Control of Air Pollution From New and In-Use Motor Vehicles and New and In-Use Motor Vehicle Engines; Technical Amendments to the Test Procedures for Methanol-Fueled Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines and Petroleum-Fueled Motor Vehicles; Final Rule

Federal RegisterJun 30, 1995

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SUMMARY: This rule changes the test procedures previously promulgated

for methanol-fueled vehicles (April 11, 1989). These revisions make

minor corrections to the procedures, provide additional options, and

clarify the Agency's regulatory intent. The changes are expected to

allow manufacturers more flexibility in complying with the applicable

regulations, without sacrificing accuracy of test results. This action

is a part of an ongoing cooperative interaction between Agency staff

and the affected automobile and engine manufacturers to develop the

most efficient test procedures possible for alternative fuels such as

methanol. Among the most significant changes are revisions to the

testing requirements for flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), the allowance

of electronic mass flow controllers for methanol and formaldehyde

sample systems, the allowance of lower temperatures for some heated

components, establishment of wider tolerances for SHED and CVS

(Constant Volume Sampler) verifications, and specification of the fuel

to be used with all flame ionization detectors. It should be noted that

the revision related to flame ionization detectors affects all light-

duty vehicles, including gasoline-fueled vehicles.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this rule also

displays the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers

issued under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) for the final rules

titled ``Emission Standards for Clean-fuel Vehicles and Engines,

Requirements for Clean-Fuel Vehicle Conversions, and California Pilot

Test Program'' and the ``Standards for Emissions from Natural Gas-

Fueled, and Liquified Petroleum Gas-Fueled Motor Vehicles and Motor

Vehicle Engines, and Certification Procedures for Aftermarket

Conversions''. Also included in this Final Rule are minor changes that

were proposed in the ``Gaseous-Fueled Vehicles'' and ``Clean Fuel

Fleets'' Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, but were not finalized in the

respective Final Rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective July 31, 1995, except the

amendments to part 9 are effective June 30, 1995.

Sections 85.503, 85.505, 86.094-23, 86.094-24, 86.095-35 86.098-28,

86.113-94, 86.142-90, 86.150-98, 86.513-94, 86.542-90, 86.1242-90,

86.1344-94 published at 59 FR 48472 and Sec. 600.113-93 published at 59

FR 39638 and 48472, containing information collection requirements

which have now been approved by OMB, are effective June 30, 1995.

Sections 88.104 (b) and (d), 88.201-94 through 88.206-94, and

88.306-94(b) (1),(2), and (4) published at 59 FR 50042, containing

information collection requirements which have been now approved by

OMB, are effective June 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Material relevant to this rulemaking is contained in the

Docket A-92-02. The docket is located at the Air Docket Section (LE-

131), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room M-1500, 401 M Street

SW., Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 3

p.m. Monday through Friday. Information may also be obtained from the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources,

Regulation Development and Support Division, Engine and Vehicle

Regulation Branch, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Moulis, Regulation Development

and Support Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565

Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (313) 741-7826

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

On April 11, 1989, EPA published final regulations which extended

the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program to methanol-fueled vehicles

(54 FR 14427). Where possible, the regulations simply applied the

existing petroleum-fueled vehicle test procedures to methanol-fueled

vehicles. In some cases where that was not possible, it was necessary

to incorporate procedures that were more complicated than the

procedures used to test petroleum-fueled vehicles. Since that time,

several methanol-fueled vehicles have been certified. Overall, the

methanol-fueled vehicle test procedures have proven to be accurate and

reliable, though some minor issues have been raised.

On March 1, 1993, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) proposing several revisions to the test procedures that were

established for methanol-fueled vehicles in 1989 (58 FR 11816). This

rulemaking was initiated to address the minor issues which arose while

implementing the previously promulgated certification procedures for

methanol-fueled vehicles. Some of the issues require only a

clarification of the Agency's regulatory intent, while others require

changes to the test procedures specified in the CFR. The revisions

being promulgated today are essentially the same revisions that were

proposed, though some of proposed revisions are not being finalized.

Also, some of the revisions were modified slightly in response to

public comments on the proposal.

The test procedure changes being finalized today include both

changes to the existing procedures and allowances for different

procedures to be used in place of some of those procedures previously

required. The substantive changes are described below. However, the

reader is advised to read the actual regulatory language, which is also

printed here, for the complete changes.

Also included in this action are minor changes that were proposed

in the ``Gaseous-Fueled Vehicles'' (57 FR 52912, November 5, 1992) and

``Clean Fuel Fleets'' (58 FR 32474, June 10, 1993) Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking, but were omitted from the regulations of the respective

Final Rules. For details, see ``Issues'' 12 and 16

The following discussion is organized by issue. For each issue,

there are separate sections describing what was proposed, the public

comments and EPA's response to them, and a summary of the changes that

are actually being finalized by today's action.

Issues: Proposal, Public Comments, and Final Action

1. Test Fuels

Proposal

Manufacturers of methanol-fueled flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) have

been required to comply with the methanol-fueled vehicle standards when

using any fuel mixture within the vehicle's design range. (FFVs are

vehicles that are designed to operate using a methanol fuel, gasoline

and all mixtures of the two). In order to ensure that such vehicles

meet the standards over the full range of fuel mixtures, the previous

regulations (e.g., 40 CFR 86.113) required that manufacturers submit

test data for worst case fuel mixtures. However, it became apparent

that implementation of such an approach is

[[Page 34327]]

problematic, because the worst case fuel mixture may vary for the

various pollutants. Therefore, rather than attempting to identify a

single worst case fuel, the Agency proposed that manufacturers

demonstrate compliance by submitting test data for three fuel mixtures

during certification. The three proposed mixtures were: the methanol

fuel expected to be found in use, gasoline, and the highest volatility

mixture. The use of straight methanol fuel (e.g., M85 1) and

straight gasoline would demonstrate compliance at the two extremes of

operation. The high volatility mixture would ensure proper evaporative

emissions controls. This mixture was proposed to be approximately M10.

The Agency indicated that it would retain the right to perform its

confirmatory testing using any mixtures within the design range and to

continue to require compliance with the standards over the full range

as well.

\1\ Methanol fuels are commonly identified by their methanol

content using the abbreviation MXX, where XX is the volumetric

percent of the fuel which is methanol. M85, which is currently the

most common methanol fuel for light-duty vehicles, contains 85

percent methanol and 15 percent gasoline.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For mileage accumulation of FFVs, the previous regulations also

required the use of the worst case fuel mixtures. For reasons similar

to those discussed above, the Agency proposed to allow manufacturers to

alternate between the methanol fuel (e.g., M85) and gasoline, at

mileage intervals not to exceed 5000 miles. The Agency also proposed

requiring that the total volume of the methanol fuel used for mileage

accumulation be at least 25 percent, but not more than 75 percent of

the total fuel volume used.

The original regulations specified that methanol test fuels be

representative of in-use fuels, did not include detailed specifications

of test fuel composition, as has been done for gasoline. This issue was

discussed in the NPRM, but no revisions to this requirement were

proposed.

Public Comments

The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA)

recommended that EPA not require manufacturers to use all three fuels

(gasoline, M10, and M85) to demonstrate compliance for each engine

family, when the manufacturers certify many methanol-fueled engine

families. They argued that the testing burden associated with using

three fuels for a large number of engine families would be too great.

Instead, AAMA recommended that EPA allow the manufacturers to certify

most methanol-fueled engine families using only M85, as long as they

tested one or two engine families using all three fuels. While the

Agency recognizes that the testing burden using three fuels can be

significantly more than using one fuel (as is the case with gasoline),

the Agency does not believe the AAMA recommendation is sufficient to

demonstrate compliance over the entire range of fuel mixtures for all

engine families. Compliance using M85 does not ensure compliance using

either gasoline, or M10; and compliance of one FFV engine family using

gasoline and M10 does not ensure compliance for all other FFV engine

families.

AAMA also disagreed with EPA's proposal to not adopt a permanent

and well defined methanol certification fuel specification. They stated

that ``it would become difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate

compliance with all fuels if the fuel properties are allowed to drift

at random.'' The Agency, however, feels strongly that certification

fuel must be representative of in-use fuels. EPA recognizes that test

reproducibility is very important, and thus does not wish to have test

fuel properties varying randomly. The Agency will issue guidance as to

the fuel property specifications which define the representative

methanol fuel(s). The specifications will only change to the extent

that the fuel market as a whole changes, and EPA does not expect that

changes in the specifications will be significant from one year to the

next.

A related point that is worth clarifying pertains to the

possibility of EPA regulating in-use methanol fuels. While the Agency

recognizes that fuel properties such as chloride content (which effects

the corrosivity of the fuel), sulfur content (which can effect catalyst

efficiency), or vapor pressure (which can effect cold-starting) could

impact emissions, it has stated previously that it currently has no

plans to regulate commercial methanol fuels. This position has been

misinterpreted to mean that EPA has already decided that it will not

regulate commercial methanol fuels at any time in the future. However,

it is actually probable that EPA would regulate commercial methanol

fuels if it became apparent that in-use methanol fuel quality was

adversely affecting the environment. The Agency has no current plans to

regulate commercial methanol fuels because it is optimistic that

methanol fuel suppliers will voluntarily adopt industry-wide standards

that will make EPA regulation unnecessary.

Final Action

The Agency will still require that FFVs comply with the standards

when operating on any fuel mixture within the design range, but the

means by which this compliance is demonstrated is being changed. Rather

than attempting to identify a single worst case fuel, manufacturers

will now be required to demonstrate compliance by submitting test data

for three fuel mixtures during certification. These three mixtures are:

the methanol fuel expected to be found in use, gasoline, and the

highest volatility mixture. The highest volatility mixture will be M10

(more specifically, it will contain between nine and thirteen percent

methanol).

While the Agency will accept testing on the above fuels as an

adequate demonstration for certification, it should be emphasized that

the Agency will retain the right to perform its confirmatory testing

using any mixtures within the design range and will require compliance

with the standards over the full range as well.

For mileage accumulation of FFVs, EPA will require manufacturers to

alternate between the methanol fuel (e.g., M85) and gasoline, at

mileage intervals not to exceed 5000 miles. There is an additional

requirement that the total volume of the methanol fuel (e.g., M85) used

for mileage accumulation be at least 25 percent, but not more than 75

percent of the total fuel volume used. The Agency believes that these

requirements will be sufficient to demonstrate the durability of FFVs

in use, where the vehicles may be operated on only methanol, only

gasoline, or alternately on both fuels. EPA is not dictating which test

fuel mixtures should be used for the emissions tests performed to

determine deteriorations factors, but the Agency is currently

recommending that deterioration factors be determined for both the

alcohol fuel and the gasoline fuel.

Implicit in the rationale for the approach discussed above is the

assumption that there would be a reasonable possibility that a

significant number of in-use FFVs would be operated using both M85 and

gasoline. This assumption, however, would not necessarily be valid for

FFV models which had a very significant drop in performance when fueled

with gasoline. If the drop in performance were so drastic that the

vehicle became only marginally functional, then it would be very

unlikely that the vehicle operator would fuel the vehicle with gasoline

unless it were an emergency situation,

[[Page 34328]]

where the fuel tank was empty and no methanol fuel was available. Such

a vehicle is said to have only ``limp home'' capability when operated

with gasoline. The Agency recognizes that it would be reasonable for

these vehicles to be considered dedicated methanol-fueled vehicles for

the purposes of certification, and thus to be certified using only

methanol fuel (M85) for emissions testing and mileage accumulation. The

regulations have been modified to make this clear. Manufacturers should

obtain written approval to classify such vehicles as dedicated vehicles

from the Administrator prior to the start of testing. In determining

how to classify such vehicles, the Administrator would consider the

significance of the drop in performance using gasoline, the expected

availability of methanol fuel, and the expected vehicle use (i.e,

personal, taxi fleets, delivery vehicles, etc.). For example, a

methanol-fueled vehicle which lost 80 percent of its normal power when

using gasoline could be considered a dedicated vehicle; although, if

the vehicle was designed to be significantly overpowered, and still had

adequate acceleration with only 20 percent of its normal power, it

would not be considered a dedicated vehicle.

The regulations still do not specify methanol test fuels more

precisely than to require that the methanol test fuels be

representative of in-use fuels. The broad nature of this requirement is

the result of EPA's previous experience with gasoline. Because in-use

gasolines changed so significantly from the fuel used in certification,

especially in the area of vapor pressure, it became necessary for the

Agency to promulgate extensive regulations for in-use gasoline. The

Agency hopes that regulation of in-use methanol fuel quality will not

be necessary, and that industry-wide methanol fuel standards will be

adopted on a voluntary basis. Such standards would be accepted by EPA

as appropriate certification fuel standards, assuming that in-use fuels

consistently complied with the standards, since it would ensure that

the certification fuel is representative of in-use fuels. EPA

recognizes that, since the current market for methanol fuels is not

well defined, it is not possible at this time to determine one methanol

fuel that is truly representative of in-use fuels in all respects. For

previous certification of methanol-fueled vehicles, the Agency decided

that mixtures of chemical grade methanol and certification gasoline

were sufficiently representative to ensure that certification emissions

results would accurately reflect the behavior of in-use methanol-fueled

vehicles using market fuels. This approach is consistent with the

California Air Resources Board certification fuel specifications,

except that California's specification 2 does not require that the

methanol be chemical grade, and that it requires the use of

California's certification gasoline. Therefore, until such time that

the methanol fuel market is large enough to allow a better

determination of a representative fuel or until industry-wide standards

are adopted by fuel suppliers, the Agency will use, and require

manufacturers to use either a combination of chemical grade methanol

and certification gasoline in proportions that reflect the composition

of the intended in-use fuel, or California's certification methanol

fuel. For current M85-fueled vehicles this will be 84-88 percent (by

volume) methanol and the remainder gasoline. For M100-fueled vehicles,

the fuel will be neat chemical grade methanol, although it may contain

small amounts of fuel additives, provided that the manufacturer can

demonstrate that those same additives will be included in the in-use

fuel.

\2\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2292.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Methanol and Formaldehyde Sampling and Analysis

Proposal

The original regulations for methanol-fueled vehicles specified

separate sampling systems for methanol and formaldehyde. In the NPRM

for this action, the Agency proposed revisions in several areas related

to these requirements, although the most basic aspects of the

requirements remain unchanged. Under the proposed regulations, the

samples would still be collected by bubbling the sample gas through two

impingers, or, in the case of formaldehyde, through a cartridge

impregnated with dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH); and the impinger fluid

or cartridge would still be analyzed for methanol or formaldehyde using

chromatographic methods.

The most significant of the proposed changes affected the required

sampling flow rates. The previous regulations included minimum

requirements for flow rates through impingers and cartridges. They were

included to ensure that sufficient amounts of methanol and formaldehyde

are collected to allow for accurate detection by the chromatographic

instruments. Because there can be significant variations from system to

system, however, a single minimum flow rate is not appropriate for all

systems. To correct this, the Agency proposed to eliminate these

minimum flow rates, and to instead establish minimum concentrations for

the primary impingers and cartridges. More specifically, EPA proposed

that systems (and procedures) be required to be designed such that

testing of a vehicle or engine that emitted the maximum allowable level

of methanol, or emitted formaldehyde at a level that was ten percent of

the maximum emission level of methanol would result in analyte

concentrations that were 25 times higher than the levels of detection

for the instruments used. Systems that did not meet this requirement

due to high limits of detection were to be allowed, provided that the

resultant methanol concentration was greater than 25 mg/l, and the

resultant formaldehyde concentration is greater than 2.5 mg/l. For any

vehicles or engines that have an applicable formaldehyde standard, the

analyte concentrations used for design would be those that would result

from the maximum emission level allowed by that standard. The Agency

also proposed to add an additional design requirement that the amount

of methanol collected in the secondary impinger not be more than ten

percent of the total amount collected.

Another set of proposed revisions dealt with the method of flow

measurement. In several parts of the previous regulations, dry gas

meters were specifically required for sampling and calibration systems.

This was because dry gas meters were considered to be the most

appropriate type of flow meter for these applications at the time the

test procedures for methanol-fueled vehicles were originally developed.

It has became apparent, however, that these specifications were no

longer necessary. Therefore, the Agency proposed to allow other types

of flow meters to be used, provided that they meet an accuracy

specification of 2 percent.

Public Comments

The comments received regarding methanol and formaldehyde sampling

and analysis were generally supportive of the Agency's proposals. Some

of the comments, however, requested clarification of regulatory

language. In response, EPA has modified the regulatory language

regarding the design requirements for sample flow rates, the use of

secondary impingers and cartridges, and the accuracy specifications for

sample flow meters.

[[Page 34329]]

Final Action

Sampling systems (and procedures) will be required to be designed

such that testing of a vehicle or engine that emitted the maximum

allowable level of methanol (e.g., 0.95 g/mi methanol, or 14 g/FTP, for

a 0.41 g/mi THCE 3 standard), or emitted formaldehyde at a level

that was twenty percent of the maximum emission level of the lowest

applicable THCE or NMHCE (e.g., 0.082 g/mi formaldehyde, or 1.2 g/FTP,

for a 0.41 THCE standard) during the first phase of the test would

result in analyte concentrations that were at least 25 times higher

than the levels of detection for the instruments used. As proposed,

systems that do not meet this requirement due to high limits of

detection will be allowed, provided that the resultant methanol

concentration is greater than 25 mg/l, and the resultant formaldehyde

concentration is greater than 2.5 mg/l. For any vehicles or engines

that have an applicable formaldehyde standard, the analyte

concentrations used for design would be those that would result from

the maximum emission level allowed by that standard. The Agency is also

requiring that the amount of methanol collected in the secondary

impinger not be more than ten percent of the total amount collected.

\3\ THCE and NMHCE are replacing OMHCE and OMNMHCE; see

discussion in ``15. Other Issues.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the Agency will allow other types of flow meters to be used,

provided that they meet the accuracy specifications of Secs. 86.120-90

or 86.1320-90. The specifications of these sections require accuracy of

1 percent of the maximum operating range and 2

percent of the reading.

3. Proportional Sampling

Proposal

Prior to this action, there were only two methods allowed by the

regulations for obtaining proportional samples when testing light-duty

vehicles: the Positive Displacement Pump-Constant Volume Sampler (PDP-

CVS) method and the Critical Flow Venturi-Constant Volume Sampler (CFV-

CVS) method. However, EPA proposed a third option for methanol-fueled

vehicles. This method is based on the current CFV-CVS system, but

allows proportional sampling of methanol and formaldehyde to be

maintained by electronically monitoring the CVS flow rate and

electronically controlling the sample flows. Similar approaches have

been used for some years in heavy-duty diesel testing and in light-duty

research testing. When using this approach, the ratio of sample flow to

CVS flow was to be required to remain within 5 percent of

the set-point ratio.

Public Comments

AAMA supported the Agency's proposals, and added that flow

controllers should vary the sample flow rate inversely with the square

root of the bulk stream temperature. EPA agrees, and has added such

language to the regulations.

Final Action

EPA is finalizing this revision as proposed. The Agency is not

requiring that these electronically-controlled sampling systems also

include separate flow meters to measure total sample volumes, but will

allow them. It should be emphasized that even though this option is

only being specified for methanol and formaldehyde sampling systems,

the Agency would consider allowing similar approaches for other samples

as equivalent procedures. (For example, paragraph (a)(5) of

Sec. 86.109-94 specifically allows the use of sampling procedures other

than those specified in that section, provided that they can be shown

to ``yield equivalent or superior results''.)

4. Prevention of Condensation

Proposal

Exhaust from methanol-fueled vehicles generally has much higher

water vapor content than conventional vehicles, which can lead to water

condensation under certain testing conditions, when the gas comes into

contact with surfaces at temperatures below its dew point. Such

condensation can create very significant problems with respect to

testing accuracy, since both methanol and formaldehyde are soluble in

water. However, if the gas comes into contact with very hot surfaces,

the methanol can undergo decomposition reactions. For these reasons, in

the previous rulemaking, EPA required that sample lines and transfer

systems be heated to 23515 deg.F (as measured at the

surface in contact with the raw and diluted exhaust gases). Some

manufacturers, however, have indicated a concern that this temperature

requirement may be too high for their systems. The Agency proposed to

change its regulatory focus from specifying the temperature

requirement, toward allowing manufacturers to determine the most

appropriate temperatures for their own individual systems. The

requirements to heat many of the components remained, but EPA proposed

changing the lower limit to the maximum dew point of the exhaust

mixture. Comments were requested on whether it will be necessary to

measure dew point continuously for each test.

It had also been suggested that heavy-duty engine manufacturers

should be allowed to use ducts up to 32 feet in length to transfer the

exhaust from the engine to the dilution tunnel. Testing by Southwest

Research Institute (SwRI) showed no significant difference between the

emission results from test systems using ducts 13 and 32 feet in

length.4 Therefore, the Agency proposed to allow transfer ducts up

to 32 feet in length (as is currently allowed for petroleum-fueled

engines). However, since the SwRI testing did not provide data for

systems in which the duct temperature exceeded 315 deg.C, this

allowance required that the maximum duct temperature not exceed 315

deg.C.

\4\ ``Effect of Exhaust Pipe Length on Emissions From a Heavy-

Duty Methanol Engine,'' SwRI-4962, May 1992, Docket Item A-92-02-II-

D-7.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA also proposed allowing heating and dehumidifying the dilution

air, with some restrictions. The proposed restrictions limited the

maximum temperature and affect how the dilution air flow rate is

calculated.

Public Comments

The comments received regarding the prevention of condensation were

generally supportive of the Agency's proposals. AAMA stated that, based

on their testing experience, measurement of the dew point is not

necessary, provided that dilution systems are designed properly. EPA

agrees that continuous measurement of the dew point is not necessary,

and thus will also allow the absence of condensation to be demonstrated

through engineering analyses.

Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) supported EPA's proposal to allow

longer unheated exhaust transfer ducts for heavy-duty engines, but

requested that the Agency raise the maximum temperature from 315 deg.C

(as proposed) to 350 deg.C. Further, they indicated that they believed

that a limit on the average temperature of the duct would be more

appropriate than a limit on the maximum temperature.

EPA recognizes that the 315 deg.C limit was based on testing of

only one engine, and that other larger engines could easily result in

higher temperatures of the duct. However, the Agency does not consider

it to be unreasonable to expect manufacturers to make the slight

modifications to the duct that would be necessary to prevent the

maximum duct temperature from exceeding 315 deg.C. Simple

modifications such as the

[[Page 34330]]

addition of fins, or the use of cooling fans, should be able to

increase the heat transfer away from the duct sufficiently to allow the

systems to comply with this requirement even when testing larger

engines. The Agency also does not agree that a limit on the average

temperature would be more appropriate. While it is true that

controlling the average temperature would account for the length of

time that the exhaust is exposed to the higher temperatures, it would

allow the exhaust to be exposed to very high temperatures. Therefore,

EPA has decided that a limit on the maximum temperature is appropriate

at this time, especially given the increased complexity of determining

the average temperature of the duct instead of only the maximum

temperature.

Final Action

The Agency has changed its regulatory focus from specifying the

temperature requirement, to allowing manufacturers to determine the

most appropriate temperatures for their own individual systems.

However, EPA is establishing a lower limit of 5 deg.F above the

maximum dew point of the exhaust mixture, instead of the maximum dew

point as was proposed. The previously established maximum upper

temperature of 250 deg.F remains in effect. Although these limits

provide slightly less additional flexibility than was proposed, the

Agency believes that they allow for a sufficiently wide range of

temperatures. This revision is not intended to imply that the Agency no

longer believes that the appropriate temperature range for most systems

is 220-250 deg.F, but rather it is intended only to allow the

manufacturers more flexibility. Manufacturers must demonstrate that

their systems will prevent condensation from occurring, and will be

allowed to do so using engineering analyses, such as dew point data

from testing under some worst case conditions (e.g., with a large

engine during a period of high ambient humidity).

EPA is also revising the regulations to allow heavy-duty engine

manufacturers to use longer unheated ducts to transfer the exhaust from

the engine to the dilution tunnel. The Agency will allow transfer ducts

up to 32 feet in length, but will require that the maximum duct

temperature not exceed 315 deg.C. EPA recommends that steps be taken

to minimize the temperature increase in the transfer duct to reduce the

possibility of the methanol and formaldehyde reacting on the walls of

the transfer duct.

Today's rule also specifically allows heating and dehumidifying the

dilution air, with some minor restrictions. Allowing such pretreatment

of the dilution air may help to eliminate some of the condensation

problems associated with methanol-fueled vehicles, and may allow the

use of lower system temperatures as discussed above. The restrictions

limit the maximum temperature and affect how the dilution air flow rate

is calculated.

5. CVS and SHED Calibration and Retention Tests

Proposal

The regulations promulgated in 1989 required that, in addition to

tests previously required for propane, tests also be perfomed to ensure

that there are no losses of methanol in the CVS or SHED. The

regulations specified injecting a known quantity of methanol or propane

into the CVS or SHED, collecting a sample and comparing the amount

calculated from the measured value to the amount injected. The

regulations required, for methanol, that the measured value be within

two percent of injected value. However, actual testing experience by

both EPA and industry has shown that consistently obtaining results

within two percent can be problematic given the current state of

development of methanol test procedures. Therefore, EPA proposed to

establish wider limits (6 percent) for methanol recoveries

during the calendar years 1992-1995. For SHED testing, these wider

limits were to apply to both agreement between the amount injected and

the initial measured amounts (recovery tests) and between the initial

and final (after four hours) measured amounts (retention tests). EPA

requested comments regarding whether it was sufficient to widen the

tolerances through 1995, or if a longer period were required.

The Agency also proposed to require the use of a correction factor

that would be derived from the four-hour retention test. This was to be

a means of accounting for potential losses without increasing the

testing burden.

Public Comments

AAMA supported permanently widening the tolerances for CVS and SHED

recovery and retention tests for methanol to 6 percent.

They stated in their comments that they ``do not believe that a 2

percent limit will be achievable in the near future.'' EPA recognizes

that, at this time, complying with a 2 percent tolerance is not

possible without an unreasonable test burden. This is due in large part

to the imprecision of the GC analysis, which AAMA estimated at

5 percent. This imprecision could be reduced by performing

multiple GC analyses, although this would lead to a significant

increase in costs. When the vehicles are tested for compliance with a

carbon equivalence-based standard, however, the accuracy of the

methanol measurement becomes less important. Since the test procedure

determines the emissions of non-oxygenated HC by subtracting the

methanol FID response from the total FID response, an undermeasurement

of methanol will lead to an overmeasurement of HC, and vice versa. Thus

the net impact of the accuracy of the methanol measurement on the

accuracy of the calculated THCE emission rate is reduced. However, EPA

continues to believe that the 2 percent tolerance will ultimately be

achievable, and that this level of accuracy is appropriate. Therefore,

the Agency will maintain this specification, but will allow

manufacturers to request a waiver from the required 2 percent tolerance

after 1995, as described below.

AAMA opposed the use of correction factors for SHED testing. They

argued that correction factors are not necessary, and would be

``inconsistent with previous test requirements.'' EPA recognizes AAMA's

concerns. More importantly, however, the Agency believes that the

potential for losses can be addressed under the waiver provisions being

established today (see Final Action section below). Therefore, EPA is

not finalizing the proposed correction factor requirements.

Final Action

EPA is establishing a wider tolerance of 6 percent for

methanol recovery and retention during the calendar years 1992-1995, as

was proposed. After 1995, the Agency will allow manufacturers to

request a waiver from the required tolerance (e.g., 2

percent), provided that:

(1) The Administrator determines that compliance with the specified

tolerance is not practically feasible, and

(2) The manufacturer makes information available to the

Administrator which indicates that the calibration tests and their

results are consistent with good laboratory practice, and that the

results are consistent with the results of calibration testing

conducted by the Administrator, and

(3) The manufacturer complies with higher tolerances (up to

6 percent for recoveries and 8 for retention),

as specified by the Administrator.

In deciding whether to grant the waiver, and what the tolerances

should be under the waiver, EPA will be

[[Page 34331]]

concerned primarily with the degree to which any imprecision and

inaccuracy in the methanol sampling and measurement techniques would

affect its ability to determine compliance with emission standards.

More specifically, this means that the precision (repeatability) of

methanol measurements should be as good as is practically feasible, and

that there should be no losses in the system that would lead to a

significant undermeasurement of methanol. The determination of

practical feasibility will depend on the degree to which variability

can be reduced and the costs associated with the reduction. EPA

recognizes that the standard for precision that is ``consistent with

good laboratory practice'' will change with time, and will use its own

testing as the standard. That means that manufacturers will be required

to have precision that, in the Administrator's judgement, is

essentially as good as that of EPA.

6. Fuels for Flame Ionization Detectors

Proposal

Flame ionization detectors measure hydrocarbons and other organics

by ionizing the carbon atoms with a supplemental fuel source. At one

time, the primary fuel was a mixture of hydrogen in nitrogen (H2/

N2), but now the more commonly used fuel is a mixture of hydrogen

in helium (H2/He), which is thought to give a more accurate

response. In the previous regulations, it was somewhat unclear what

type of fuels were to be used with the heated flame ionization

detectors (heated FID or HFID) required for methanol-fueled vehicle

testing. Evaporative emissions testing and heavy-duty exhaust testing

required the use of H2/He, while the fuel for light-duty exhaust

testing was previously unspecified. Since the light-duty fuel was

unspecified, many testing facilities have used a mixture of hydrogen in

nitrogen. To eliminate this confusion, the Agency proposed to clearly

require that H2/He fuel be used for all FIDs when testing

methanol-fueled vehicles. Moreover, to provide consistent testing of

both alternatively-fueled and conventionally-fueled vehicles, the

Agency proposed to require the use of H2/He fuel for all heated

and unheated FIDs. The Agency also requested comments on whether

revisions are needed to the FID calibration procedure as outlined in

the CFR.

Public Comments

AAMA agreed with EPA's proposal to require that hydrogen/helium

mixtures be used as the fuel for all flame ionization detectors (FIDs).

AAMA also recommended that EPA add a requirement to optimize the FID to

make the response of methane (relative to propane) as close to one as

possible. The Agency agrees that optimizing the FID to reduce

variations in response factors is good engineering practice. However,

EPA has not seen evidence that FIDs are currently being improperly

calibrated, and thus does not believe that it is necessary to include

such a provision in the regulations at this time. EPA will continue to

consider this issue, and may propose further specifications for the

calibration of FIDs at a later time.

Final Action

EPA is finalizing this revision as proposed, and will require the

use of H2/He fuel for all heated and unheated FIDs.

7. Background Measurements

Proposal

The test procedures call for measurement of background

concentrations of various gases, including methanol and formaldehyde,

to be subtracted from the concentrations measured in the diluted

exhaust. Previously, only a single sample was required for

formaldehyde, while separate phase-by-phase samples were required for

methanol. However, for the purpose of consistency, EPA proposed to also

require only a single sample be collected to determine the methanol

concentration in the dilution air. It was also noted that, since

methanol levels in the dilution air will generally be very low, a

single impinger is sufficient to measure the methanol concentration in

the sample.

Public Comments

The comments received regarding the background measurements were

generally supportive of the Agency's proposals. DDC requested that EPA

clearly state in the regulations that background measurements are

optional for manufacturers. EPA agrees, and has added such language.

Final Action

EPA is finalizing this revision as proposed, and is also adding

regulatory language that states that background measurements are

optional for manufacturers.

8. Determination of Fuel Composition

Proposal

The regulations previously did not specify a procedure to determine

the carbon:hydrogen:oxygen ratio for methanol fuels and fuel mixtures,

other than to state that the ratio was to be measured. However, if the

methanol fuel and/or fuel mixtures are made from fuels for which the

ratios are known (such as chemical grade methanol and Indolene), then

the ratio for the resultant mixture can be calculated and no

measurement is necessary. EPA proposed to revise the regulations to

allow for calculation of the ratio for methanol fuels and fuel

mixtures.

Public Comments

The comments received regarding the determination of fuel

composition were supportive of the Agency's proposals.

Final Action

EPA is finalizing this revision as proposed.

9. NOX Humidity Correction Factor

Proposal

The humidity of the air in a test area is known to have an effect

on emissions of NOX, and EPA has established a correction factor

for NOX test results. It became apparent that the correction

factor established for heavy-duty methanol-fueled engines is erroneous.

EPA proposed to correct this by applying the correction factor

currently specified for gasoline-fueled engines to Otto-cycle methanol-

fueled engines, and the one currently specified for petroleum-fueled

diesel engines to methanol-fueled diesel engines, as was originally

intended.

Public Comments

EPA received no comments regarding this issue.

Final Action

EPA is finalizing this revision as proposed.

10. Heated Flame Ionization Detectors

Proposal

The regulations previously required that heated FIDs (HFIDs) be

used when testing methanol-fueled vehicles. The reason for this

requirement was that HFIDs provide a stable response for methanol more

quickly than unheated FIDs. Some manufacturers have suggested, however,

that in many cases the HFID is not necessary and that an unheated FID

is adequate. EPA proposed to allow unheated FIDs to be used in place of

heated FIDs for methanol-fueled vehicle testing.

Public Comments

The Agency received mixed comments in response to this proposed

revision. AAMA supported the use of

[[Page 34332]]

unheated FIDs for methanol-fueled vehicle testing, though they

indicated that they believe that it would be appropriate to require

that each test lab provide data to demonstrate equivalence between

their unheated FID and a heated FID, for their exhaust systems. The New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) commented

that aromatic organics and large aliphatics can be lost to unheated

surfaces in sampling systems. They recommended that heated FIDs should

be used not only for testing methanol-fueled vehicles, but for testing

petroleum-fueled vehicles as well. Based on these comments, and data

from EPA testing (see Docket A-92-02), it is clear that unheated FIDs

can be used for methanol testing in some systems, but that there is the

potential for measurement problems in other systems. EPA will allow

unheated FIDs to be used in place of heated FIDs for evaporative

testing of methanol-fueled vehicles. The Agency will also allow the use

of unheated FIDs for exhaust testing, where there appears to be a

greater potential for measurement problems, but only after the

manufacturer demonstrates equivalence with the heated FID for its

system. EPA did not propose requiring heated FIDs for gasoline-fueled

vehicle testing and has not yet received sufficient information that it

is necessary.

Final Action

EPA will allow unheated FIDs to be used in place of heated FIDs for

evaporative testing of methanol-fueled vehicle testing. The Agency will

also allow the use of unheated FIDs for exhaust testing, provided that

the manufacturer can demonstrate equivalence with the heated FID for

its system.

11. Gaseous Standards for Methanol and Formaldehyde

Proposal

Gaseous standards of many gases have been specified in the

regulations and have been routinely used in calibration procedures;

however, such standards were not allowed for methanol and formaldehyde.

EPA proposed to allow the use of gaseous methanol standards for

response factor calculation, with the requirement that the

concentration of methanol in the standard gas not vary by more than two

percent over its useful lifetime (i.e., from the time it is prepared

until it is no longer used for testing).

Public Comments

AAMA supported EPA's proposal to allow the use of gaseous methanol

standards for the determination of the FID response to methanol.

However, they suggested that EPA widen the tolerance for stability to

4 percent (instead of 2 percent) to account for

variability in the measurement of methanol. They also suggested that

EPA allow bottles that exceed this tolerance to be renamed with the new

concentration. The Agency recognizes that the variability associated

with measuring methanol makes it possible that the measured

concentration of methanol could be outside the 2 percent

tolerance, even though the true concentration had not changed by more

than 2 percent. Therefore, EPA has added regulatory language that

clarifies that the 2 percent tolerance is for a reasonable

estimate of the true concentration, taking into account measurement

variability, not necessarily a single measurement. The Agency envisions

that manufacturers will use an average of multiple measurements to

determine the concentration, and will make enough measurements so that

the precision of the estimate is 2 percent. Also, EPA

agrees that standards that change by more than 2 percent can be renamed

with the new concentration, provided that the change is not greater

than 10 percent.

Final Action

EPA will allow the use of gaseous methanol standards for response

factor calculation, with the requirement that the concentration of

methanol in the standard gas shall not vary by more than two percent,

without being relabeled with the new concentration.

12. Idle CO Testing

Proposal

In the 1989 FRM, EPA established idle CO emission standards for all

methanol-fueled light-duty trucks and heavy-duty engines, including

heavy-duty diesel engines. In the NPRM for this current rulemaking, EPA

proposed to modify the testing provisions to allow for continuous

analysis instead of bag sampling and analysis. This was done to be

consistent with Sec. 86.1310, which allows continuous CO analysis for

transient testing of diesel cycle engines.

Public Comments

EPA received no comments regarding this issue.

Final Action

EPA is finalizing this revision as proposed.

In a related matter, EPA is correcting Secs. 86.094-9 and 86.097-9

to clarify that the idle CO standards of those sections are applicable

to gasoline-fueled, methanol-fueled, LPG-fueled and CNG-fueled light-

duty trucks. The applicability of these standards to LPG-fueled and

CNG-fueled light-duty trucks was specified in the Preamble of the FRM

which established standards and test procedures for gaseous-fueled

vehicles ( FR ), but the regulatory text of these sections was not

revised to reflect this requirement.

13. Direct Measurement of Non-Oxygenated Hydrocarbons

Proposal

Evaporative non-oxygenated hydrocarbon emissions from methanol-

fueled vehicles have been measured by separately measuring total

organic emissions and methanol emissions: the non-oxygenated

hydrocarbon emissions are the difference between these two

measurements. It had been suggested, however, that non-oxygenated

hydrocarbons can be measured directly by installing water-filled

impingers upstream of an FID calibrated on propane. The impingers would

be expected to remove the methanol from the gas as it is bubbled

through the water, but not the non-oxygenated hydrocarbons. The Agency

proposed to revise the regulations to allow this option.

Public Comments

The comments received indicate that the technique which was

proposed to measure non-oxygenated HC directly for methanol-fueled

vehicles is not sufficiently accurate at this time.

Final Action

EPA is not finalizing this option in this action.

14. FID Measurement of Methanol Emissions From M100 Vehicles

Proposal

Methanol emissions from M100 vehicles have been measured with an

impinger system. The combined emissions of methanol and non-oxygenated

HC have been measured by a FID and the non-oxygenated HC emissions have

been determined by subtracting the methanol (after correcting for FID

response) from the total. However, when the non-oxygenated HC emissions

are small, there is a significant potential for errors. Because the

amount of non-oxygenated HC emissions from M100 vehicles and engines is

generally small, EPA proposed to allow measurement of the

[[Page 34333]]

total emissions with an FID calibrated on methanol, as has already been

allowed through model year 1994.

Public Comments

AAMA supported this option to some extent, but felt that EPA should

not use this option for its testing. At this time, EPA believes that

the available information is not sufficient to support continuation of

this option beyond the 1994 model year.

Final Action

EPA is not finalizing this option in this action.

15. Collection of Methanol Samples

As noted above, methanol samples have been collected using

impingers. EPA also proposed, however, allowing two alternative

methods. The first was the allowance to measure methanol concentrations

from SHED testing by direct GC analysis of the bag samples. The second

alternative was the allowance of the use of cartridges, which are

designed to collect methanol, for both exhaust and evaporative testing.

Public Comments

The comments received regarding the measurement of methanol by GC-

bag analysis or from methanol cartridges do not support either of the

proposed approaches at this time.

Final Action

EPA is not finalizing either approach in this action.

16. Other Issues

AAMA indicated that the tolerance of 0.5 percent for

the liquid methanol injection device used during CVS and SHED

calibration may not be achievable at this time. EPA agrees, especially

since manufacturers will still be required to comply with the recovery

and retention tolerances specified by the Administrator. Thus, the

Agency is allowing less precise methods to be used. This change will

not effect the accuracy or precision of certification emissions tests.

AAMA requested that the Agency require the determination of the FID

response to methanol only twice annually, instead of monthly. However,

EPA believes that the response factor should be calculated each time

the FID is recalibrated, on a monthly basis.

EPA is replacing the terms ``Organic Material Hydrocarbon

Equivalent'' (OMHCE) and ``Organic Material Non-Methane Hydrocarbon

Equivalent'' (OMNMHCE) with ``Total Hydrocarbon Equivalent'' (THCE) and

``Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Equivalent'' (NMHCE). These new terms are

simpler and are more obviously related to the comparable terms being

used for petroleum-fueled vehicles (THC and NMHC). This change does not

have any substantive effect on the certification process.

Finally, included among the regulatory revisions in this FRM are

minor changes that allow the test procedures specified for measuring

formaldehyde from methanol-fueled heavy-duty engines to be used to

measure formaldehyde from other types of engines. These changes were

originally proposed in the ``Clean Fueled Fleets'' NPRM (58 FR 32474,

June 10, 1993), but were not finalized. The purpose of the changes is

to provide a means of measuring formaldehyde from non-methanol fueled

heavy-duty ULEV engines that have to comply with a separate

formaldehyde standard. In general, the changes are nothing more than

removing references such as ``for methanol-fueled engines'' that are

associated with the formaldehyde measurement procedures, and replacing

those references with ``as applicable.''

OMB Approval of Information Collection Requirements for CFV Emission

Standards and Gaseous Fuels Rulemakings

EPA is also amending the table of currently approved information

collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for various

regulations. Today's amendment updates the table to accurately display

those information requirements promulgated under Emission Standards for

Clean-fuel Vehicles and Engines, Requirements for Clean-Fuel Vehicle

Conversions, and California Pilot Test Program which appeared in the

Federal Register on September 30, 1994 (59 FR 50042) and under

Standards for Emissions From Natural Gas-Fueled, and Liquefied

Petroleum Gas-Fueled Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, and

Certification Procedures for Aftermarket Conversions which appeared in

the Federal Register on September 21, 1994 (59 FR 48472). The affected

regulations are codified at 40 CFR Parts 9, 85, 86, 88, and 600. EPA

will continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table

format to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency's regulations, and

in each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The table lists the

section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the

current OMB control numbers. This display of the OMB control numbers

and its subsequent codification in the Code of Federal Regulations

satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

Environmental and Economic Impacts

This regulation is intended only to reduce the administrative and

testing burden of certifying methanol-fueled vehicles. It does not

affect the stringency of emission standards. Thus, it should have no

impact on the environment.

This regulation does provide manufacturers some additional

flexibility, and will result in minor economic benefits. These economic

benefits, however, are expected to be small.

Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections

202(a) (1)-(2), 206, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a),

7525, and 7601(a)).

Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must judge whether a regulation is

``significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order. This regulation is not a

``significant regulatory action'' because the amendments make only

minor and technical changes.

This Amendment to the final rule is not subject to the Office of

Management and Budget's review under the Executive Order and no

Regulatory Impact Analysis was prepared.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

The information collection requirements in this rule have been

approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq and have been assigned

control number 2060-0104. An Information Collection Request document

has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 783.21) and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW.

(2136); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is

estimated to have a negligible effect on the existing clearance which

averages 15,900 hours per response, including time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing the collection of the

information.

Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

[[Page 34334]]

suggestions for reducing this burden to Chief, Information Policy

Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (2136); Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.''

All the information collection requirements for both the CFV

Emission Standards and Gaseous Fuels Emission Standards rulemakings

have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have been assigned

either control number 2060-0104 or 2060-0314.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the

Administrator of EPA is required to determine whether a regulation will

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities and, if so, to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis. The

technical amendments contained in this rulemaking will not increase the

burden or cost of compliance for any segment of the automotive

industry. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that

this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Gasoline, Labeling, Motor vehicles, Motor

vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 28, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 9 and 86 of title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344, 1345

(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp.

p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2,

300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4,

300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,

11023, 11048.

1a. Section 9.1 is amended in the table by adding in numerical

order new entries under the center headings ``Control of Air Pollution

From Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines,'' ``Control of Air

Pollution from New and In-Use Motor Vehicles and New and In-Use Motor

Vehicle Engines: Certification and Test Procedures,'' ``Clean-Fuel

Vehicles'' and ``Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles,'' to read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMB control

40 CFR citation No.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines

------------------------------------------------------------------------

85.503.................................................. 2060-0104

85.505.................................................. 2060-0104

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control of Air Pollution From New and In-Use Motor Vehicles and New and

In-Use Motor Vehicle Engines: Certification and Test Procedures

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

86.094-24(a)(3)(iii).................................... 2060-0314

* * * * *

86.098-28............................................... 2060-0104

* * * * *

86.150-98............................................... 2060-0104

* * * * *

86.513-94............................................... 2060-0104

* * * * *

86.1344-94.............................................. 2060-0104

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clean-Fuel Vehicles

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

88.204-94(b)(1)......................................... 2060-0314

88.204-94(c)............................................ 2060-0314

* * * * *

88.306-94(b)(1)......................................... 2060-0314

88.306-94(b)(2)......................................... 2060-0314

88.306-94(b)(4)......................................... 2060-0314

88.306-94(c)............................................ 2060-0314

88.306-94(f)............................................ 2060-0314

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

600.113-93.............................................. 2060-0104

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 86--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR

VEHICLES AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION

AND TEST PROCEDURES

1b. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: Secs 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217 and

301(a), Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524, 7525,

7541, 7542, 7549, 7550, 7552 and 7601(a)).

2. Section 86.001-21 of Subpart A is amended by removing paragraphs

follows:

Sec. 86.001-21 Application for certification.

* * * * *

(k) and (l) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-21.

3. Section 86.090-2 of Subpart A is amended by revising the

definition of ``Flexible fuel vehicle (or engine)'', removing the

definition of ``Organic Material Hydrocarbon Equivalent'' and adding

the definitions of ``Dedicated vehicle (or engine)'' and ``Total

Hydrocarbon Equivalent'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 86.090-2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Dedicated vehicle (or engine) means any motor vehicle (or motor

vehicle engine) engineered and designed to be operated using a single

fuel. Flexible fuel vehicles and multi-fuel vehicles are not dedicated

vehicles.

* * * * *

Flexible fuel vehicle (or engine) means any motor vehicle (or motor

vehicle engine) engineered and designed to be operated on a petroleum

fuel, a methanol fuel, or any mixture of the two. Methanol-fueled

vehicles that are only marginally functional when using gasoline (e.g.,

the engine has a drop in power output of more than 80 percent) are not

flexible fuel vehicles.

* * * * *

[[Page 34335]]

Total Hydrocarbon Equivalent means the sum of the carbon mass

emissions of non-oxygenated hydrocarbons, methanol, formaldehyde or

other organic compounds that are separately measured, expressed as

gasoline-fueled vehicle hydrocarbons. In the case of exhaust emissions,

the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the equivalent hydrocarbon is 1.85:1.

In the case of diurnal and hot soak emissions, the hydrogen-to-carbon

ratios of the equivalent hydrocarbons are 2.33:1 and 2.2:1,

respectively.

* * * * *

4. Section 86.090-3 of Subpart A is amended by removing the entry

for OMHCE in paragraph (b) and adding an entry for THCE in alphabetical

order to read as follows:

Sec. 86.090-3 Abbreviations.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

THCE--Total Hydrocarbon Equivalent

* * * * *

5. Section 86.094-2 of Subpart A is amended by adding the

definition of ``Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Equivalent'' in alphabetical

order to read as follows:

Sec. 86.094-2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Equivalent means the sum of the carbon mass

emissions of non-oxygenated non-methane hydrocarbons, methanol,

formaldehyde, or other organic compounds that are separately measured,

expressed as gasoline-fueled vehicle hydrocarbons. In the case of

exhaust emissions, the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the equivalent

hydrocarbon is 1.85:1. In the case of diurnal and hot soak emissions,

the hydrogen-to-carbon ratios of the equivalent hydrocarbons are 2.33:1

and 2.2:1, respectively.

* * * * *

6. Section 86.094-3 of Subpart A is amended in paragraph (b) by

placing the entries in alphabetical order, removing the entry for

OMNMHCE and adding an entry for NMHCE in alphabetical order to read as

follows:

Sec. 86.094-3 Abbreviations.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

* * * * *

NMHCE--Non-Methane Hydrocarbon Equivalent

* * * * *

7. Section 86.094-9 of Subpart A is amended by revising paragraph

(a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.094-9 Emission standards for 1994 and later model year light-

duty trucks.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) Exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide from 1994 and later

model year light-duty trucks shall not exceed 0.50 percent of exhaust

gas flow at curb idle at a useful life of 11 years or 120,000 miles,

whichever first occurs (for Otto-cycle and methanol-natural gas- and

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled diesel-cycle light-duty trucks only).

* * * * *

8. Section 86.094-21 of Subpart A is amended by adding paragraph

(j) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.094-21 Application for certification.

* * * * *

(j) For methanol-fueled vehicles, the manufacturer shall specify:

(1) Whether the vehicle is a flexible fuel vehicle or a dedicated

vehicle (manufacturers must obtain advance approval from the

Administrator to classify methanol-fueled vehicles that can use

gasoline as dedicated vehicles); and

(2) The fuel(s) (i.e., the percent methanol) for which the vehicle

was designed.

9. Section 86.096-21 of Subpart A is amended by redesignating

paragraphs (j) and (k) as paragraphs (k) and (l), respectively,

removing paragraphs (c) through (i), and adding paragraphs (c) through

(j) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.096-21 Application for certification.

* * * * *

10. Section 86.097-9 of Subpart A is amended by revising paragraph

(a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.097-9 Emission standards for 1997 and later model year light-

duty trucks.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) Exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide from 1997 and later

model year light-duty trucks shall not exceed 0.50 percent of exhaust

gas flow at curb idle at a useful life of 11 years or 120,000 miles,

whichever first occurs (for Otto-cycle and methanol-natural gas- and

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled diesel-cycle light-duty trucks only).

* * * * *

11. Section 86.098-21 of Subpart A is amended by removing

paragraphs (c) through (k) and adding paragraphs (c) through (l) to

read as follows:

Sec. 86.098-21 Application for certification.

* * * * *

(k) and (l) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-21.

12. Section 86.107-90 of Subpart B is amended by revising the

introductory text of paragraph (a)(2)(i) and adding paragraph

(a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.107-90 Sampling and analytical system; evaporative emissions.

(a) * * *

(2) * * * (i) For gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles a

hydrocarbon analyzer utilizing the hydrogen flame ionization principle

(FID) shall be used to monitor the atmosphere within the enclosure (a

heated FID (HFID)(235 deg. 15 deg.F (113

8 deg.C)) is recommended for methanol-fueled vehicles).

Instrument bypass flow may be returned to the enclosure. The FID shall

have a response time to 90 percent of final reading of less than 1.5

seconds, and be capable of meeting performance requirements expressed

as a function of Cstd: where Cstd is the specific enclosure hydrocarbon

level, in ppm, corresponding to the evaporative emission standard:

* * * * *

(iii) The methanol sampling system shall be designed such that, if

a test vehicle emitted the maximum allowable level of methanol (based

on all applicable standards) during any phase of the test, the measured

concentration in the primary impinger would exceed either 25 mg/l or a

concentration equal to 25 times the limit of detection for the GC

analyzer, and such that the primary impinger collects at least 90

percent of the analyte in the samples. The remaining analyte shall be

collected by the secondary impinger. This requirement does not apply to

dilution air samples, since they do not require secondary impingers, or

to samples in which the concentrations approach the limit of detection.

The provisions of this paragraph apply to the design of sampling

systems, not to individual tests.

* * * * *

13. Section 86.107-96 of Subpart B is amended by revising paragraph

(b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.107-96 Sampling and analytical systems; evaporative emissions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) For gasoline fueled, natural gas-fueled, liquefied petroleum

gas-fueled and methanol-fueled vehicles a hydrocarbon analyzer

utilizing the hydrogen flame ionization principle (FID) shall be used

to monitor the

[[Page 34336]]

atmosphere within the enclosure (a heated FID (HFID)(235 deg.

15 deg.F (113 8 deg.C)) is recommended for

methanol-fueled vehicles). For natural gas-fueled vehicles, the FID may

be calibrated using methane, or if calibrated using propane the FID

response to methane shall be determined and applied to the FID

hydrocarbon reading. Provided evaporative emission results are not

effected, a probe may be used to detect or verify hydrocarbon sources

during a running loss test. Instrument bypass flow may be returned to

the enclosure. The FID shall have a response time to 90 percent of

final reading of less than 1.5 seconds.

* * * * *

(3) The methanol sampling system shall be designed such that, if a

test vehicle emitted the maximum allowable level of methanol (based on

all applicable standards) during any phase of the test, the measured