. 71
1:'.' . <^
-) . ?A S
;j /.«ia
•j. -»*>
>* '/ . 3 1
•••4.S4
) 1 . IS
^.4?
'''H.-iO
1 1 .4«
^.'.>.Jl
*..<*?
?t.^°
J.^4
) ij.^P
^•1.21
] r^.r^ft
it »-• "i
! '. . i
^''.H?
M . 17
1 1. j.-»
r I . .'14
1 - . fl 1
In.M
^.M
^. ><3
13.'"'
1 •'.'.' ?
<-'.i.l»"
^"^.4?
1^.04
co
FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCFPT 0 M-i J.i
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOW 0 MPH.
-------
Table 72
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for Los Angeles 1975 and 1976 Model Year Trucks (17 Vehicles)
MODE
I
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
IP
19
20
?1
22.
23
2<*
2S
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
P4G
OMPH
5MOM
1 OMPH
15'IOH
30MUH
45MCH
ISOMUH
niei. E
HC
2.37
0.'-i4
1 .--0
0.^4
O.SS
O.f-.c;
1 .UB
0.^5
0. 17
O.'i 1
1.12
0.»7
1 . i>ft
o.si
0.?7
0.^0
1.16
o.s?
O.MS
0.^6
2.1?
O.iS
1 .47
0.43
0.<«7
0. 39
O.t-^4
0.^4
l.-.R
0 .^S
0.<*6
0.<»6
0.">6
0.19
2.56
0. O
0. IS
O.S4
0.27
0.25
CONOMY
C'/l C02 N«l*
4^.41 1106. 0^ "i.^l
v.SJ.
3f- .-Pv
I'- .MV
7 ,6H
2. ->S
72.01
3.2^
4 . H3
4. 34
4" .69
S.2«»
3 f. . 0 7
?. M
S . OS
1 *.97
2->. 31
i. . IS
2: .32
^.62
9^ .94
^.R7
2'i.90
'-.69
3.64
11 .^>S
1 7- . 3 1
'-.O'.
2 2 . ." 1
2-.S6
"*.6b
lu.«7
1,.4,
-.67
3v.vo
*• . 3S
3.77
>^.3S
3.62
3. IS
IN MI/
<»1 7.60
1 J14.S,'
73<».yn
b"?6.90
307.00
7S1.7-
3S7 ,S'>
*>S3.6S
3 '16.91
HOfl.66
J39.0<»
7^S.7(i
34^.31
3=1S.OI
VOH.S2
617. 2H
J34. 70
708.27
390.11
HI 2.5S
3^1 .24
v^h. 7?
60S.8P
399.11
S72.S"
70S. IS
4C1.1M
^02.21
621 .2S
460.2?
4*7. HP
551 .96
BSi7Q
1041 .SS
77S.46
5Q4. 1 o
4"6.21
421.61
492.6)
•J/L KuC'-'f1"
o.r>3
J.3'
3.1.'
3.7/>
0.7^
6.2J
1 . 6y
S.?-1
1 . o >•
ft.?/.
1.17
6.27
1 .5r-
0.7 )
0.^1
5.0-'
o . >•• •<
4.1 <
n.^n
S.S -i
1 .4'-
4,d-
4.2.
2.0 '
l.l •
S . 3 •
1.7
3.2-
4.'- 7
2.3"
».*•••
3.11
(1 .ir,
'l .*• I
i. ,H
n.6 x
1 . i' •'•
1 .^7
<.4C
r n M-'I
n'H
"" '/./!• •
?•' .r>l
•-. .3
1 i. . J>
1 <.n'.
<•'•' .2^
1 '.21
'"• . 15
j i.4n
P « . 1 3
If..'?
2-1. <«n
1 •' ..i7
;'«i ,«a
'.».-jt'
••.-i
M. M
?^. nQ
I 1 .u1^
^>-J. 1 3
t. I'l
v-'. 7'1
-.1"
1 "...-"
.••1 .-•'-»
1 -'i . ^ •*
1 -' . ^ ?
n . ..o
1 .i.-.S
i i. i^
1 • . -VP
1 /.S3
1-i..,*
'?..)--»
7 .^">
1 I . .' 7
14.7*.
'\ .!><+
s .• . 73
1 7 . rt 1
(•• -..1^
I
vo
vc
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN KOt- 0 "PH.
-------
Table 74
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions For St. Louis 1970 Model Year Cars (19 Vehicles)
MODF. MC 1:0
wo. r,-(/>'l -I/..
1 7.U 9r.l7 KP9.10 q.*., - . ,1
2 3.43 4*.63 3jn.7>4 0.9,* v^.-tc
3 9.-<5 17<».M2 932.86 2.0i 7.1*
5 2.H3 2r,.71 539.07 6.6.. l-.•,'.
6 2.'17 1-.75 220.26 2.3- '-.-,1
7 4.11 71.52 679.19 9.91 11..13
8 2.15 l<*.*n 245.82 4.31 T',17
9 2.53 2<».ll 5*0.10 9.h' i ,.ja
10 3.72 1^.75 220.25 2.^" M.?a
11 3./6 49.53 69«.*i7 12.5' il.'.^
13 3.94 5:..78 6MJJ.14 I I."2 11.37
14 2.f-4 l^.lo 2'»M.3C* 3.7-5 31.')4
15 2.15 27.32 313.06 ().$-• ;..^^
16 S.iO 107.39 6?2.39 0.6 1 l.^.'*
17 4.44 5<*.l/ 6°?.87 10.OM 11.21
18 2.70 21.5ft 264.3° 2.7-« <-:.
20 3..->8 27.PS 295.8M 3.07 ->-^.^l ^
21 5.'16 IQf .61 721.00 w.7- '..-<1 O
22 4.41 ?3.u6 27«.09 3.^1 ^'..9-> "p
23 6.06 77.74 701.21 S.«i |i.S3
24 2.52 2U.69 A9S.34 7.*^ 1 <.-'3
25' 2.25 le.62 304.53 5.1- -J-.:i3
26 3.*5 47.33 <»frl.bM J.3'
27 3.lfl 3^.14 5Q3.4a 10.3a
?H 3.^H 2^.63 3n|.4') 4.07
29 S.'il 7i:.S4 5P4.02 3.^7
30 2.^2 2'.95 SOO.^4 l.^s
31 2.^9 1>-.M2 331.56 S.Ql x<..,!'-»
32 3.'»0 4<».34 392.5*- 1.3^ H.7*
RrtG 3.55 3'-.55 440.2^ h.^- ' 17.^4
OM./H 1.13 17.66 6a.B<» 0.0- "'-.r'M
5U*JH 11. <*4 18^.flu 8S6.9H n.7'i J.^1^
10MPH 5.23 8^.63 579.IS o.f,., l^.l<^
15MPH 3.36 5r'.30 445.7* (i.S.i 16.S7
30MPH 1.87 l".4rf 322.17 1.11 /'..74
45Ht>H I.S4 13.03 334.79 3.1- 2'«.»,3
ftOMPH 1.70 17.11 3«8.23 6.K1 -M.ll
FlIEl. tCONnMY IN Ml/(.A|_ FACHMT 0 n.-
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN KOP 0
-------
Table 75
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission for St.. Louis. 1971 Model Year Cars (22 Vehicles)
nr rn co2 w ^ r i.
NO. — —r,-VMl M' j
1 7.SB 8>.5i< V<«2.05 ^.^' ••.-..?
3 9.S3 13f.h'» 9f'9,07 2.r'':> '. 1 •"
5 3.^2 2;'.75 bS6.57 M . x?
11 5.^7 7?.32 7nH.2a 11.4" ],•..-,'!
13 5.40 6^.73 7?4.»3M 11.3^ l-i.'i*-
14 3.27 If.^'i 2i-">9.02 3.7x> ? -. 7^
15 2.vi 2^.?4 304.M i.n; ^-..^i
16 7.H4 llr>.M2 6^3.7:) O.h'^ 1'•.!-'
17 5.'39 5H.21 7?2.l4 10.31 ]'>.f*
18 3.IS 2^.33 27H.HS 2.S7 /^v.^T
19 4.S3 47. ?S 639.02 7.^'.; I'-'./'n
• 20 3.S5 31.4'-« 316.7 vi 2.7-« ^uSl
21 ft.^0 121.97 7S0.4M -i.72 ".r1^ ^L,
?3 6.3h B.H.9V 774.3? b.4i •<.=;" ^
,>4 3.^9 3".86 5?3.os H.3^ 1:>.^"«
25 ' 3.15 2>.27 3?2.^7 S.21- ;•-'.. ir-
p? 4.a», 4^.02 e.19.23 10.01 l.'.'-o
28 3.-<. 2- .T6 320.1« 3.^" ^ <. •> 1
29 5.S5 71.24 6.30.2" <*.7l 1 1 . <,f>
30 3.^2 4J.)iS b?2.f>3 7.M \--.f=>
31 3.39 2^.i)7 337.3') S.7'~ S <. J"
32 4.P5 4T-.Hf> 419.30 1.^^- 1 >.V-<
RAG 4.21 4H.^V 4S8.50 b.S^ l^.S-"
0.^4 1^.00 74.5S 0.07
10."i^ Iftl'.M V?O.Sl O.M
10MHH b.^Q 77.S2 597.S4 0.=.-
15MPH 4,'iS 4^,'J^ 44.3.33 l.'.^P
30MPH 2.--2 li,61 327.7^ 1.3^
45MPH 2.17 9.4.^ 345.77 3.P1'
2.4Q lb.04 403.37 h.«S
t.rOr4()MY IN Hl/Ci^L E
EMISSIONS IN GM/>»t'vJ FOP l>
-------
Table 76
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission For St. Louis 1972 ^odel Year Cars (25 Vehicles)
HC ' O CO? '•">«
n. G'i/f'1
1 6.17 9".rt5 9?7.53 10.33
2 2. n 37.^3 358.43 1.4-
3 7.27 lSfc.^2 965^ 3.no
4 3.)fl 4^.34 ^5*.3H 5.7^
5 2.4H 2'-.7h b57.64 H.fc'J
6 1.79 12.2V 2^3.01 2.4"
8 2.?f- 11 .24 271.45 5.51
9 2.'H I1-.71 579.74 12.27
10 3.u9 17.iS.21 14.3^
12 4.13 23.35 253.us *•. 3 >
13 3.'«2 47.SO 727.4,> 13.5s
15 1.H9 3.'.l 1.3^ sn.n*
16 5.17 ll-t.*'3 62^.5? !i.77 1-1.70
17 3.^7 S3.97 714.27 in.Ws lo.^fc
18 2.If 21.5ii 276.fti:> 3.0'. X/.JA
19 3. il 43.73 6M.5? H.Ht J.'.il
20 2.^0 2^.92 311.8-1 3.17 -f t, i i
21 4.i»2 8-^.97 779.«S 12.f> ' /.^-^ M
22 3^71 2^.4«> 29?.34 4,b^ ,'^./^ g
23 5./^7 8-».os 7M.30 7.d'< '.7^ |
24 2.1* 2^.P2 D29.55 V.3^ 1 ..51
25' 2. *H 1<>.17 315.9) h.4y ,^,.ua
26 2.->l 4i.7V 452.^5 2.0- 1^.7?
27 2.-J1 3n.s2 619.63 11.2- I
30 2.M 3^.^.5
31 2.33 1*.32 335.51 7.2'> 2«.^-
32 2.^2 45.85 402.29 1.7" 1 >-. 3'
3.05 34.50 <*65.46 7.7r- 1-.77
0.77 1-^.52 74.27 O.n-i •-./,",
5^|JH 7.-^ 17.1.72 431.5) c.VI '.^?
ISMPH 2.3s 41.35 4A7.00 n.e«. l-^.i.^
TOMPH 1.79 I".l6 337.27 l.b- '-».Jl
45MPH 1.3-3 '^.55 34^.27 4.7r' ;••--. ,x«
ftOMPh 1.^0 lr.02 MO.17 4.0!> r''.-*7
lFL ECONOMY IN «I/G«L EXCEPT o M'%-I I..
FMTSSIONS IN GM/MIN fOP 0 MPH.
-------
Table 77
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission For St. Louis 1973 Model Year Cars (27 Vehicles)
MO ' •'» CM2 "-'X t •> I.
. ——r,'i/««i t ••• •
1 S.?f 8«.99 1031.04 7.fv< /.^7
2 1.H3 4M.01 3»1.!19 !l.7S )J.73
3 5.^9 13S.4* JO'^9.24 2.33 ''.'K
4 2.->fc 45.04 • 71 6.h*. 3.9-i ) 1 . 1 £
5 2. P4 21.6H
7 3.t.h 7(--.f)2 737.83 8.97 p'.l''-
9 l.« ? lr.2-3 612.70 w.7'i 1 3. /?
10 ?.S? l'.4,h 2^5.4'^ 2.12 2-'.'.'-
11 J.r'S 6s.'*3 7^0.52 l'i.4i* 1'.'. 1 7
13 3.'"i 5o.23 'S5.6? 9.hi l-i.^o
1^ 1.^1 2'-.13 3S4.S-J 'i.77 S\.'l
17 3.s? 57.52 7^2.S* 6.19 In.^7
19 ^.>>H 4x.M? 651.94 S.91 lr.->'
20 2.->7 27.1d 3(S3.75 1.9^ /1..1
21 4..*H 112.13 7H4.30 H.9-, •-.. l o jL
22 3.2S 21.9;) 333.41 ^.7-- 2<.a7 O
23 4.1H 7u.^>l »11.04 S.f>- -'.«3 |
?4 ^ l.-'l 2^.f)S 5^7.71 7.0) \u.-*'j
25 ' 2.'IO 1-».2W 3^2.S" 3.7- ,'^.-,u
2* 2.37 4'.7/ 537.47 1.11 1 •'..«.«,
27 2.^0 3^.40 6^1.07
?B 2.75 21.47 3fife.l5 2.9^»
?9 3.S2 6-^.42 670.8^ 3.9u
31 1./9 !->.*» 393.3^ ^.3^
32 2.34 4fa.4'3 475.0" d.97
Hafi 2.^7 3S.44 4^9.70 5.3'-.
OMPH u.-3 1^.40 78.40 0.0^
5MOH .«,. ••!•? 17'.4.) 9«fr.m (i.*,!
1 n'iPH 3.'-« 74.^3 *i^3.57 o.c', i
30MPH l.-'S I^.'j3 3h4.6« 1.01
it^MOH ()tjfi ".37 J^h.OH 2«^n
l..)7 l".4l 443.6H S.9*!
FUEL KCON'iMY IN MJ/ijM. FxC?>-T 0
^MISSIONS PJ GM/"IN rOf* 0 -"i-n.
-------
Table 78
, FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions For St, Louis 1974 Model Year Cars (26 Vehicles)
MODE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
OMPH
5MPH
10MPH
15MPH
30MPH
45MPH
60MPH
HC
7.35
3.17
8.61
3.39
2.74
2.00
4.81
2.41
2.67
3.45
4.42
4.64
4.56
2.98
1.84
5.23
4.53
2.66
3.31
3.63
5.89
4.25
5.27
2.55
2.60
3.08
3.51
3.97
4.73
2.90
2.61
3.37
3.55
0.98
10.50
4.14
2.79
1.72
1.55
1.87
CO
77.31
34.69
132.70
35.74
18.48
11.44
88.27
11.63
22.62
1-.95
63.45
20.00
57.07
13.48
21.90
103.39
47.18
16.89
38.40
24.12
119.57
20.98
66.25
25.26
13.75
34.53
36.59
20.18
63.44
38.24
15.80
35.75
34.11
lb.28
164.92
74.69
45.50
13.79
7.93
10.79
C02
1005.69
368.87
1088.85
707.81
601.52
251.80
736.40
287.76
606.77
254.72
765.06
275.97
764.98
285.82
329.70
628.30
771.37
298.18
674.00
340.25
802.45
315.43
830.20
563.15
352.98
512.09
662.27
347.82
671.63
555.93
371.45
459.31
496.20
74.16
941.93
596.84
446.03
352.48
372.48
432.28
NOX
7.58
0.7f
2.37
3.90
5.83
1.52
8.04
2.93
7.94
2.04
10.03
2.34
9.86
2.78
0.80
0.52
8.13
1.70
6.09
1.78
8.48
2.79
5.2S
6.52
3.93
1.28
8.37
3.07
3.52
6.45
4.26
1.14
5.27
0.07
0.79
0.56
0.47
1.03
2.90
5.77
ruEL
ECON
7.71
20.48
6.70
11.46
13.88
32.14
9.97
28.29
13.64
30.69
10.10
27.55
10.21
28.05
23.99
10.99
10.32
26.64
11.9?
22.78
8.80
24.53
9.33
14.53
23.18
15.41
12.14
22.63
11.29
14.20
21.94
16.87
15.82
B7.63
7.19
12.20
16.86
23.38
22.77
19.50
o
-e-
FUEU ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCEPT 0 MPH IN MIN/GACo
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOR 0 MPH.
-------
Table 79
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission For St. Louis 1975 Model Year Cars (27 Vehicles)
HC ( r\ c.02 MM> n-ri_
JO. -_-...-(-, 4/M I M.c";
\ 2.^ft S--.2V 1127.21! *.ll /.2'
2 l."^ ItH.Sm ton.63 (».<^ 11.^7
4 1.-3 2.«.7ft 7^?.SS J.f-. 11.17
6 0.7? <-. .116 27-4.4? 1,1'-. »l.l°
7 2.4ft i*>^.<»* 7O7.81 s.o-. -'./c
ft 0 . S H "< . H 7 J1 to . 5 '"i 2."' > 7 . -j 3
9 0.^9 -'.87 bc>'<.73 *->.?•' 1 1. 19
10 D.'-Jb /.Ob 2nto.la 1.31 '•'•i.l*,
\\ l.'iiS Ai.SS ^">S.1S 7.M? ^.->n
13 \.S7 S-'.'S^ rii7.o7 7.'41-. ".>?
Ito 0.73 ^.(Si> 321.70 1.7. r-M.-,7
16 2.<*) (>'*.47 77S.91 O.'M lM..i^
19 0.19 li .« 373.11 I.?/. ,V.]5
i^ 7.27 -..»«, ,
?to '(.^0 I".1*1 ^Mg.VS to.h )£»..sh |
25 0.^3 ^.16 37?.^1 t1 .'U .''.in
!?*» \.')R 2V'.S? S^.27 1.33 l^.Mfc
27 l.?l 2".^.7 7)0.01 *.'!•> 11. /9
2d 1.1? 11.11 37^.67 I.H> ?,;.'40
29 2.')(i <»>-.13 71S.21 ?.9s I...VIH
30 1.30 2^.3"* ^dl.2^ H.t-"-. t.i.7«>
31 O.'if) »-.^-< 39f».lj r>.f--- --1.7T
32 1.22 2^.31 toP2.9F 1.31 In.^S
Rftf, 1.13 2'i.Art 530.07 .».7-< l-'>.*ia
QM-'H 0. lin 7,c(t:i R'».eS7 D.n ' \ti,tt~\
•^M^H *».<»l 8-i.S<4 1110. <*l r,.h/ 7.nS
10^'JH 2.11 37,79 bL-«.3S !'.»>.' l^'./'S
ISMi'H l.i)7 21.20 H'Jh.23 ((.S? l">.h^
O.S? 7.14 372.4P l.l-3 ^i.'!3
0.»3 '•.Sc* 393.4A l.f-/ ^V.no
60MPH 0.2S 3.40 4'-to.2<* 3.7J M.<"«
FMFL F.rONOMY IN MI/'1«l FXCFh'T (i M. : J is
FMIS510NS Ii\l GM/MIN f Of' 'I -1I°H,
-------
Table 80
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions for St. Louis 1976 Model Year Cars (32 Vehicles)
MODE
un
nv 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
OMPH
5MPH
10MPH
15MPH
3 OMPH
45MPH
60MPH
HC
2. 58
1.23
3.12
1.25
0.76
0.68
1.72
0.57
0.64
1.05
1.31
1.30
1.21
0.77
0.56
.94
.50
0.94
.15
.35
2.27
.31
.81
0.67
0.58
0.81
0.97
1.24
1.72
0.94
0.59
1.01
1.07
0.54
7.51
3.41
1.69
0.57
0.43
0.32
CO
/* U
C02
43.99 964.92
13.29
56.05
16.'61
7.71
4.05
87.52
3.99
10.37
5.13
47.83
6.90
36.14
4.23
6.65
39.55
30.41
6.49
22.88
9.17
102.45
7.54
34.02
12.95
5.10
12.24
19.84
8.21
32.67
28.00
6.33
13.25
19.68
8.75
121.84
49.60
27.52
4.68
2.49
3.70
360.60
986.92
646.15
586.76
258.92
710.26
296.00
592.76
261.4]
776.65
292.96
792.26
303.23
322.40
671.61
774.43
315.67
670.20
363.11
789.69
330.9]
777.79
549.80
363.58
491.77
671.81
354.11
645.86
542.23
388.25
443.53
488.56
68.36
827.12
536.06
401.35
335.58
363.30
422.89
NOX
5.46
0.91
2.5«
2.89
3.81
0.93
5.53
1.99
5.16
1.27
6.61
1.58
6.63
1.69
0.91
1.02
5.32
1.05
4.35
1.26
5.74
1.70
4,16
3.94
2.41
1.32
5.23
1.94
2.53
3.6;
2.75
1.17
3.51
0.09
0.82
0.47
0.55
0.99
1.58
3.55
FUEL
CfARf
tCU"
A. 52
23.03
8.18
13.13
14.76
33.18
10.40
29.19
14.52
32.54
10.37
P8.82
10.41
28.42
?6.52
12.00
10.73
26.99
12.50
23.25
9.27
?5.58
10.60
15.51
33.77
17.2*
12.57
23.91
12.63
15.06
?2.18
18.98
16.97
105.89
8.51
14.21
19.73
25.75
24.08
20.65
o
ON
FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCEPT 0 MPH IN MIN/GAL.
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOR 0 MPH.
-------
Table 81
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions For St. Louis 1975 and 1976 Light Duty Trucks (13 Vehicles)
Monr
i ;
2 (
3 ;
4
5 (
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1ft
17
IB
1 9
20 1
21 i
22 1
23 1
24 I
25 1
2fa I
27 (
2" 1
29 1
30 I
31 1
32 C
?AG 1
OMPH (J
^MDH 2
IOMMH 1
I^MPH ]
10*'*-'M <
4SMIJH 0
60MMH I
H^ (
?.33 4-4
J.^O 1 •
?.~»fl 6~
.23 2:<
i.i3 II
. 3H
. ->5 7«
.IS »-
.70 \f
.33 7
.25 3<-
.36 li.
."''2 31
.31
.^•0 \f
.46 <»,-•
.34 2-
.^2 u
.M 31
.39 \f
'.12 f. '•
.67 I,
.S7 2^-
J.75 11
.21 11
).90 I1-
).^4 lf-
.^3 l.<
.37 2*
) . « 1 I/
.16 1 i
.^2 1~
.14 1-;
.24 '•
.^3 7 1
.11 3 r'
.ol 2 <
. i9
. <5 <4
.<•<• 1 1
o
.SI
.01
.30
.77
.6<4
.23
.03
.IS
.31)
.32
.^U
.07
.00
.S3
.47
.09
.11
.St1
.H4
.33
.33
.74
.9*>
.60
.99
.61
. 1<»
.SJ
.62
.3*
.76
.34
.93
.0?
.^»b
.67
.2(1
.31
.SO
.6^
C
1177
-4.3
1 1 f^9
770
'/!'•!)
3)4
U69
JhV
707
J21
yes
331
3^4
362
4n7
>31Q
1366
377
7S4
4^.2
snn
407
rlP6
6^2
4. 11
616
760
,H l
.6^>
.'.'•>
.'>•*
.91
.2 1
.ft-1
.S]
.«•'»
.S'-
.3-
,£(.>
,h •
.0 -.
.2 1
.si
.9 •>
.6*1
. f '
.2'!
.7/
,t-s
.41
,7S
.f -
.""
.*»
.»''>
.6^
.'.'t
.s^
. 7 •
(— f
!-3 (
> 1
"V.
i >.
"i ^
I :>.
i ^.
^ '* •
f» ^
2 1.
1-'.
'''-.
* ^
^ .
s.
/> <.
• •
' •
•
? ? ,
Li.
1 -.
^.
/I! .
* •
1 ,H.
i y.
1 <.
1 1.
i '.
1 i .
i i.
1 7.
! S .
1 * •
•'1 .
1 .
1^.
l.s.
'"'•' •
1 * .
!7.
f 1
u7
li
,?
ua
VI
M
-y^
1 *>
17
2S
?3
11
•-.7
?~\
70
7=;
7C,
.)°
-^7
01
')«*
S2
36
19
-,T
7P
(•£,
r-7
'«2
^•7
^vT
16
SI
11
«n
7"
70
1 9
71
19
I
I-1
o
I
FIIFl ECONOMY IN MI/-,.',L
F"
-------
Table 82
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emissions For Washington 1976 Model Year Cars (34 Vehicles)
HO l.O CO?
NO.
1 1.35 25. .
2 0.<7 ^.4^ 410.61 1.0'
3 1.-34 4n.S3 941.04 3.7? -:../9
4 O.S7 "<.36 SOS.79 3.K3 l-.b3
5 O.'*n 3.< 1".^
12 0.4P 3. IS 339.84 1.51 ^.^3
13 0.^3 4c.27 730.10 b.67 H.l^
14 0.?2 1.76 3?9.91 l.^< ^."?
15 o.?0 3.96 363.«" 1.27 *«.94
16 0.?4 2^.0A 7^,3.5^ !.<*< 11.-n
17 0.-6 1*-.S? 719.4.1 S.9') 11.-U
1R 0.?4 /-.9V 339.0? !.«« •'•>. 7*.
19 U.-S2 13.9^ 579.4*, 4.V^ r».71 !_,
20 0.43 4.47 3Q6.1? 1.1"^ -'I.^4 O
21 l.^P 7?.70 7S2.51 S.^s 10.1R °°
22 0.4H 3.73 37S.O? 1.*-' '».?!
23 O.'IS 1^.41 6o«.li S.0(! 1?.14
?4 0.43 11.S4 5r«.49 4.7^ l-.7^
25 0.17 ?.?! 392.3? 2.1? ?--'.39
?6 0.12 ^.6? 543.17 2.1T l^.i^
27 O.h4 17.87 o??.S? -3.6S U.^o
2« 0.-46 ».24 3^3.^1 1.7-t ?^..17
?g o.iP 2".04 S9S.?.u 3.«? 14.in
30 0.59 1*.9S 492.43 4.4a |*>.M«
31 o.l9 ?.95 4?H.rt4 2.43 ?-.4^
32 0.34 T-.5? b04.9M 1.77 17.19
R4G 0.59 1'>.07 5(il.8S 3.54
0.17 «.OH H2.S3 U.l^ i HO.4*
?.?.7 3H.ft»5 1002.63 l.^'.J "-.29
IOMUH 0.-»4 1?.36 631.90 0.9< 13.S6
Ib'-'^H O.S6 ^-.45 447.31 0.77 1^.33
30MPH 0.30 n.PO 3S7.02 1.3M ?^.71
45^PH 0.1H .61
F'JEL ECONOMY IN MI/'^L F.XCe^T 0 H"" I'-. MTN/C,AI
EMISSIONS IN GM/MIN FOP 0 MPH.
-------
laoxe oj
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Model Emission For Washington 1976 Model Year Light Duty Trucks (10 Vehicles)
MOOF HC (.f) C02
NO. ——GM/Ml
? O.i»? <..«7 J.71.4Q II.Hi. l'}.^7
3 1 . <* 3D.30 10S3.0f) 2.91 .-t.->3
4 0.^2 f.77 h7Q.3f> 3.1<. 12.-»0
5 0.4S J.^l fao6.4V -.LM 1-.^°
6 O.'-'S I.s3 339. B« «'.7S 2--..'j ?'.7«» 341.7*> 1.11 ?-.i.S
11 0.-'4 2".12 7«4.2() 7.9- l'i.^3
12 l.^S .'."3 373. ftS 1.4s ?.U1S
13 O.f^'t 13.02 7H2.1Q H..3.T 1 1 . in
14 0.^9 ^.pb 3^7.27 l.H 21.71
15 O.j'f' 2.S1 41?.pi) l.OT 2(1.31
lb i). 7 7 l»-.Hib BH4.69 1.1^ ^.fSS
17 O.M4 I1-.83 7^7.5* ^.4^ lU/^4
19 0./I !".?! ,i?4.HT 4.3*> 1.H.S7
20 0.77 3.H^ '*t-:3.20 0.91 l;<.y?
21 l.ln 3-J.7.J 8^3.73 7.SI --t.-m I
22 O.V3 3.95 414.74 1.^1 ?.!.-»4 g
?3 0.^8 !>.«! 7^3.^1) 4.0', 11. -,1 vo
?4 ' 0.10 ".?<» Sr.il.5? 4.H^ l^.-'i^
?S 0.^0 <.ilS
?^ 0.^n ^.36
27 O.SP 9.9^ bf>4.3>< ti.l;' I'l.o?
?H 0.''^ ".0^ 433.8<* 1.70 'ft; ,;ia
29 O./^ 1.1.73 ^41.74 3.!•' 1.1..n
30 0.->3 -i.'l7 'i'-O.l3 S.d'i 1^.,'^
32 0»4ft S.fi9 S^4.8S 1.4) i->.a}
?*4G O.^S J./,4 S^S.Ol 3.7 i \--.^*i
OMPH 0.14 ?.S1 l^O.R^ i^.ls ""• .
-------
-110-
TABLE 84
FY 75 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
Fuel Evaporative Emissions Using the Enclosure Technique
1976 Model Year Cars in Denver and Los Angeles
Diurnal Loss Hot Soak Loss Combined* Loss
CMS CMS CMS/MI
City N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Denver 20 21.74 13.06 10.46 6.20 1.91 .93
Los Angeles 20 7.76 6.65 5.40 4.09 .87 .48
* Combined HC evaporative loss in gm/mi = (diurnal loss + (// trips per day X
hot soak loss)) divided by # miles per day
with 3.3 trips per day and 29.4 miles per day
-------
-111-
TABLE 85
Results of Sulfate Emissions Testing*
1976 Model Year Cars with Air. Pumps-
ion
tnver
uston
St. Louis
Ihoenix
omposite
tenver
ouston
St. Louis
thoenix
omposite +
HC
CM/MI
N
9
8
9
43
60
19
18
36
77
131
Mean
.48
^60
.39
.40
.42
2.42
.69
1.06
.48
.67
S.D.
.13
.67
.25
.26
.34
1976
1.06
.61
.74
.53
.65
CO
GM/MI
Mean
23.74
2.38
4.64
3.44
3.48
S.D.
11.97
3.40
7.92
3.80
4.53
NOX
GM/MI
Mean
1.12
2.67
3.15
2.41
2.56
S.D.
.48
.79
2.03
.89
1.13
Model Year Cars without
60.99
11.40
22.07
8.31
12.52
22.63
11.36
17.20
8.65
13.27
1.87
3.07
3.53
2.97
3.14
.86
1.36
1.95
1.18
1.46
Fuel Economy
MPG
Mean
17.
17.
19.
18.
18.
42
35
11
18
20
S.D.
4.11
2.81
4.27
3.99
3.90
H2S04
MG/MI
Mean
2.88
15.73
2.20
14.98
13.17
S.D.
2.22
17.72
2.54
37.05
32.20
Air Pumps
17.
17.
18.
18.
18.
53
99
31
61
45
2.84
3.48
3.03
3.04
3.02
2.39
2.41
.42
4.08
2.85
3.77
1.99
.47
10.96
8.56
"Although no specific malperformance has yet been located, the nature of the
•St. Louis sulfate data is considered suspicious at EPA.
^All vehicles excluding Denver vehicles
-------
Location
HC
GM/MI
N Mean S.D.
Denver 8 .51 .22
Houston 7 .64 .32
St. Louis 10 1.01 1.56
Phoenix ,16 .45 .45
Composite £J3 .66 .93
Denver
Houston 14
St. Louis 18 1.08
Phoenix 19 .74
15 2.21 .75
.97 1.04
.71
.53
Composite4-51 .92 .76
-112-
TABLE.86
Results of Sulfate Emissions Testing*
1975 Model Year Cars with Air Pumps
CO
GM/MI
Mean S.D.
21.71
8.01
8.70
4.34
6.44
11.90
10.09
9.78
6.11
8.24
1975 Model Year
63.13
22.49
22.27
17.12
20.41
27.
26.
15.
13.
18.
52
67
26
83
42
NOX
GM/MI
Mean S
1.
2.
3.
3.
3.
52
59
54
30
22
•
1.
1.
1.
1.
.D.
77
24
31
37
33
Cars without Air
1.
3.
3.
2.
3.
73
56
22
87
18
.55
1.56
1.49
1.01
1.35
Fuel Economy
MPG
Mean S.D.
16.81
15.35
17.18
18.31
17.26
Pumps
17.11
16.79
18.49
17.26
17.54
4.41
3.10
2.9.9
4.16
3.66
3.15
3.78
3.17
3.39
3.48
H2SOA
MG/MI
Mean S.D.
3.
9.
1.
10.
7.
*
6.
•
1.
2.
36
36
78
09
42
56
0CJ
33
64
40
3.68
7.12
;2.00
8.42
7.63
.55
14.18
.36
1.43
7.66
* Although no specific malperforinance has yet been located, the nature of the St.
Louis sulfate data is considered suspicious at EPA.
+ All vehicles excluding Denver vehicles
-------
-113-
TABLE 87
Results of Sulfate Emissions Testing*
1975 and 1976 Light Duty Trucks with Air Pumps
HC
GM/MI
Location
Denver
Houston
St. Louis
Phoenix
N
8
8
2
0
Mean
.69
1.03
.34
-
S.D.
.46
1.44
.05
-
CO
GM/MI
Mean
22.74
4.79
3.49
-
S.D.
25.41
5.11
.47
-
NOX
GM/MI
Mean
1.75
2.86
1.86
-
S.D.
.75
1.07
.01
—
Fuel Economy
MPG
Mean
16.04
17.99
17.61
-
H2SO,
MG/MI
S.D.
2.19.
3.48
4.62
—
Mean
2.20
3.21
.95
-
S.D.
1.53
3.69
•.52
-
Composite+10 .89 1.31 4.53 4.54 2.66 1.03 17.91 3.44 2.76 3.40
Denver 7
Houston 8
St. Louis 3
Phoenix 0
Composite +11
1975 and 1976 Light Duty Trucks without Air Pumps
2.40
1.33
.56
1.00
1.18
.25
63.
24.
15.
59
60
63
28.07
22.95
13.34
1.81
3.54
3.10
.48
1.57
.90
16
16
16
.81
.28
.46
1.49
2.24
2.28
3.21
2.15
1.02
5.52
1.18
.89
1.12 1.06
22.15 20.54 3.42 1.39
16.33 2.14
1.84 1.19
" Although no specific nalperformance has yet been located, the nature of the St.
Louis sulfate data is considered suspicious at EPA.
+ All vehicles excluding Denver vehicles
-------
-114-
Table 89
Contingency Analysis
Federal Short Cycle
Model Year 1975 and 1976 Vehicles
FTP
n
HC
Fail CO
NOx
Total
Short Test
n
HC
Pass CO
UOx
Total
Pass
6
-2.96
-1.75
-1.52
-6.23
182
-91.84
-98.66
-54.18
-244.68
Fail
114
74.46
202.73
15.98
293.17
98
10.88
23.49
9.05
43.42
-------
-115-
TABLE 88
Short Test/FTP Emission Sample Correlations
for 1975 and 1976 Model Year Cars and for all Ifodel Year Vehicles
Short Test
Federal Short Cycle
ClayCon Key Mode
Two Speed Idle
Federal 3 Mode
New York-Mew Jersey
New York City
Revised Federal 3 Mode High
Cycle
High
Low
Idle
High
Low
High
Low
Idle
High
Low
Idle
1975
N
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
253
50
147
147
147
and 1976
. HC
.873
.412
.611
.705
.554
.602
.477
.550
.587
.068
.831
.672
.724
.682
Model Year Cars*
CO
.910
.440
.560
.747
.503
.743
.404
.494
.716
.855
.802
.520
.651
.753
NOX
.070
.695
.635
.136
.600
.210
.632
.674
.207
.772
.921
.750
.699
.257
N
1016
1016
1016
1016
1016
1016
1016
1016
1016
619
•149
397
397
397
All Vehicles
HC
.945
.300
.347
.740
.633
.633
.332
.050
.625
.910
.056
.712
.013
.541
CO
.932
.674
.693
.600
.646
.669
.630
.635
.659
.056
.900
.751
.760
.b60
NOX
.'Jib
.740
.653
.026*
.526
.070*
.b50
.670
.029*
.022
.904
.720
.646
.-ay
^Indicates the computed sample correlation was not significantly greater
than zero at the nominal .01 level.
-------
-116-
Table 90
Contingency Analysis
New Jersey Acid and Hew York Short Composite
Model Year 1975 and 1976 Vehicles
FTP
n
HC
Fail CO
NOx
Total
Short Test
n
HC
Pass CO
NOx
Total
Pass
8
-3.75
-4.02
-2.69
-10.45
108
-54.95
-55.91
-30.53
-141.39
Fail
68
52.10
142.84
7.07
202.01
69
7.80
22.40
7.14
37.35
-------
-117-
Table 91
Contingency Analysis
Clayton Key Mode
Model Year 1975 and 1976 Vehicles
FTP
n
HC
Fail CO
NOx
Total
Short Test
n
HC
Pass CO
NOx
Total
Pass
12
-A. 27
-3.48
-3.25
-11.00
176
-90.53
-96.93
-52.45
-239.91
Fail
103
72.19
194.39
12.97
279.55
104
13.15
31.83
12.07
57.05
-------
-118-
Table 92
Contingency Analysis
Txro Speed Idle
Model Year 1975 and 1976 Vehicles
FTP
Fail
Short Test
Pass
n
HC
CO
NOx
Total
n
HC
CO
NOx
Total
Pass
14
-5.71
-5.98
-A. 27
-15.94
174
-39.09
-94.44
-51.43
-234.95
Fail
106
71.39
187.21
11.73
270.39
106
13.947
39.01
13.25
66.20
-------
-119-
Table 93
Contingency Analysis
Federal Three liode
Mode Year 1975 and 1976 Vehicles
FTP
n
HC
Fail CO
NOx
Total
Short Test
n
HC
Pass CO
NOx
Total
Pass
9
-3.93
-3.21
-2.97
-10.11
179
-90.97
-97.21
-52.72
-240.79
Fail
111
70.04
183.76
12.93
271.77
101
15.30
37.46
12.06
64.32
-------
-120-
Table 94
Contingency Analysis
Revised Federal Three Mode
Model Year 1975 and 1976 Vehicles
FTP
Fail
Short Test
Pass
n
HC
CO
NOx
Total
n
HC
CO
NOx
Total
Pass
5
-2.27
-2.05
-1.32
-5.64
67
-33.33
-38.44
-21.16
-93.43
Fail
40
19.33
49.00
8.31
76.63
35
6.11
11.98
2.52
20.61
-------
-121-
Tablc 95
Contingency Analysis
Hew York City Cycle
llodol Year 19/3 and 1976 V
FTP
Pass Fn.il
n 0 15
HC - 13.97
Fail CO - 36.23
NOx - 2.R7
Total - 53.07
Shore Tesu
n If. 19
HC - 7.89 4.42
Pass CO - 9.01 8.24
NOx - 5.06 2.17
Total -21.96 14.83
-------
-122-
Appendix I
Additional Summary Data from
FY75 Emission Factor Program
-------
Appendix 1-1
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Chicago
Cold Transient
HYOPOC
MFAfJ ARTTHMFT
MILES
YE4P N (K) '-'FAN
/•u>FinN<-G?»v:s rft->MPM MOMOX lO.F-G^AfJ'S nxinES
TC GF "C.\M S'> (•'FAN SI) MEAN
DF NITKOGfCN-GKAMS
1C ^EOMrTRIC
SO MEAN SO
*,f-q
)9ftQ
1970
1971
'.97?
1973
1974
1975
:97*
LOT»
50
30
35
40
45
50
50
50
150
17
77.9
*-?..->
57.9
55. u.
42.1
34.1
24;^
\s.<^
7.3
11.2
13. P7
?Q.46
27.07
?.c..n5
19. ]P
17.??
17. S3
P..6R
7. IP
».?!
24. »1
?? = 47
21.16
38.43
12.93
16.2?
17. ^
6.H7
3.f^P
7. IS
2fl.<-9
24.37
2?. 35
IP. '-7
1*.6P,
U.ft?
14.47
7.34
*.39
^•.40
1.72 434.111
1.63 31?. IS
1.7
1.T>1 K-?.3'»
2.04 1?1.61
217.51
157. ^2
22-3.04
]«2.^2
134. S4
106. ft3
121 .77
07.05
73.70
71.62
374.27
?79.??
?°3.94
235.77
204.) 1
170.30
16 3 . 2 1
in?.79
PI. 4? <
lf'6.2n
l.*f
1.62
I.*!1*
1.76
.R2
L.^l
L.70
I.V7
?.OH
.6S
13.55
.IH.Q^f
14.63
17.51
IB. 22
13.04
13.09
11.10
11.12
9.72
6.67
ft. 85
6.56
7.02
6.70
5.52
5.79
5.17
4.24
3.32
12.00
16.97
12. *6
16.18
17.18
11. R6
11.79
10.01
10.35
9.23
1.67
1.64
1.76
1.51
1.41
1.5K
1.62
1.59
' 1.47
1.39
NJ
Ul
LDT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TP"CKS F-CJM )975
197*
-------
Appendix 1-2
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Chicago
Cold Stabilized
HYDPOCAPHOMS-GD/U'? CA:-<
YEA=?
MFAN
MILFC
N
18. ?S
14.13
11.11
10.13
10.98
2.P8
2.45
2.19
.1.71
1.71
. 1.72
1.72
1 .62
1.77
1.72
3.20
3.04
2.60
341. ?3
2?4. i 7
2=;3.al
1 Q?.9«>
1 06.76
)f>2.33
1 5 0 . 0 b
79. «4
74.70
59.61
,OS.61
126. 73
142. 9S
108.69
136.12
121.85
117.63
111.39
106.42
81.07
•2
I
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS F^>OM 1975 awn 197fi
-------
Appendix T-3
FY75 Emissiop Factor Program
Emission Results for Chicago
Hot Transient
Yrao
66-*
1969
1970
1971
1<37?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LPTo
N
50
30
35
40
45
50
50
50
150
17
HYO'
MFAN /\WTTH»
(K) '-IFAN
77.9 ??.?6
62.? 1P.P4
57.9 16.RB
55.° 14.n3
42.1 11.1?
34. 1 11.33
?4.n 1?.77
15.9 4.60
7.3 3.86
11.? 3.90
?OCAf wnNS-r.p
•'r T 1 0
Sn MF
1 fl . 75 IP
17.93 !=•
14. 4S 14
15.64 11
^.0" 10
15. !« 9
14.33 10
4.Q1 3
?.57 3
?.74 3
i"S CA^Ri'M MnMOX10F-G"iMS OXI^FS OF rgj T«OGFN-GKAMS
>V-O..F
/.•'
.°3
.S<^
.04
,QO
.31
.03
. 1 <->
.?7
.13
.3?
T?IC
S"
i .64
1.67
1.71
1.54
1 .45
1.7?
1.75
2.27
1.96
1.73
A'-I THMC-TIC
l-.f'-.'l S';
??9.9-) 13^.53
138.«1 63.19
)4q.4i PH.^6
10Q.51 52.98
nr'.?1' 67.70
Qf-.SQ 56.17
in?.S7 75. ?7
^3.4't 63. «5
44.77 50.4?
49.01 47.37
GFQMFTftTC AWJTHMF.TIC
»-FAfJ
190.57
124. I ^
130.?5
96.?"
91 .0*1
f. 3 . * 'i
?3.97
?9.?Q
?5.4?
30.03
Si)
1.9f,
1.66
1 .6rl
1.72
1.H5
I.P.I
i.y?
3.37
3.?^
3.06
ME^'
15. fl?
21.60
17.00
19.46
19. ?3
13.1 1
13. ?2
10.16
10.65
8. 80
SO
6.70
8.50
6.77
7.07
*>.92
5.15
6.37
5.23
4. OB
2.41
GFOMETRIC
(•••EAN
14.27
20.02
15.32
18.22
18.0ft
12.10
11.64
9.03' •
9.9H
8.45
SO
1.63
1.50
1.66
1 .4S
1.43
1.51
1.62
1.64
1.43
1.36
ho
Ul
I
« LDT INCLUDFS LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS F-'O" 197^. *ND
-------
Appendix 1-4
FY75 Emission Factor'Program
Emission Results for Denver
Cold Transient
MYORr»CAPHnN:<;-PPA»
35] .2V
3J9.6-?
244. 5r>
?4l .9-6
? 1 8 . 0 7
O.n
0.0
?04.64
279. SO
90. S6
157.1?
flo.R?
109.35
109. n9
10?. 51
n.O
0.0
3S0.77
407.17
.3 1 i . 1 0
316.40
30*. 3«
219.70
217.43
196.67 '
0.0
0.0
1 ."'->
1.63
1 . 3^
1.63
1.3?
1.65
1.64
1.61
0.0
0.0
11.43
10.83
12.00
9.76
10.14
8.2?
8.01
8.85
0.0
0.0
5.24
4.65
3.69
4.]9
5.44
3.66
3.72
3.46
• o.o
0.0
10.25
9.51
11.44
8.76
8.99
7.44
7.18
8.28
0.0
0.0
1.64
1.85
1.3d
1.67
1.63
1.64
1.63
1.45
I
h-•
N>
I
« LOT INCLUOFS LIGHT OUTY TPUCKS r-'OM 1975 «NH
-------
Appendix 1-5
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Denver
Cold Stabilized
HY03nCAPKnMS-r,P.v,S C-Vb^, ^'OXIDK-G^'.'S OXIDES OF NITROGF.N-GrfAMS
YFAD
AA-S
196
-------
Appendix 1-6
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Denver
Hot Transient
YFA9
M•^MOXIPI:-G^^MS
MFAN
ARTTHMFTTT
GEOMETRIC
MF'V'I
S'l
^I^:fl^^
SO
OXIDES OF NITROGi£N-G4AMS
ARITHMETIC . GEOMETRIC
MEAN so MEAN sn
(Sft-8
19ft9
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
O.n
0.0
73.4
58.8
46.1
39.3
?H.?
19. ft
10.9
13.7
n.O
o.n
18.ft4
19.31
16. 34
15.3ft
15.44
7.7ft
7.80
7.?3
0.0
P.O
S.9^
7.7?
8.89
4.84
4.9n
3.65
3.73
3.44
0.0
0.0 (
17.7ft
1P.?1
1ft. C?
14.6?
14.67
ft.pfl
7.0?
ft. 48
).0
1.0
.38
.39
.47
.38
.39
.70
.5°
.63
0.0
0.')
?M .<«->
P^.H^
?!!.&•+
?c<5.i)7
P60.01
isn.43
147.41
130.71
0.0
n.o
113.07
168 ,4tf
ftft.SO
1 ?4.8d
95.72
90-.65
73.60
80.93
0.0
0.0
?2S.98
229.8ft
^01 • ? ^*
? "^ 1 -^ U
244.01
122. S^
1^3.57
102.85
0.0
0.0
1.64
l.t-9
1.39
1 .64
1 .42
2.17
2. Ou
2.2.,
0.0
0.0
12.34
12.12
12.68
9.89
8.71
7.35
7.70
8.00
0.0
0.0
4.13
4.91
4.56
5.04
4.88
3.37
3.39
3.21
0.0
0.0
11.63
10.78
11. P8
8.69
7.54
7.12
7.04
7.48
0.0
0.0
1.4S
1.7*
1.45
1.71
1.72
1 .66
1.54
1.45
« LOT I.NCLUnES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS F-vOM 197? ANH 197ft
N3
CO
I
-------
Appendix 1-7
FY75 Bnission Factor Program
Emission Results for Houston
Cold Transient
HYnSOCflPRONS-GPAk'S C AKRON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
YE A3
66-«
1969
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LDT«
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
.14
17
MEAN
MILES
0.0
O.o
O.o
O.o
0.0
51.6
35.6
28.5
11. S
18.4
ARITHMETIC-
MFAN
0.0
0.0
n.o
0.0
0.0
24.39
17.77
9.22
9.32
.11.60
12«.6«
87.99
101.20
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.C
0.0
2.07
l.bR
1.79
2.20
2.68
OXIDES DF NITPOGFN-GWAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 .
12.31
12.40
11. «6
12.59
12. «6
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.33
6.37
4.56
5.12
5.07
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
o.o
11.17
10.91
11.07
11.69
11.97
sn
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.61
1.71
1.46
1.48
1.48
CO
VO
• LDT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS f'OM 1975 «NO 197*
-------
Appendix 1-8
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Houston
Cold Stabilized
HYDPOCAPROK'c.-GPAKS C<^80N MO'-'OXIOF-KR/VMS
YEA9
*is-q
1969
197n
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
Mr AN
(K)
0.0
o.n
O.n
0.0
0.0
51. *
35.6
28.5
11.5
18.4
ARITHMETIC r,rnMFToiC AuIfH
MF1M
0.0
n.n
o.o
n.o
n.n
IB. 20
16.46
6.ft4
6.12
in. 19
?n
o.o
n.n
o.n
n.o
o.o
23.13
".26
5.43
5.33
11.05
M'P AM
n.O
o.n
n.O
o.n
o.n
13.38
14.46
5.21
4.A1
S.ftft
S!'
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
1.9*
1.67
2.25
2.75
3.04
ME ' >>!
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2^4.9^
?73.7-
n«.54
78.92
167.97
'•'ETIC
S'i
O.n
O.n
0.0
o.n
o.n
1«9.30
?n7.p?
160. Kh
94.70
?27;72
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
199. in
210.P4
66. 7«
19.2?
42.1=1
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.n
2. rib
2.14
5.23
8.87
9.13
OxIPES OF NITROGEN-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.73
7.19
7.45
8.70
8.40
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7Q
3.94
3.64
4.05
2.99
GEOMETRIC
ME4M
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.95
6.29
6.80
7.87
7.90
SD
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.0
1.60
1.70
1.52
1.58
U*5
u>
o
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS Ft
-------
Appendix 1-9
PY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Houston
Hot Transient
HYOROC«HRON?-GDAMS OA^SDM MO^OXIDE-GRA^S OXIDES OF NITROGEN-GRAMS .
YF.Ai}
66-fl
1069
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LDT»
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MFAN
(K)
O.n
O.i
O.o
0."
O.r>
Mi*
35.fr
28.^
11."'
18.4
ARITHMETIC OFOMFT°IC ARITHMETIC
MFAM
n.n
n.o
0.0
n.n
n.n
15. P6
1?.P4
5.R?
5.6R
P. 30
en
o.n
0.0
0.0
n0o
0.0
10. 97
5.31
3. Hi
3.59
5. P*
MFANj
n.o
n,n
000 .
n.n
n.n
11.57
11 .P.4
5. no
4.75
6.05
sn
0.0
0.0
0.0
- 0.0
0.0
1.96
1.51
1.75
1.R5
1.84
ME AM
-.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
143.09
166.36
7*. 12
50.03
P7.9,?
' Sn
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
106.90
9P.S9
R9.14
53.55
99.91
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.n
111.64
140.34
S2.«»l
27.6^
43.9^
SIJ
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.05
1.82
2.37
3.30
3.83
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.00
11. «7
11.59
11.54
13.29
so
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.65
6.23
5.38
4.90
5.51
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.21
10.44
10.47
10.74
12.20
sn
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.46
1.69
1.59
1.45
1.54
M
U>
I-1
I
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
1975 «NO 197f,
-------
Appendix 1-10
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Los Angeles
Cold Transient
HYOROC.A'JRONS-GPA^S
MFAN ARITHMETIC GEO"ET"i
YEAR N (K) MFAN SO MFAN S
CA«HnM MONOXIOE-GRflMS OXIDES OF NITROGEN-G«AMS
C A^ITHMrTIc GEOMETRIC ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
n MEAN sn MF:AN so MEAN so MEAN so
6ft-fl
1969
1970
1<»71
1972
1973
1974
1975
197ft
LDT»
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
0.0
O.n
75.9
ftB.9
58.7
47.5
32."
16.2
8.7
14.)
0.0
0.0
33.31
•»*.12
1R.30
19.76
23. 4«
5.fl5
7.ni
6.94
0.0
0.0
55. 0"
54.70
I7.?ft
23.11
28.50
2.92
6.36
. 4.09
0.0
0.0
2?.P6
2?.6H
15. 1H
15. «9
16.92
5.12
5.65
5.*7
0.0
0.0
1.93
2.41
1.71
1.70
1.9B
1.72
1.83
1.85
0.0
0.0
P*3.14
•»4l .5*
PI". 47
21«-22
?25.«9
"7.66
9ft. 5ft
111.33
0.0
0.0
133.5ft
?4ft.50
111.7ft
P9.H9
136.79
78.11
i*a.28
110.23
0.0
o.o
2?3.ft4
258.29
190.9ft
201.«4
19«.25
65.95
73.50
77.39
0.0
0.0
1.92
2.29
1.76
1.50
1 .f>h
2.09
2.09
2.30
0.0
0.0
19.33
16.44
15.03
14.99
10.62
8.96
7.26
8.6C
0.0
0.0
5.60
6.07
5.05
8.60 '
ft. 47
5.60
2.86
4.70
0.0
0.0
18.55
15.13
14.17
13.08
8.93
7.66
6.71
7.60
0.0
0.0
1.35
1.56
1.43
1.68
1.82
1.77
1.54
1.66
I
M
OJ
K>
I
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TPUCKS
197S AND 1976
-------
Anpendix 1-11
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Los Angeles
Cold Stabilized
HYDROCAPHONS-Gf-'AMS Ca^BON MONOXIDE-GRAMS OXIDES OF NITkOGEN-GRAMS
YFAP
66-3
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT»
N
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
MILES
0."
0.0
75.9
68.9
58.7
47.5
32."
16.?
8.7
14.1
ARITHMETIC GPQMETWIC ARITHMETIC
••'FAN SO MF/VK! SO MfflM 5™
0.0
o.n
19.75
34.78
1P.?4
16.49
17.95
1.36
1.32
3.54
0.0
0.0
13.19
5?. 79
4.58
2?.. 01
P7.47
1.01
0.99
4.03
n.o
0.0
17.1?
19.58
9.?1
1?.49
10,9?
1 .0?
1.08
2.09
0.0
0.0
1 .66
2.54
1.64
1 .82
2.41
?.?4
1.86
2.94
0.0
0.0
?24.21
317.27
1*4. 16
P03.90
151.20
12.96
10. 6J
65.70
0.0
0.0
'168.48
?97.35
96.70
129. 1 9
P7.?9
?1.20
25.21
123.77
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
0.0
0.0
lrtl.37
210.38
135.9S
165.17
127.11
1 .83
1.77
10.91
0.0
0.0
1.93
2.72
1.93
2.05
1.86
63.89
42.51
9.17
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.0
0.0
13.15
10.75
9.03
9.45
6.39
6.16
4.80
6.25
0.0
0.0
4.95
5.32
3.00
4.98
3.55
3.28
2.28
3.75
GEOMETRIC
ME4N SO
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
12.43
9.45
8.56
8.20
5.57
5.52
4.45
5.32
.3**
.77
.40
.75
.71
.59
.45
.79.
»-•
u>
I
LOT INCLUOES I. IGHT DUTY TRUCKS Ft-On ]975 «NO
-------
Appendix 1-12
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Los Angeles
Hot Transient
HYOROCAOpoNS-GPAMS
YFAR
'IF AN
MILE*;
N (K)
ARITHMETIC
MFAM Sn
MFAM Sf>
CARBON MONO)
A-)ITH>'FTIr
^E'.N So
t!OP.~GWAM:
GFOMETRIC
MEAN SO
OXIOES OF
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
NITKOGEN-GRAMS
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1073
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
0.0
0.0
75.9
68.0
58.7
47. S
32.0
16.2
8.7
14.1
o.o
0.0
13.73
27.11
o.78
I 3 . P 1
14.47
2.13
1 .83
3.63
0.0.
4.99
4?. 21
3.3«
17.67
19.42
1.47
0.81
3.04
P.O
n.n
l?.flR
1^.60
9.17
10.71
10. S3
1.78
1.64
?.91
0.0
0.0
1.4b
2.44
1.47
1.77
1.95
T.82
1.62
1.90
0.0
0.0
1 I6.4r>
1fi2. 4b
101. *i
117.11
1 06.3s-
15.00
13.17
47.34
0.0
0.0
A2.44
\43.42
45.^6
7b.nl
49.65
14.25
12.31
71.08
0.0
0.0
97.41
137.31
91.56
96.60
04.60
10.14
9.11
25.50
0.0
0.0
1.82
'2. Iti
1.63
1.91
1.67
2.47
?.50
2.76
0.0
0.0
21.03
17. 01
16.20
15.02
9.71
8.67
6.71
7.97
0.0
0.0
6.97
6.57
6.55
. 7.47
5.73
5.26
2.73
4.88
0.0
0.0
19.94
15.76
15.03
13.31
8.31
7.64
6.33
6.83
0.0
0.0
1.41
1.51
1.4S
1.67
1.76
1.62
1.39
1.76
M
U>
I
« LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FPQM 197S ANO 1976
-------
Appendix 1-13
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for St. Louis
Cold Transient
HYnRPCARHONS-Gr>pf-'S O'KBON MnNOXIOF-GPAMS OXIDES OF NITROGEN-GHAMS
YFAW
66-8
1969
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
50
30
34
40
45
. 50
50
48
146
13
MFAN
MILES
(K)
84.9
84.3
65.5
66.3
58.5
45.3
35.8
23.9
16.1
15. n
ARITHMETIC GFO*"FTDIC t^ITHuFTl-C
MFAN
41 .09
27,38
29.35
25.03
21.15
17.05
19.87
11.07
8.94
12.43
sn
37.27
26.02
30.50
22.25
20.76
6.38
13.78
7.15
4.04
7.85
MFftM
32.^6
22.39
23. 1 ft
20.3ft
17.6*
15.99
17.37
9.^9
8.08
10.52
SO
1.82
1.76
1 .83
1.78
1.65
1.44
1.59
1.67
1.60
1.83
HE VI Sn
C34.4b 319.85
T=i6.80 206.44
4?0 . 05 ' 289.76
M6.U 193.75
?63.2ii 143.48
?45.91 111.94
265.05 194.34
178.37 243.34
120.69 79.96
208.62 158.53
GFOMETRIC
MEAN
443.26
-303.64
349.8?
276.35
227.87
225.17
216.1?
126.03
97.06
167.80
SO
1.Q4
llll
1 .H3
1.67
1.74
1.53
1.82
2.15
2.02
1.97
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
15.16
17.98"
15.76
17.4?
21.49
15.27
14.63
11.94
12.49
12.19
SO
10.44
7.60
6.46
6.50 .
8.27
6.32
6.91
5.83
6.06
' 5.75
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
11.81
16.21
13.84
15.83
19.97
14.01
13.05
10.65
11.17
11.13
SO
2.17
1.64
1.86
1.65
1.48
1.54
1.64
1.66
1.63
1.55
Ul
I
« LOT INCLUOFS LIGHT DUTY TPUCKS F*OM 1975 «ND 1976 .
-------
Appendix 1-14
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for St. Louis
Cold Stabilized
OJ
HYOROC4RRONS-GPAMS . CAMS
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LDT»
N
50
30
34
40
45
50
50
48
146
13
MEAN
MILES
(K)
P4.9
84.3
65.5
66.3
58.=;
4S.3
35. P.
?3.9
16.1
15.0
ARITHMETIC GFO^FTPIC
ME AM
35.97
2?. 40
24.76
??.57
15. *6
1?.Q?
15.55
6.04
=:.02
5.09
Sn
33.13
25.09
?3.97
?5.74
1?.70
5.8?
10.91
6.?9
4^36
4.35
Mr AM
27. *9
17.71
19.45
lft.74
13. 4ft
11.69
.13.36
4.00
3.39 .
3.59
sr»
1.95
1.81
1.86
1.99
1.65
. 1.54
1.69
?.52
. 2.60
2.39
ON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
A-?ITH»'FTIC
•-•E VJ
4ft4. J4
?«9..M
T^8%4S
P75.7V
?40.02
?OQ.»S:T
?55.5*
131.23
P0.34
115.40
S'l
319.21
183.90
305.87
?10.53
1P9.06
121.31
202.63
?47.?7
101.68
121.47
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
370.5?
233.27
255.39
214.43
1H7.8S
166.43
187.56
4?. 46
1H.9?
49.85
SO
2.02
2.01
2.10
2.12
2.10
2.1V
2.32
6.28
24.56
5.55
OXIDES OF NITROGEN-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
10.62
12.79
11.02
11.99
13.75
9.59
8.60
8.4.3
7.94
6.92
SO
6.94
5.68
4.17
4.92
5.86
4. 25
4.69
4.23
4.60
3.05
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
8.44
11.46
10.08
10.64
12.55
8.72
7.57
7.50
7.02
6.42
SO
2.06
1.66
1.61
1.77
1.55
1.57
1.67
1.65
1.62
1.48
» LOT INCLUOFS LIGHT IXJTY TRUCKS F-'OM 1975 ANO 197*.
-------
Appendix 1-15
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for St. Louis
Hot Transient
HYnRnrApnoMs-o&Aws . CA^HON MONOXIDF-OP/VMS
YEAR
66-a
19ft9
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
50
30
34
40
45
50
50
48
146
13
MILES
(K) --'FAN
<*4.9 ?7.32
«4.3 . 1H.76
65.5 15.31
66.3 17.85
58.5 12.Q5
45.3 11.^2
35. 5.23
SO
2ft. 23
1".95
ft. 30
1P.B4
ft. 25
4.5?
".33
4.87
2.75
3.40
r,FOMFT"lC
21 .94
15.35
14.30
14.13
12.06
10.74
.78
.71
.43
.80
.42
.46
12.10 1.55
4.04 1.98
3.73 1.91
4.33 1.90
A •:! TH
MF .'. N
?«H.Sl
16S. ??.
' lftc'..14
157.56
133.40
122.18
147.5J
87.4?
^2.05
77.99
So
19Q.P1
Q3.Sf>
1 15.67
1S3.12
100.71
60.30
126.75
??.4.50
50.60
59^16
MEAN
230.51
1 3«.?5
1 39 . 1 «
122.0?.
1 1 0 . ?4
105..M6
114. BO
40.3"
31.25
S5.44
TRIG
SO
?.02
1.89
. 1.88
1 .44
l.flS
1.79
1.99.
3.01
3.14
2.52
OXinES OF MITROGFN-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
16.48
19.78
18.39
18.64
22.75
16.07
14.47
11.38
11.23
11.51
9.46
8.37
6.04
7.17
7.69
ft. 81
ft. 86
5.25
5.74
5.05
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
13.71
18.00
17.32
16.52
21.44
14.73
12.88
10.20
10.14
10.77
1.92
1.58
1.4S
1.83
1.43
1.53
1.65
1.66
1.56
1.43
I
I-1
CO
I
« LOT INCLUDFS LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS' F*OM 1975 »ND 197*
-------
Appendix 1-16
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Washington
Cold Transient
HYDROCAPRONS-GPAMS
YEAP
66-9
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LDT»
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MFAN
MILES
(K)
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
46.6
28. C.
19.?
4.8
9.4
CARBON MOMOXIOE-GPAMS
ARITHMETIC GFOMFTPIC A^ITHyFTlC
MFAM
0.0
n.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
1S.P3
IS. 31
°.?9
6.?5
6.25
S"
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.9*
6.23
ft. 66
2.53
3.05
MF AM
i.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
13.99
l4.?q
7.P4
5.78
S.s?
S'">.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
1.57
1.45
1.74
1.50
1.71
. MF4M
• o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2M.91
?1 7.41
13P.88
P.3.84
99.99
S'l
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
195.no
144.38
95. S8
44.36
R3.30
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
199. IS
187. SI
112.96
71.51
72.. OS
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 ,«2
1.67
1.94
1.84
2.57
OXIDES OF NITROGEN-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
KEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.30
14.36
12.10
11.87
11.73
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.12
7.50
5.67
4.99
4.64
GEOMETRIC
ME4N
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.18
12.56
10'. 94
10.97
10.97
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.59
1.72
1.59
1.49
1.45
u;
03
I
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TPUCKS FROM 197S «NO 1976
-------
Appendix 1-17
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Washington
Cold Stabilized
HYOROCaopONS-GPAH'S CA4HON MONOXIDE-GPA^S OXIPES OF NITROGEN-GRAMS '
VF:AR
66-3
1969
1970
1071
107?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MFAN
MILE?
(K)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.6
28. R
19.?
^.B
9.4
ARITHMFTlC
MF4N
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11. on
1?.00
5.4?
' 2.62
3.10
sn
o.o
0.0
n.o
0.0
0.0
^.75
4.69
5.40
?.97
2.95
GFQMFTPIC AJlTHMFTlr:
MFAf
0.0
0.0
. 0.0
0.0
0.0
9.*4
11.17
3.27
l.*7
1.92
SO
0.0
0.0
n.o
o.n
0.0
1.73
1.48
2.99
2.51
2.79
MFIN'
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
192.07
1*0.76
P7.06.
36.31
44.13
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
128.04
102.77
04.58
66.03
49.59
GEOMETRIC
NF.AN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
141.10
126.7?
29.49
4.26
16.81
SO
0.0
0.0 '
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.50
2.20
7.40
60.41
6.66
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0 .
0.0
0.0
9.56
9.37
8.4Q
9.19
7.40
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.81
4.87
4.93
3.95
3.10
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.82
8.28
7.45
8.51
6.82
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I.b3
1.66
1.61
l.*7
1.52
u>
VO
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS F->OM 1975 fcNO 197
-------
Appendix I—18
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Washington
Hot Transient
o
HYOROCAP^QNS-GPiMS CARBON MnNOX IDE-GWAMS
YTAQ
IS*-*
]9*9
1970
1971
197?
1Q73
1974
197S
197A
LOT«
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MFAN
MILES
(K)
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
U6.f>
28. ft
19.?
4.8
9.*
4RTTHMFTIC
wr AN
• 0.0
o.n
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.99
9.B8
4.54
2.99
3.35
sn
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2ft.
?.p?
?.3fl
i.flo
2.51
GFQMFTPIC
MF.AN
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.p
0.0
Q.^2
9.6.5
3.49
?.SO
2.64
sn
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.37
1.37
2.11
1.86
2.01
ARlTHMfTlr
ME**
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 1 9.44 "
101.1*
51 .26
?6.H3
28. S6
Sn
. 0.0
o.o •
0.0
0.0
0.0
f>P.H7
75.11
59.^2
?8.
-------
Anpendlx 1-19
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Phoenix
Cold Transient
HYnRnra^fONS-GPAV.S OArftJON MONOXIDE-GRAMS
YEAP
66-«
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
L,m»
N
49
30
35
40
45
50
50
49
151
0
MF AN
MILES
(K)
92.4
P4.7
75.5
68. fl
56.1
44.0
34. fl.
25. fl
12.8
0.0
A^ITHMFTIC
Mf AN
27. S7
26. *2
20.49
19.1S
17.77
16.41
18.47
11.52
7.46
o.n
SO
13. 2S
.12.*6
36.07
8.11
0.34
9.07
18.87
10.74
4.36
0.0
GFOMFTDIC MITHMFTIC
MFAN
25.30
24.19
2?. t\2
17.0ft
1ft. 03
14. PO
15.22
9.31
6.63
0.0
SO
.49
.5S
.80
.43
.5*
.53
.69
.80
.61
0.0
MFAN
426.26
411.21
389.
-------
Appendix 1-20
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Phoenix
Cold Stabilized
HYnROC^RHONS-GOAMS CARBON MONOXItJE-GPAMS
YEAR
66-H
1969
1970
1971
1972
197?
1974
1975
1976
LDT»
N
49
30
35
40
45
50
50
49
151
0
MFAN
MILES
(K)
92.4
84.7
75.5
68. P
56.1
44.0
34. ft
25. H
12.8
0.0
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MFA'J SO MC&N Si>
24.22
10.24
10.07
13. 8«
12.62
12.03
1^.03
5.36
3.79
0.0
1?.9?
9.?n
9.57
3.«3
7,09
6.14
19.20
5.57
4.4fl
0.0
21.7?
17. (SO
17.11
13.33
11.30
10.H6
11.66
3.50
2.37
n.o
1.57
1.51
1.60
1.34
1.56
1.5fc
2.04
2.57
2.67
0.0
A4ITH
MF IN
372.21
319. 9<»
306. 9S
202.40
1»0.5()
200. 9<+
23^.86
S3. 77
50.54
0.0
xFTlr GEOMETRIC
5^ MEAN SO
219.62
?47.91
262.97
110.«5
104,^3
153.34
191.28
104.01
73.46
0.0
313.17
253.59
216.30
174.27
14S.91
152.71
171.91
17.13
12.94
0.0
1.H4
1.97
2.5M
1.77
1.94
2.20
2.36
39.82
7.90
0.0
OXIDES OF. NITROGEN-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
7.54
10.47
9.69
10.19
9.64
8.09
8.06
8.38
7.77
0.0
3.97
4.51
4.21
4.17
3.53
3.69
4.44
4.46
3.80
0.0
GEOMETRIC
^EAN so
6.51 ]
9.37
8.66
9.49
9.02
7.21
7.04
7.40
L.78
1.68
.70
.45
.46
.71
.70
.67
7.05 1.54
0.0 0.0
Is)
« LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
) 975 AND 197A
-------
Appendix 1-21
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Phoenix
Hot Transient
YEAH
MFAN
MILE«;
N (K)
HYOROCAPHONS-GPAfS
ARITHMETIC GFOMFT^IC A
MFAH so MFAN S') "F
Cirt^ON M(tNOXIOE-GR!\MS
;VITHMFTIC GEOMETRIC
*N SO MEAN SD
OXIDES OF NITROGEN-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
GEOMETRIC
K*EAN so
66-9
1969
197n
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LDT»
49.
30
35
40
45
SO
50
49
151
0
02.4
P. 4. 7
75.5
68.8
C6.1
44."
34. P
?5.8
12.8
0.0
I 8.. 70
14. «?
15.94
11.76
»n.P5
in. 60
12. n3
4.69
3.71
0.0
7.94
5.4(1
11.70
3.82
4.51
.3.85
8.31
2.75
2.55
0.0
16.94
l4.no
13. Q2
11.31
10. ?4
In. 04
In. 43
3.07
3.11
0.0 (
1.47
1.40
.60
.31
.39
.38
.66
.81
1.80
).0
P56.10
1H3.36
187.22
123.89
117.14
130.29
137.14
S7.04
3f>.71
0.0
159. M
119.75
176.Q4
56.23
SB. 23
93.71
98.. 71
53.77
34.50
0.0
215.7?
153.5°
140.54
112.30
104.11
108.28
111.45
35.29
24.05
0.0
1.H3
1.83
2.20
1.57
1.65
1.84
1.90
2.93
2.72
0.0
11.87
16.22
14.B2
15.61
15.02
13.15
12.95
11.90
10.76
0.0
5.56
6.25
5.83
5.76
4.76
5.80
6.53
5.64
4.67
0.0
10.50
15.11
13.32
14.55
14.26
11.77
11.52
10.77
9.98
0.0
1.70
1.47
1.71
1.48
1.40
1.70
1.63
• 1.57
1.46
O.Q
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
i<»75 «NO 1976
-------
. Appendix 1-22
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for All Cities
Except Denver and Los Angeles
Cold Transient
HYOROCAPRONS-GPAMS CA^P
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
149
90
104
120
135
20*
204
203
515
64
MEAN
MILE*
(K)
85.0
77.1
66.3
63.7
52.2
43.2
31.7
22.4
11.5
13.4
ARITHMETIC
MEAN Sn
34.22
27.49
28.63
?3.3*
1^.37
17.75
18.07
10.09
7. «*
9.45
27.42
20.92
29.61
26.01
15.06
1*.?2
1*.66
7.72
4.35
6.82
fiFOMETOIC
MFftM SO
2«.f»l
23. *3
2?. 78
IP. 91
16.78
IS. 17
15.r>8
P. 55
6.95
7.62
1.70
1.64
1.80
1.70
1.61
1.6Q
1.61
1.70
1.62
1.94
OH MONOXIDE-GRAMS
APITHMETIC
MEAN SO
/.65.1 7
T60 .r>5
388.04
P85.R7
252.50
P.12.37
P38.65
154.47
105.54
140.62
?62.S1
206.51
2P5.68
174.44
131.45
142.35
159.33
156.22
70.31
11*. 69
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
398. 3n
310.25
316.00
248. 3*
220.00
I99.fr*
203.6"
118.86
85.28
103.79
1.7V
1.73
1.89
1.69
1.72
1.74
1.71
1.99
1.99
2.33
OXIDES OF NITROGEN-GRAMS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
13.28
17.10
14.57
16.55
18.05
13.48
13.5*
11.98
11.77
11.59
7.85
7.94
6.38
6.63
7.38
5.75
6.52
5.60
5.06
4.T5
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
11.18 1.87
15.21
12.68
15.12
16.66
12.21
12.05
10.79
.67
.84
.57
.50
.60
.64
.60
10.80 1.52
10.75 1.47
-P-
* LOT INCLUOFS LTGHT DUTY TRUCKS F"r>OM 1975 AND 1976
-------
Appendix 1-23
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for All Cities
Except Denver and Los Angeles
Cold Stabilized
HYnROCABRONS-GPAMS
CAK80N MONOXIDE-GPftMS
OXIDES OF NITROGEN-GWAMS
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
MILES
YEAR
sr>
ME IN
sr)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN'
SD
66-«
1969
1970
1071
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
149
90
104
120
135
204
204
203
515
64
85.0
77.1
66.3
63.7
52.?
43.2
31.7
22. <*
11.5
13.4
?9.49
21.50
21.90
17.06
13.67
13.10
1&.91
5.78
4.34
5.46
24.6?
19. 9M
18.30
19.16
10.14
1?.26
14.34
6.71
4.49
7.01
24. ?9
17.07
IB. 23
1^.66
11.01
11.03
12.15
3.60
?.68
3.04
1.76
1.67
1.72
1.71
1.62
1.70
1.77
2.75
2.81
2.04
392.75
?77 .91
?99.37
223.70
P02.4J
199.60
214.49
102.0J
66.96
95.62
254.59
194.67
246.53
154.30
1AP.77
142.52
177.09
158.37
94.07
144.34
319.31
220. OS
229.86
180.68
159.43
151.14
157.40
25.03
13.94
19.3?
2.00
2.10
2.14
1.99
2.05
2.25
2.29
27.16
17.36
30.61
9.58
12.71
10.44
11.44
11.66
8.61
8.32
7.P6
7.92
7.19
5.51
5.65
4.30
4.75
4.88
3.80
4.38
4.13
3.97
2.89
8.04
11.35
9.43
10.4Q
10.73
7.79
7.32
6.99
7.15
6.66
1.87
1.66
1.64
1.60
1.51
1.60
1.67
1.63
1.56
1.48
LOT INCLlinpS LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976
-------
Appendix 1-24
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for All Cities
Except Denver and Los Angeles
Hot Transient
HYDROCAPhONS-GPAMS CAKflOM MONOXIDE-GRAMS
YEA9
66-8
1969
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LDT«
N
149
90
104
120
135
204
204
203
515
64
MF4N
MILES
(K)
P5.n
77.1
66.3
63.7
52.?
43.?
31.7
?2.4
11.5
13.4
ARITHMETIC
MF;AN sn
??.66
17.48
16.05
14.55
11.64
11.6?
12.43
4.93
4.07
5.19
19.45
1^.33
11. ?8
14.41
5.37
10.94
9.66
4.10
?.7l
4.30
GFOMETPIC
MFAN so
19.18
I4.f»7
14.08
1P.39
10.84
10.06
10.79
'3.85
3.33
4.00
1.65
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.43
1.58
1.61
2.01
1.91
2.04
AHITHMFTIC
MEAN sn
P58.21
1*2. 4>)
168.61
130.33
)?0.2t>
120.74
130.3
-------
Appendix I-Z5
Fy75 Emission FacLor ProRram
Emission Results for All Cities Except Los Angeles and Denver by Model Year and Inertia Weight 1972 FTP
I'.'EOTIA '. f.
(LhS.) .
-•2001
HC
CO
FUEL ECONOMY
2001-2500
HC
C'l
Nil*
FUEL ECONOMY
2SOI-JOOO
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
3001-3500
HC
Co
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
S'ifll^OOO
HC
CD
NOX
F'.lEL ECONOMY
4001-4500
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
4S01-5000
HC
co
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
>*000
HC
CO
NOX
F'JEL ECONOMY
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
FlJcL ECONOMY
66-0
x'?. IN SO
•;= 1
ij.4-1 n.o
130.72 0.0
2.15 0.0
1.05 O.P
»<• 3
5.7* 2.50
71.72 23. «4
l.«2 0.74
23. SS 0.70
MS ?3
6.>5 2.65
86.77 39.79
2.92 1.59
17.76 2.37
MS 37
8.14 6.17
103.03 75.91
3.?6 1.89
14.13 2.10
vs 52
3.63 6.40
117.19 50.16
3.03 1.53
1J.17 1.70
(is 26
10.56 10.34
127.29 56.37
3.20 1.95
11. S6 1.23
fjs 4
9.*>4 4.0?
197. ?0 90. «9
2.s:> i.ii
1.I.1U 1.30
>>= 3
10. 9S 5.46
23 26
3.57 1.50
59. IS 15.42
3.33 1.55
9.74 1.24
N= 3
2.48 0.49
41.97 ?2.16
4.55 1.01
9.59 0.75
N=204
4.11 3.41
57.60 33.51
2.95 1.20
13.07 3.43
1974
^E*N SO
(4=
0.0
0.0
0.0
n.o
f!=
3.39
37.63
2.65
23.18
H =
4.r>i
53. OS
2.50
17.77
M=
4.57
S4.96
3.19
13.72
N»
4.74
59.05
2.«?
12.2*
Ms
4.63
67.90
3.12
11.2?
N=
.1.94
72.14
3.23
9.98
N-
6.23
108.64
2.69
9.73
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
0.7.1
10.96
0.83
1.94
38
3.41
30.3^
0.99
2.7<.
28
?.4fl
25.97
?.01
2. as
44
5.05
41.99
1.3S
1.07
42
7.81
45. 4H
1 *2b
1.01
21
).7n
4P.07
1 .7''
1.26
9
5.76
0^95
0.4*
N=204
4.40
• 60.42
2.91
13.13
3.4S
40.6?
1.3P
3.52
1975
.•:£*N SO
MS
1.97
24.)9
1.R8
23.66
us
1.77
17.92
?.39
22.61
MS
2.11
PH.16
7.4R
17. S3
f:=
2.02
31.51
7.79
14.74
H =
l.fll
31.27
2.94
13.42
»|S
?.?0
34. S9
2.73
11.69
f-=
1.71
2'I.HO
2.44
11.0?
Us
.1.63
87.01
2.62
10.14
9
7.04
23.64
O.hO
2.99
IS
0.66
7. 09
0.3S
3.02
3S
2.20
?0.80
1.20
2.7S
32
1.72
27. C3
1.42
?.10
37
1.04
22.97
1.34
1.32
47
1.53
28.05
1.17
1.17
13
O.fln
15.12
0.71
l.lft
IS
2.60
109.62
1.67
2.15
N=203
7.12
34.20
?.6S
13.86
1.71
39,67
1.24
3.60
1*76.
>:f"AN S')
N=
1.36
12.16
l.»6
*?.97
NS
1.53
19.03
2.73
23.04
Us
1.S3
21.32
7.1V
10.43
M=
1.70
IK. 54
7..PH
15. PI
NS
l.PA
*9.77
2.73
14.17
f!s
1.57
7.4.66
2.77
17.. 63
t-;s
1.26
1M.70
7.49
11.41
NS
1.5.1
20.06
2.7H
10.70
16
1.15
75.03
0.50
2.26
51
0.69
8.78
0.43
?.39
73
1.09
lb.82
0.81
2.03
99
1.30
16.49
1.24
1.74
121
1.21
25.64
1.23
1.31
93
1.00
21.52
1.14
o.as
39
0.74
17.56
1.17
0.77
23
0.96
16.20
0.9H
0.70
N=515
1.62
23.00
2.63
14.68
'1.10
79.47
1.12
3.34
LOT*
NS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N=
1.40
19. 6S
4.67
0.09
MS
1 ,3i
15.30
2.21
18.03
X=
1 .8»>
31. U
2.30
13. 3b
MS
i.ao
28. in
2.34
12. 68
U
2.00
37. t>Z
1.11
1.33
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
c.o
0.0
0.0 -
0.0
64
1.67
31.52
0.91
1.81
I—1
-O
1
-------
Appendix 1-26
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Chicago
1972 FTP
00
I
MYOKOC*PBONS ltM/MI CAHBON MONOXIDE GM/Ml
YFAP
66-H
1^69
1970
1971
197?
1973
1<»74
1975
1976
I.OT«
N
SO
30
35
40
45
50
50
50
150
• 17
MEAN
MILES
(K)
77.9
62.2
57.9
55.9
42.1
.34.1
24.0
15.9
7.3
11.2
AHITHMETIC
HFAM
*.27
bl«4
6.54
5.77
4.26
3.99
4.19
1.90
1.5?
1.55
SO
6. 11
5.91
S.19
7.1>2
2.49
4.11
4.40
2.08
1.05
1.26
GfOMETRlC ARITHMETIC
'•FA'-I S'"> MEAN SO
7.0^ .«-9 103.37 51.14
0.74 ,«,4 71.51 32. SI
b.4H . 73 81.18 43.99
4.4? .78 62.64 30. ?5
3.79 .S8 57.00 31.94
:i.3* .60 47.24 26. ?8
3.4S .^8 45.30 25.'»1
1.4h .92 27.88 26.19
1.26 1.R4 23.61 22.79
1.21 ?.04 24.16 17.75
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
89.21
65.21
71.10
55.72
48.23
40.88
39.28
SO
.85
.54
.70
.67
.84
.72
.73
20.23 2.21
15.75 2.57
19.50 ]
1.94
OXIDES
OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
3.21
4.51
3.37
3.95
3.97
2.82
2.86
2.38
2.49
2.09
SO
1.42
1.92
1.42
1.52
1.39
1.14
1.18
1.06
0.91
0.61
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
2.90
4.11
3.03
3.68
3.76
2.60
2.60
2.17
2.34
2.01
.62
.57
.64
.47
.39
.53
.57
• 55
.43
.36
« LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
1975 tND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-27
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Denver
1972 FTP
HYDROCARBONS
'
YEAP
66-*
1969
1970
1971
197?
1973
1974
197S
197*
LOT*
N
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
MEAN
MILES
(K)
0.0
0.0
73.4
58.8
46.1
39.3
2ft. 2
19.6
10.9
13.7
AHITHMETIC
MFAN
0.0
0.0
6.86
8.19
6.07
5.22
5.00
2.76
2.72
2.61
SO
0.0
n.n
2.53
4.61
4.21
2.12
1.59
1.20
1 .?8
1.33
OM/MI CAHBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
GEOMETRIC ARITHMETIC
'••FAN SO MEAN
o.o o.o • o.o
<• • 0 0«i 0.0
to. 44
7.13
^1.37
4.89
4.76
2.51
2.45
2.31
.44 96.58
,*7 109.54
,S6 80.19
.'.3 89.19
.18 W5.95
.^6 55.02
.*8 52.28
.66 46.46
sr>
o.o
0.0
40.99
67.55
21. 19
40. 25
26.37
28.37
27. S6
26.06
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
87.24 .63
96.42 .62
77.55 .30
80.11 .64
81.96 .38
47.62 .81
44.97 .82
39.68 .84
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
2.65 0.95
2.48 1.00
2.69 0.85
2.19 1.01
2.14 1.14
1.84 0.69
1.84 0.74
1.86 0.72
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
SD
0.0 0.0
0.0 t.0
2.49
2.22
2.56
.96
.91
.70
.70
.46
. 7J
.38
.63
.60
.54
.59
.74 1.44
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FW)M 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-23
F;Y75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Houston
1972 FTP
o
HYDWOC4RBONS "M/MI
VFAP
66-B
1969
197P
1971
197?
197)
197*
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MEAN
MILES
(K)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
51.6
35.6
28.5
11.5
18.4
ARITHMETIC
MFAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
. 0.0
0.0
5.68
4.56
2.14
2.06
2.91
SO
0.0
n.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.47
?.10
1.13 ,
1.53
2.36
GEOMETRIC
'EAN
U.O
.'.0
I-.O
' .11
'.0
4.32
4.17
1.91
1.69
^.20
SO
0.0
n.o
0.0
n.n
O.n
1.00
1.53
l.*3
1.R4
?.13
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.n
0.0
70.09
71.79
38.61
25.60
42. IT
SO
O.o
O.n
O.o
O.n
0."
45.86
42. '7
32. ?2
20.39
45.92
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
58.72
61.96
29.84
17.36
22.6?
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.80
1.71
2.07
2.70
3.50
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.67
2.61
2.58
2.84
2.83
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.16
1.32
1.02
1.17
0.93
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.43
2.32
2.40
2*63
2.69
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.58
1.67
1.45
1.48
l.*0
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FH«»M 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-29
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Los Angeles
1972 FTP
M
In
HYOROCAPHONS iiM/MI
YEA*
66-«
1969
197n
1971
197?
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT-
MEAN
N (K)
0 0.0
0 0.0
20 75.9
22 68.9
25 58.7
27 47.5
27 3?.0
28 16.2
34 8.7
17 14.1
AHITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
7.08
9.72
3. SI
4.83
5.5?
0.96
1.11
1.40
sr>
0.0
n.o
8.87
14.27
2.32
5.99
7.37
0.48
0.86
1.06
GEOMETRIC
.'FA*
'..0
I). 0
3.4H
S.69
.'.39
.J.H?
3.79
• I.Hfc
".91
1.11
Sn
o.n
0.0
1.77
?.&4
1.S8
1.72
?.()9
1.70
1.74
1.98
CAH80N MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
64.99
87.85
51.15
56.29
50. ?H
13.42
14.29
23.61
SD
O.n
O.n
33.99
70. ?2
25.93
27. S6
?4.39
11. ?5
14.19
30.28
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
56.15 1.81
64.46 2.39
44.69 1.73
50.60 1.61
44.76 1.66
10.03 2.15
10.73 2.09
13.76 2.72
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
SD
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
4.33
3.62
3.21
3.26
2.27
2.02
.28
.39
.04
.78
.29
.12
1.61 0.64
1.9S
l.OB
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
4.17 .33
3.31 .61
3.05 .39
2.46 .68
1.96 .73
1.61 .57
1.51 .42
1.74 .67
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FKOM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-30
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results For St. Louis
1972 FTP
HYDROCARBONS
YFAR
ft*S-«
1969
1-J70
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1V76
LOT*
N
SO
30
34
40
45
50
50
48
146
13
MEAN
MILES
(K)
«4.9
84.3
65.5
66.3
58.5
45.3
35.8
23.9
16.1
15.0
ARITHMETIC
MFAN
10.28
6.64
7.22
6.35
4.91
4.00
4.72
2.28
1.86
2.34
sn
9.20
6.72
7.07
6.23
3.69
1.46
3.07
1.68
1.05
1.41
OM/MI . CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
GFOMfTTwic ARITHMETIC
"FAN Sn MEAN S'l
n.19
S.41
5.79
3.02
•».?%
3.74
4.17
1.90
1.60
1.99
«4 133.17 79. 4«
•»5 86.19 46.49
/9 101.13 71.18
-.4 78.92 49.92
<-.2 67.10 39.91
/*6 6Q.74 25.56
<--8 69.42 50. S5
78 41.28 64.62
74 26.80 22.32
•<2 43.21 31.73
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
112.30
74.37
84.92
68.79
57.69
54.86
55.68
SO
.85
.76
.80
.67
.76
.63
.95
25.85 2.46
19.03 2.42
32.92 2.22
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
3.44 2.18
4.10 .69
3.57 .34
3.92 .44
4.70 .79
3.31 .30
3.10 .48
2.72 .30
2.72 .35
2.55 .07
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
2.77 2.02
3.75
3.26
3.56
4.38
3.08
2.78
2.44
2.46
2.39
.56
.64
.67
.47
.49
.62
.62
.56
.44
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FHOM 197S AND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-31
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Washington
1972 FTP
U>
HYDROCARBONS (>M/MI
YP.AP
**,-*
1964
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
197S
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MEAN
MILES
(K)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.6
28.8
19.2
4.8
9.4
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
u.o
0.0
0.0
3.59
3.64
1.96
l.lft
1.25
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 .R9
1.30
1.S3
0.64
0.77
GEOMETRIC
K'f AN
M.O
I'.O
U.O
u.o
0.0
3.23
J.4~»
l.SP
1.05
1.04
sr>
0.0
n. i
0.0
o.n
0.0
1.58
1.43
1 ."8
l.f.2
1.R7
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
57. 8b
50.42
30.13
16.02
19.22
S:i
0.0
O.fi
O.i
0.0 .
O.n
37. *-7
29.^8
23.79
13.41
16. H6
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
47.40
43.90
23.03
12.02
13.29
50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.94
1.68
2.13
2.19
2.77
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
. MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.05
3.16
2.73
2.81
2.S5
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.09
1.58
1.36
1.04
0.91
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.85
2. HI
2.47
2.65
2.42
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.47
1.66
1,57
1.39
1.40
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 aNO 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-32
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Phoenix
1972 FTP
HYDROCARBONS
YFAP
6
b.47
4.?1
3.71
J.47
-i.73
1.8?
1.27
i>. 0
Sn
.49
.^8
.f-9
.34
.SI
.^0
.78
.^9
.75
o.n
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
106.46 53.05
97.49 57. S5
92.91 67.42
62.27 30.39
57. «7 24. 22
57.91 35.13
65.79 41.)4
33. S3 28.^8
19.70 16.41
0.0 0.0
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
94.96 .62
84.88 .68
74.97 .95
56.05 .59
52.89 .56
49.29 .80
56.67 .71
24.05 2.29
14.59 2.21
0.0 0.0
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2.49
3.31
3.07
3.32
3.21
2.79
2.82
2.84
2.57
SO
.12
.43
.28
.33
.11
.21
.38
.37
.07
0*0 0.0
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
2.22 .66
3.01 .57
2.77 .67
3.08 .48
3.03 .42
2.52 .65
2.52 .61
2. 56 .59
2.39 .45
0.0 0.0
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
1975 AND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-33
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for All Cities
Except Denver and Los Angeles
1972 FTP
HYDROCARBONS
rFAW
A6-H
1969
1970
1971
197?
1973
197*
1975
1976
LOT'
N
1*9
90
10*
120
135
20*
20*
203
515
' 6*
MFAN
MILES
(K)
85.0
77.1
66.3
63.7
52.2
*3.2
31.7
22.*
11.5
13.*
/1HITHMETIC
MFAN
H.*9
6. S3
6.7*
5.51
<».*!
*• 1 1
*.*0
2.12
U62
1.99
SI)
6.73
5.32
5.B3
5.71
?.H*
3.*1
3.*5
1.71
1.10
1 .67
Of/Ml CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
GfOMFTPlC ARITHMETIC
^Ffl^! SO MEAN S')
7.17 .<-9 11*. 39 63. *5
5.6? .^2 B5.06 *7.<»6
S.b»» . '3 91 .65 61 .'-)6
".Sfc .67 67.9* 3fl.^7
J.^»l .^7 60.66 32.73
J.5P .59 57.60 33. SI
J.77 .A* 60. *2 40.S2
1.72 .H* 3*. 20 39.'-7
1.36 .«0 23^00 20. '.7
1.51 2.09 31.50 31. C2
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
98.37
7*. 39
76.71
59.89
52.80
*9.21
50. *6
2*o01
16.06
20.38
SO
1.79
1.67
1.82
1.65
1.72
1.77
1.81
2.26
2e*2
2.71
OXIDES OF NITROGEN GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
3.05
3.97
3.33
3.73
3.96
2.95
2.91
2.65
2.63
SO
.68
.7*
.35
.45
.57
.20
.38
1.2*
U12
2.50 0.91
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
2.62
3.59
3.01 1
3.*3
3.68
2.70
2.61
2.*0
2.*3
SO
1.79
1.59
1.65
.55
,*7
.56
.62
.57
.48
2.36 l.*I
LOT INCLUDES LIGHT OUTr TRUCKS
1975 AW l<376c
-------
Appendix 1-34
FY75 Emission Factor Proram
Emission Results for Chicago
IDLE HC AND IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YFAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
50
30
35
40
45
50
50
50
150
17
MEAN
MILES(K)
77.91
62.25
57.95
55.88
42.07
34.07
23.95
15.86
7.29
11.24
IDLE
MEAN
612.
432.
501.
453.
360.
336.
322.
149.
177.
84.
HC(PPM)
SO
458.
450.
*»53.
440.
391.
460.
376.
136.
195.
86.
IDLF
MEAN
5.37
3.95
4.34
4.68
3.77
2.79
2.97
1^32
^2ifl^
0.92
COt*)
SD
2.96
2.50
2.41
2.81
2.99
3.00
2.4A
1.78
3.01
1.79
• L6T INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-35
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Denver
IDLE HC AND IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YFAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
MEAN
MILES(K)
0.0
0.0
73.36
58.76
46. OB
39.27
28.15
19.60
10.93
13.71
IDLF. H(
MFAN
0.
0.
3K9.
360.
367.
255.
296.
196.
303.
255.
:
-------
Appendix 1-36
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Houston
IDLE HC AMD IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
4
H-
Ui
I
MODEL
YFAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MEAN
MILESdO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
51.57
35.55
28.55
11.47
18.4?
IDLE HC
2.63
2.77
2.22
C0(«)
SD
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.93
3.38
2.29
3.36
3.05
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-37
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Los Angeles
VO
IDLE HC AND IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YFAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
20
22
25
27
27
28
34
17
MFAN
MILES
-------
Appendix 1-38
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Washington
o
IDLE HC ANO IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YEAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
LOT*
N
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
28
34
17
MEAN
MILF.SlK)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.57
28.76
19.2?
4.80
9.43
IDLE HC
MEAN
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
270.
217.
168.
77.
67.
(PPM)
- SO
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
383.
128.
186.
74.
70.
IDLE
MEAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.94
2.77
1.49
0.75
0.57
C0(%)
SO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.64
2.95
2.03
1.93
0.98
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS EROM 1975 ANO 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-39
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for Phoenix
cr>
IDLE HC flND IOLF CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YFAR
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1074
1975
1976
LOT*
N
49
30
35
40
45
50
50
49
151
0
MEAN
MILES(K)
9?. 36
84.73
75.52
68. 81
56.08
43.96
34.85
25.81
12.79
0.0
IDLE HC
MFAN
511.
294.
320.
29ft.
256.
240.
234.
159.
120.
0.
(PPM)
SO
470.
126.
335.
179.
207.
232.
255.
?63.
169.
0.
IDLF
MFAN
5.12
5.18
4.39
3.95
3.*?
3.45
3.54
1.72
1.31
0.0
C0(%)
SO
3.07
2.53
3.14
2.84
2.35
2.75
3.05
2.52
2.35
0.0
• LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS FROM 1975 AND 1976.
-------
Appendix 1-40
FY75 Emission Factor Program
Emission Results for All Cities.
Except Los Angeles, Denver & St. 'Louis
IDLE HC AND IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YEAH
66-8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
197*
1975
1976
LOT*
N
99
60
70
80
90
154
154
155
369
51
MEAN
MILES(K)
65.06
73.49
66.73
62.35
4*. 07
4^.54
30.37
21.90
V.70
13.03
IDLE HC
MEAN
562.
363.
410.
374.
303.
235.
272.
161.
146.
104.
(PPM)
SO
464.
335.
*06.
343.
315.
367.
295.
198..
181.
119.
IDLE
MEAN
5.24
4.57
4.36
4.32
3.60.
3.26
3.35
1.71
1.71
1.24
com
so
3.00
2.57
2.78
2.83
2.68
2.86
2.94
2.20
2.75
2.20
K3
I
* LOT INCLUDES LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
1975 AND 1976.
-------
-163-
APPENDIX II
PERCENT RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
-164-
Did you buy the vehicle new or used?
FY 76
How
On a
New 75.5
Used 24.5
long ago did you purchase the
0-3 months 4.8
3-12 months 27.1
1-2 years 22.9
Over 2 years 45.2
yearly basis, how many miles
0-5000 4.3
5-10000 29.8
10-15000 41.8
15-20000 15.6
20-30000 7.6
Over 30000 .9
vehicle?
in this vehicle
driven?
Where is the driving done?
For
City Expressways
Major City Streets
Other City Streets
Rural Expressways
Other Rural Roads
what purpose?
To and from work
Shopping
Business
Other
All Most
6.4 21.8
7.8 33.5
1.4 9.9
.6 3.6
.2 .8
All Most
11.8 36.1
4.6 17.7
3.3 4.8
2.0 4.5
Some
45.0
46.3
50.5
17.5
9.7
Some
21.1
57.4
10.6
53.5
None
26.8
12.5
38.2
78.3
89.3
None
30.9
20.3
81.3
40.0
-------
-165-
6. Would you consider that the vehicle has been maintained to the
manufacturers specifications?
Yes 88.5
No 4.7
Don't know 6.8
7. How long ago was the last oil change?
Too new not due 4.6
Due but not yet done 2.8
0-6 mo 84.8
6-12 mo 4.3
Over 1 year .3
Don't know 3.3
8. How long ago was the last engine tune-up?
Too new not due 20.2
Due but not done 4.7
' 0-6 mo 50.6
6-12 mo 15.9
Over 1 year 5.0
Don't know 3.7
9. Who performed this tune-up?
No tune-up 23.7
Dealer 20.1
Independent garage 25.4
Tune-up clinic 4.3
Yourself 22.3
Don't know 4.3
10. Has the vehicle or engine been altered by the installation of exhaust
headers, modified exhaust system components, or performance
carburetor components, camshaft, or ignition equipment?
Yes .6
No 98.5
Don't know .9
11. Has the vehicle been operated regularly on unpaved roads, in competitive
events, or in hauling or transporting loads heavier than for which it
was designed?
Yes 1.9
No 97.6
Don't know .5
-------
-166-
12. Has this vehicle ever had major damage in any of the following areas?
Yes No
Cooling System 2.4 97.6
Engine 1.4 98.6
Fuel System .7 99.3
Exhaust System 1.7 98.3
No Damage 93.3 6.7
Don't know 1.4 98.6
13. If the vehicle requires unleaded fuel, has it been operated on leaded
fuel?
Not required 61.1
Never 37.7
Seldom .5
Occasionally .1
Frequently .3
Don't know .3
14. Have you or others noticed a hydrogen sulfide (rotten eggs) odor
in this vehicle's exhaust?
Never 84.4
Seldom 3.0
Occasionally 5.8
Frequently 5.3
Don't know 1.5
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979- 650-029/0035
------- |