[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61585-61593]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26082]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196; FRL-9987-39-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU07

Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
soliciting comment on several aspects of the 2015 Standards of
Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic
Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (2015 NSPS) in order to inform future
rulemaking to improve these standards and related test methods. This
action does not propose any changes to the 2015 NSPS, but does take
comment on a number of aspects of the rule, including the compliance
date for the Step 2 emission limits, Step 2 emission limits for forced-
air furnaces, hydronic heaters and wood heaters, Step 2 emission limits
based on weighted averages versus individual burn rates, transitioning
to cord wood certification test methods, compliance audit testing,
third-party review, electronic reporting tool, and warranty
requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 13,
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before January 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for details about how the EPA treats submitted comments.
Regulations.gov is our preferred method of receiving comments. However,
the following other submission methods are also accepted:
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0196 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0196.
     Mail: To ship or send mail via the United States Postal
Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: Use the following Docket Center
address if you are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand
delivery, or courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Delivery

verification signatures will be available only during regular business
hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Ms. Amanda Aldridge, Outreach and Information Division, Mail
Code: C304-05, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the new source performance standard (NSPS) to a
particular entity, contact Dr. Rafael Sanchez, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC
South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0196. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The http://www.regulations.gov website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit any digital storage media
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage
media clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as
CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic
public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196.
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. The Agency uses multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this may not be an
exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined here:

BSER Best System of Emission Reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon Monoxide
CSA Canadian Standards Association
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
g/hr grams per hour
HPBA Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association
ISO International Organization for Standardization
lb/mmBtu pound(s) per million british thermal units
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (U.S. EPA)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFI Pellet Fuels Institute
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter of
2.5 micrometers or less (``fine particles'')
R&D Research and Development
RTC Response to Comments
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code

    Organization of this Document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
    A. Statutory Background
    B. Regulatory Background
III. Request for Comment
    A. Test Methods--Transition to Cord Wood
    B. Feasibility of Step 2 Compliance Date of May 15, 2020
    C. Step 2 Emission Limit for Forced-Air Furnaces
    D. Step 2 Emission Limit for Hydronic Heaters

    E. Step 2 Emission Limit Based on Weighted Averages Versus
Individual Burn Rates for Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
    F. Step 2 Emission Limit for Wood Heaters
    G. The EPA Compliance Audit Testing
    H. ISO-Accredited Third-Party Review
    I. Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
    J. Warranty Requirements for Certified Appliances
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists categories and entities that are the
subject of this notice. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be
affected by this proposed action. The issues described in this notice,
and any changes considered in future rulemakings, would be directly
applicable to sources as a federal program. Other federal, state, local
and tribal government entities are not directly affected by this
action.

           Table 1--Source Categories Affected by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Wood Heating.......          333414  Manufacturers, owners,
                                                  and operators of wood
                                                  heaters, pellet
                                                  heaters/stoves, and
                                                  hydronic heaters.
                                         333415  Manufacturers, owners,
                                                  and operators of
                                                  forced-air furnaces.
Testing Laboratories...........          541380  Testers of wood
                                                  heaters, pellet
                                                  heaters/stoves, and
                                                  hydronic heaters.
Retailers......................          423730  Warm air heating and
                                                  air-conditioning
                                                  equipment and supplies
                                                  merchant wholesalers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this action at https://www.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters/final-new-source-performance-standards-residential-wood-heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Industry Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post
the Federal Register version of this notice at this same website.

II. Background

A. Statutory Background

    Section 111 of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to list
categories of stationary sources that, in his or her judgment, cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA must then
issue ``standards of performance'' for new sources in such source
categories. The EPA has the authority to define the source categories,
determine the pollutants for which standards should be developed, and
identify within each source category the facilities for which standards
of performance would be established.
    Section 111(a)(1) of the CAA defines ``a standard of performance''
as ``a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction (BSER) which (taking into account the
cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirement) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' This definition makes
clear that the standard of performance must be based on measures that
constitute BSER, while taking into account multiple statutory factors.
The standard that the EPA develops, based on the BSER, is commonly a
numerical emission limit, expressed as a performance level. As provided
in CAA 111(b)(5), the EPA does not prescribe a specific technology that
must be used to comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources
generally can select any measure or combination of measures that will
achieve the emission level of the standard. Where certain statutory
criteria are met, the EPA may promulgate design, equipment, work
practice or operational standards instead of a numerical standard of
performance. See CAA 111(h)(1) and (2).
    The Residential Wood Heaters source category is different from most
NSPS source categories in that it applies to mass-produced residential
consumer products. Thus, an important consideration in determining the
emission limit that is achievable through the application of the BSER
here is the cost to both manufacturers and consumers as well as any
potential environmental impact of delaying production while wood
heating devices with those systems are designed, tested, field
evaluated and certified.
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that the standards be
effective upon promulgation of the NSPS. Given this statutory
requirement, as discussed more fully in the Federal Register notice for
the 2015 NSPS rulemaking (80 FR 13672), the EPA adopted the stepped
(phased) approach for residential wood heaters, hydronic heaters and
forced-air furnaces to provide sufficient implementation time for
manufacturers and retailers to comply with the Step 2 limits. That is,
for the 2015 NSPS rulemaking, the EPA determined that certain emission
limits phased in over time reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of BSER.

B. Regulatory Background

    Residential wood heaters were originally listed under CAA section
111(b) in February 18, 1987 (see 52 FR 5065). The NSPS for wood heaters
(40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) was proposed on February 18, 1987 (see 52
FR 4994) and promulgated on February 26, 1988 (see 53 FR 5859) (1988
Wood Heater NSPS). The NSPS was amended in 1998 to address an issue
related to certification testing (see 63 FR 64869).
    On February 3, 2014, the EPA proposed revisions to the NSPS (see 79
FR 6330) and published notice of its final rule making revisions on
March 16, 2015 (see 80 FR 13672). The final 2015 NSPS updated the 1988
Wood Heater NSPS emission limits, eliminated exemptions over a broad
suite of residential wood combustion devices, and updated test methods
and the certification process. The 2015 NSPS also added a new subpart
(40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQQ) that covers new wood burning residential
hydronic heaters and new forced-air furnaces.
    For this action, the term ``wood heaters'' refers to all appliances
covered in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, and the terms ``hydronic
heaters'' and ``forced-air furnaces'' refer to appliances covered in 40
CFR part 60, subpart QQQQ. Also, for this action, the term ``wood
heating devices'' refers to all units, collectively, regulated by the
2015 NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts AAA and QQQQ).
    In promulgating the 2015 NSPS, the EPA took a ``stepped compliance
approach'' in which certain ``Step 1''

standards would become effective in May 2015, and more stringent ``Step
2'' standards would become effective five years later, in May 2020.
Considering that over 90 percent of wood heating device manufacturers
and retailers are small businesses, the Agency adopted this two-phased
implementation approach to try to provide manufacturers adequate lead
time to develop, test, field evaluate and certify technologies across
their product lines to meet the Step 2 emission limits.
    The Step 1 standard reflected demonstrated wood heater technologies
at the time. For wood heaters, the Step 1 limit was based on the
Washington State standard that had been in effect since 1995 and had
been met by most wood heater manufacturers. For hydronic heaters, the
Step 1 emission limit was based on the 2010 Phase 2 Voluntary Hydronic
Heater Program. The Step 1 standard for forced-air furnaces was what
the EPA concluded would be immediately achievable based on a limited
dataset (see 80 FR 13693).
    For the Step 1 standards, the EPA provided a ``sell-through''
period of seven and a half months, until December 2015, to allow
retailers additional time after the effective date of the rule to sell
the non-compliant wood heaters and hydronic heaters remaining in
inventory (see 80 FR 13685). Specifically, the 2015 NSPS allowed non-
compliant wood heaters and hydronic heaters manufactured before May 15,
2015, to be imported and/or sold at retail through December 31, 2015
(see 40 CFR 60.532(a) and 60.5474(a)(1)).\2\ For the Step 2 standards,
the EPA did not provide a sell-through period following the May 2020
compliance date. The EPA concluded at the time that the 5-year period
leading up to the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date would provide
manufacturers with sufficient lead time to develop, test and certify
Step 2-compliant wood heating devices (see 80 FR 13676). However, in
light of concerns raised by manufacturers, in a separate rulemaking
action, the Agency is proposing a 2-year sell-through period for
certain types of wood heating devices that are manufactured before the
May 2020 compliance date to be imported and/or sold at retail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA did not provide any sell-through period for forced-
air furnaces because the EPA determined that the requirements that
became effective for these heaters in May 2015 (to revise the owner
manuals, and training and marketing materials) could be accomplished
without disrupting sales and creating undue burden on manufacturers
or retailers (see 80 FR 13682 and 13685).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A major component of demonstrating compliance with both the Step 1
and Step 2 standards is a certification test, using an EPA-specified
test method, for a given wood heating device. Among other requirements,
the emissions from the certification test cannot exceed the emission
limit for the standard for which it is certifying (either Step 1 or
Step 2). It is worth noting that, because these certification test
methods were developed outside of the 2015 NSPS, they have their own
requirements independent of the 2015 NSPS, such as fuel requirements.
    Another important point is that the EPA-specified test methods may
not reflect how a typical consumer uses the device. Some test methods
require the use of crib wood,\3\ which is air-dried dimensional lumber,
rather than typical cord wood,\4\ or firewood. Additionally, the EPA-
specified test methods direct the certification laboratory to target
specific burn rate categories for performance assessment purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Crib wood fuel is air dried, dimensional cut Douglas fir
lumber, arranged in the firebox per the EPA Method 28R.
    \4\ Cord wood fuel is traditional firewood cut to nominal
commercial sale length and air dried.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Comment

    The EPA has worked with a wide array of stakeholders, including but
not limited to industry, states, and non-governmental organizations, in
implementing the 2015 NSPS and received feedback from these
stakeholders on how to improve the 2015 NSPS. Based on this feedback,
the EPA is soliciting comments on the following 10 topics:

A. Test Methods--Transition to Cord Wood

    As discussed at 80 FR 13678, 13684 and 13690 in the 2015 NSPS, the
EPA contemplated requiring ``real world'' cord wood test methods for
the Step 2 standards in the final rule. However, the Agency determined
that it was premature to require a cord wood based-Step 2 emission
limit (except for forced-air furnaces for which CSA B415.1-10 already
specified cord wood as the test fuel) because no cord wood test method
for wood heaters was available at that time. Rather, the EPA based the
Step 2 emission limit on crib wood test data but included a voluntary
alternative cord wood compliance option and emission limit to encourage
manufacturers to certify with cord wood as soon as possible to provide
consumers with better information for actual in-home-use performance.
Recently, the EPA approved the use of ASTM 3053-17, finalized in
November 2017, through the EPA's Broadly Applicable Test Methods
approval process. Broadly applicable test methods Alt-125 and Alt-127
(https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods) are now available for manufacturers wishing to use this
voluntary cord wood compliance option.
    As the 2015 NSPS did not include a new test method intended to
provide ``real world'' data through cord wood compliance testing, the
EPA has received many informal comments and taken part in several
discussions concerning the differences between the existing compliance
test methods and ``real world'' cord wood compliance testing. These
discussions have led the EPA to review existing wood appliance test
methods and conduct research into the data sets provided by those test
methods. In doing so, the Agency recognizes a need to better understand
what compliance test procedures are necessary in order to provide a
cord wood emissions test data set that serves both the compliance test
benchmark (pass/fail) and ``real world'' data collection to support
other regulatory needs. Our review of existing test methods has focused
on two distinct facets of the testing procedures: (1) Particulate
collection and measurement during the testing; and (2) operation and
fueling of an appliance during the testing. Each of these two pathways
is currently represented in our compliance testing paradigms by a
separate test methodology. For example, ASTM E2515-11 serves as the
particulate collection and measurement test method for all existing
NSPS compliance test requirements, but this test method is always used
in conjunction with any one of several different operation and fueling
protocols, such as the EPA Method 28R for crib wood fuel testing of a
wood heater or the EPA Method 28WHH for crib wood fuel testing of a
hydronic heater. There is inherent variability in each facet of the
testing, and the overall variability of the testing result combines the
variability inherent to each facet. The EPA recognizes that moving away
from a crib wood fuel compliance testing paradigm to a cord wood fuel
compliance paradigm involves the introduction of the additional
variability inherent to cord wood fuel including the use of various
species of cord wood fuel across different regions of the U.S. and in
different countries where compliance testing may occur. In that light,
a review of test method processes and procedures is appropriate with
respect to handling this additional and unknown variability,

and the Agency is seeking public comment regarding the direction and
extent to which the EPA should undertake such evaluations of existing
test methods, including the scope of test method, appropriateness of
testing procedures, validation of test methodology, and revision and/or
developing new compliance test methods not currently associated with
the existing NSPS standards. To inform comments, the Agency would point
out that the EPA has an existing guideline covering Validation and Peer
Review of test methods: (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/chemical_method_guide_revised_020316.pdf). While the
EPA Methods 5H and 5G (both particulate test methods) underwent a
similar review prior to their publication in the 1988 NSPS (see: R. Gay
and J. Shah, Technical Support Document For Residential Wood
Combustion, EPA-450/4-85-012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1986), those are the only wood
burning appliance test methods upon which the EPA has collected such
data and done such analysis. The EPA Method 5G is closely related to
the current ASTM E2515-11, which is required for measuring particulate
throughout the 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAA and QQQQ, and so some
understanding of this method variability of ASTM E2515-11 exists
through our understanding of the EPA Method 5G. Beyond particulate
measurement, the EPA's Method 28, Method 28R, Method 28WHH, Method
28WHH-PTS and all other operation and fueling protocols required by 40
CFR part 60, subparts AAA and QQQQ have not been individually validated
or assessed through such a process.
    In addition to the lack of information surrounding the validation
of these operating and fueling protocols, the Agency recognizes the
need to understand the variability introduced to a compliance test
protocol through the combustion of various fuel species. Beyond this,
the Agency seeks comment on the need to develop a thorough
understanding of appliance use and emissions from typical appliance
operations such as startup, refueling (adding logs) and other common
modes of operation more representative of actual in-home use than the
``high burn, mid burn, and low burn'' modes currently required by
Method 28R and/or similar operating conditions required by the various
operating and fueling protocols throughout 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAA
and QQQQ. The Agency realizes that ``real-world'' data collection stems
from an understanding of the actual in-home use of the appliance, and
any compliance test paradigm relies on consistent application of
appliance fueling and operation during performance tests and, while our
existing compliance paradigms provide some testing consistency, the
Agency would like information supporting their use or specific
information as to more appropriate compliance operation and fueling
protocol direction for this program.
    The EPA seeks comment on whether existing operation and fueling
protocols are suited to deliver an appropriate compliance test result
and if existing operation and fueling protocols are suited to deliver
``real world'' emissions data where such data are a necessary output of
this program. The EPA also seeks comment on the need to validate
existing operation and fueling protocols and/or expend time and
resources to develop new validated operation and fueling protocol
methods in support of cord wood fuel compliance testing and providing
such ``real world'' emissions data from those tests. Relatedly, the EPA
also seeks comment with respect to developing new emission standards to
correspond with new test methods, if new test method development is
found to be necessary. Commenters should provide relevant information
and data to support their comments.

B. Feasibility of the Step 2 Compliance Date of May 15, 2020

    While some manufacturers have begun manufacturing Step 2-compliant
units, the EPA has learned of issues with compliance with these
emission limits by the May 15, 2020, deadline. In the 2015 NSPS, the
EPA concluded that the 5-year period leading up to the May 2020 Step 2
compliance date would provide manufacturers with sufficient lead time
to develop, test and certify Step 2-compliant wood heating devices (see
80 FR 13676).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA provided further explanation in the 2015 Response to
Comments (RTC) document (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734-1775). On
page 99 of the RTC, the EPA noted that the 5-year period from 2015
to 2020 ``matches the window of time many manufacturers noted they
would require to conduct research and development (R&D) and bring a
new model to market,'' and on page 231 of the RTC, the EPA concluded
that the Step 2 standards provide ``appropriate lead times for
manufacturers to redesign their model lines to accommodate the
improved technology across multiple model lines and test, field
evaluate, and certify new model lines.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Step 1 emission standards reflected demonstrated wood heater
technologies at that time. Step 2 standards were deemed to be
reasonable levels of emission control five years after promulgation. As
a part of the 2015 rulemaking, the EPA identified the percentage of
wood heaters estimated to be meeting the Step 2 standards prior to
promulgation of the 2015 NSPS as 70 percent of pellet stoves and 26
percent of wood stoves. Similarly, 18 percent of hydronic heaters were
meeting the Step 2 standards prior to promulgation of the 2015 NSPS,
while the limited dataset for forced-air furnaces showed no models
meeting the Step 2 standards prior to promulgation of the 2015 NSPS. As
of March 20, 2018, there were a total of 78 (44 pellet and 34 crib/cord
wood) models that when certified for the Step 1 and Step 2 standards
reported emission levels that met the Step 2 standard for wood heaters
(as required under 40 CFR 60.532(b) or 60.532(c)). In addition, there
are nine models that met the Step 2 standard for hydronic heaters (as
required under 40 CFR 60.5474(a)(2) or (b)(3)) and one model that met
the Step 2 standard for forced-air furnaces (as required under 40 CFR
60.5474(a)(6)) based on the Step 2 certification process. The inventory
of certified models as of March 2018 is provided in the document
titled: ``List of EPA certified Wood Heating Devices March 2018,''
which is available in the docket and at the website https://www.epa.gov/compliance/wood-heater-compliance-monitoring-program. The
EPA requests comment and information regarding the percentage of models
referenced above that the agency projects are meeting standards for
each type of equipment.
    Recently, some manufacturers have indicated that they need more
time to develop, test, and certify wood heating devices that meet the
Step 2 standard and that the costs of Step 2 compliance are beyond what
the industry can bear. As a result of this input, the EPA is soliciting
comment on whether it is feasible/practicable for manufacturers to meet
the Step 2 emission limits by May 15, 2020. Commenters should discuss
whether the Step 2 compliance date is achievable or not and should
provide relevant information and data to support their position. For
example, commenters may wish to address the following questions:
    1. Are there other factors that have changed or that the Agency did
not consider when issuing the 2015 NSPS that have influenced whether
some manufacturers are able to comply, and others are not? Why are some
manufacturers able to comply with the Step 2 emission limits by May
2020 and others cannot comply by then?
    2. For manufacturers expecting to achieve Step 2 emission limits by
May 2020, what is the time and cost to bring

the model to market and how does this compare to the EPA's 2015 NSPS
estimates? Were there other timing considerations associated with new
state level requirements that were issued in the intervening time
between 2015 NSPS promulgation and the May 2020 deadline that may have
changed the design timeline? Do manufacturers, considering the size of
their businesses, typically sell different models to meet differing
state standards or do manufacturers typically have just one model for
the nation? Does the manufacturer's business model and distribution
chain affect their ability to comply by the compliance deadline? If so,
please provide specific information on how this occurs. What is the
typical engineering design cycle for small businesses and did five
years provide enough time?
    3. For manufacturers that do not expect to achieve the Step 2
emission limits by May 2020, what factors are preventing your model(s)
from meeting the emission limits? Are there other factors that have
changed or that the Agency did not consider when issuing the 2015 NSPS
that have had an effect on meeting the May 2020 emission limits? Are
there features of wood heating devices that make meeting Step 2
standards more challenging or more expensive? Does a lack of desirable
consumer features lead to delays in replacing older dirty stoves or
promote switching to other fuels?
    The EPA is also soliciting comment on how much the compliance date
should be extended, if at all. Commenters should provide relevant
information and data to support any request for an extension of the
compliance date. For example, commenters may wish to address the
following questions:
    1. What new factors resulted in the need for time beyond the five
years of the 2015 NSPS? The Agency seeks comment and information
explaining how cost affects meeting the Step 2 emission limits by May
2020, including why cost projections have changed since the 2015 NSPS,
along with relevant data on the cost of research and development,
certification testing, and bringing a model to market. Are there other
cost considerations such as material costs, warranty costs,
installation costs, or maintenance costs that were unexpected or
different from what the Agency estimated in the 2015 NSPS? Have there
been any other unforeseen impacts on costs for manufacturers due to
changes in consumer preferences or attitudes towards the devices and
products that would be needed to comply with Step 2? For example, would
any of the new designs needed to meet the May 2020 standards impact the
size of the unit, how much it would cost consumers to operate it, or
change the maintenance frequency or cost?
    2. If more time is needed to meet the Step 2 emission limits, the
EPA seeks comment on the time and resources devoted to research and
development of a Step 2 model since 2014. Commenters should include
information regarding time spent on emissions testing, and the number
of runs/tests passed versus the number failed. Both manufacturer-
produced test data and certified laboratory test data are of interest
to the EPA. The Agency is also interested in receiving information
regarding emission reduction efforts and any other information
outlining attempts to develop a Step 2-compliant model.
    3. If more time is needed to meet the Step 2 emission limits, then
how much additional time is needed? For example, the Agency solicits
comments and detailed information regarding the timetable for
conducting research and development, additional testing, developing
saleable products, marketing, and any other relevant information and
data that supports a request for a delayed compliance date.
    The EPA also solicits comment on the environmental consequences and
public health effects, if any, of delaying compliance.

C. Step 2 Emission Limit for Forced-Air Furnaces

    At the time of the 2015 NSPS, the EPA expected most forced-air
furnace manufacturers to transfer technology and knowledge from wood
heaters and hydronic heaters to design Step 2-compliant forced-air
furnaces by the 2020 compliance date; however, the EPA is only aware of
one manufacturer that has received EPA certification as being Step 2
compliant, see website: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/wood-heater-compliance-monitoring-program. Prior to the 2015 NSPS, some small
forced-air furnace manufacturers had already transferred technology
from wood heaters to forced-air furnaces to achieve good performance as
discussed at 80 FR 13687. Several manufacturers, however, question
whether it is feasible to transfer technology from hydronic heaters.
These manufacturers point to the fact that space limitations may affect
their ability to adequately insulate models that may be installed in
close proximity to combustibles. The Agency requests comment on the
installation of cord wood-fired indoor hydronic heaters without large
volumes of thermal insulation around the firebox, and whether this
approach is feasible and cost effective for forced-air furnaces. The
EPA also seeks comment on whether technology transfer is necessary for
forced-air furnaces to meet the Step 2 emission limit, and on the
technological feasibility and costs of alternatives to thermal
insulation around the firebox. The EPA solicits comment on the
feasibility of the Step 2 limit for forced-air furnaces and what
factors the Agency should consider concerning the feasibility and costs
of transferring technologies from other wood heater devices to forced-
air furnaces. Comments should include information and data supporting
their perspective.
    Also, since promulgating the 2015 NSPS, the EPA has received
feedback from some manufacturers that complying with the Step 2
emission limit is cost prohibitive. Therefore, the EPA is soliciting
comment on whether, regardless of technical feasibility concerns, it is
economically feasible to comply with the Step 2 emission limit for
forced-air furnaces. Commenters should explain the issues regarding
costs and the feasibility/practicability for achieving the Step 2
emission limit and whether changing the Step 2 emission limit would
alleviate these issues, along with data supporting the position. The
EPA is also soliciting comment on the environmental and public health
effects, if any, of modifying the Step 2 emission limit for forced-air
furnaces.
    As noted earlier, the EPA is also soliciting comment on the
feasibility of the Step 2 compliance date of May 15, 2020. The EPA is
soliciting comment on whether to extend the Step 2 compliance date for
forced-air furnaces. Commenters should provide relevant information and
data to support any request for a delayed compliance date. The EPA is
also soliciting comment on the environmental and public health effects,
if any, of potential extensions of the Step 2 compliance date for
forced-air furnaces.

D. Step 2 Emission Limit for Hydronic Heaters

    For the 2015 NSPS, the EPA set the Step 2 emission limits based on
its determination of the BSER, which takes into account the cost of
achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements (See 80 FR 13687). Since
promulgation, however, the EPA has received comments from industry
representatives that the cost of compliance with Step 2 emission limits
for hydronic heaters is exceeding the EPA's original estimation. The
EPA

estimated a yearly cost of $46 million (2013$), that would be incurred
from 2015 to 2020, for implementation of the 2015 NSPS. Details of how
costs of the 2015 NSPS were estimated can be found in Chapter 5 of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for that standard.\6\ Furthermore, these
comments have indicated that the excess costs have made complying with
the Step 2 emission limit cost prohibitive. Are there other cost
considerations such as material costs, warranty costs, installation
costs, maintenance costs, or other costs that were unexpected or
different from what the Agency estimated in the 2015 NSPS? Have there
been any other unforeseen impacts on costs for manufacturers due to
changes in consumer preferences or attitudes towards the devices and
products that would be needed to comply with Step 2? Therefore, the EPA
is soliciting comment on the feasibility of complying with the Step 2
emission limit for hydronic heaters. Commenters should explain the
issues regarding the practicability of achieving the Step 2 emission
limits, whether the EPA's estimated costs are being exceeded \7\ or if
there are other aspects of the costs that the Agency had not previously
considered, and whether changing the Step 2 emission limit will
alleviate these issues. Commenters should provide relevant information
and data to support their positions. The EPA is also soliciting comment
regarding the potential environmental and public health effects, if
any, of modifying the Step 2 emission limits for hydronic heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the Residential Wood Heaters NSPS Revision. Final
Report. EPA-452/R-15-001. Available on the internet at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/docs/ria/wood-heaters_ria_final-nsps-revision_2015-02.pdf.
    \7\ Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R Inc. Estimated
Residential Wood Heater Manufacturer Cost Impacts. January 30, 2015.
Available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of March 20, 2018, there are nine models that meet the Step 2
standard for hydronic heaters (as required under 40 CFR 60.5474(a)(2)
and 60.5474(b)(2) or (b)(3)), and one model that meets the Step 2
standard for forced-air furnaces (as required under 40 CFR
60.5474(a)(6) and 60.5474(b)(6)) based on the Step 2 certification
process. These models are listed in the document titled ``List of EPA
certified Wood Heating Devices March 2018,'' which is in the docket at
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196. Also see link https://www.epa.gov/compliance/wood-heater-compliance-monitoring-program.
    The EPA is requesting comment regarding these models and models
that have not met the Step 2 standard for hydronic heaters and what
they demonstrate about achieving the standard at a reasonable cost.
Specifically, for manufacturers expecting to be unable to design a
hydronic heater to meet the Step 2 standard, the EPA is interested in
whether the Step 2 standard applicable to your device is achievable at
a reasonable cost by the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date. The Agency is
also interested in receiving information regarding efforts undertaken
to design hydronic heaters to meet the applicable Step 2 standard,
including cost, and if one or more models are expected to be ready for
certification by the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date, when you expect
to submit your application(s) for certification to the EPA.
    As noted earlier, the EPA is also soliciting comment on the
feasibility of the Step 2 compliance date of May 15, 2020. The EPA is
soliciting comment on whether to extend the Step 2 compliance date for
hydronic heaters. Commenters should provide relevant information and
data to support any request for a delayed compliance date. The EPA is
also soliciting comment on the environmental and public health effects,
if any, of potential extensions of the Step 2 compliance date for
hydronic heaters.

E. Step 2 Emission Limit Based on Weighted Averages Versus Individual
Burn Rates for Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces

    For hydronic heaters, the 2015 NSPS retained the proposed Step 1
emission cap of 18 grams per hour (g/hr) for all burn rates. For
forced-air furnaces, the 2015 NSPS does not require an emission cap for
any burn rates for Step 1. The Step 2 requirements for hydronic heaters
did not retain the g/hr cap. Instead, to balance industry's concern
with the g/hr cap with concerns about very large emissions at
individual burn rates, the Step 2 emission standards for hydronic
heaters and forced-air furnaces require the devices to meet the
emission limits for crib wood and cord wood, at each individual burn
rate (see 80 CFR 13684 and 13690).
    The emission limits for hydronic heaters reflect the data available
for the 2015 NSPS rulemaking, when 18 percent of hydronic heaters in
the EPA's Voluntary Hydronic Heater Program already met the Step 2
standard. For forced-air furnaces, the EPA determined that research and
development would be needed in order to meet the Step 2 limits.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R Inc. Estimated
Residential Wood Heater Manufacturer Cost Impacts. January 30, 2015.
Available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2014 NSPS proposal, the EPA proposed a weighted average
approach for compliance. But, because of the large emissions that could
potentially result from individual burn rates, along with the proposed
weighted average approach, the EPA also proposed a g/hr cap for the
certification test. Comments received from industry representatives in
2014 suggested that the g/hr emission cap would be too difficult to
meet. To accommodate these concerns, and after considering other public
comments, the EPA finalized the emission standards without a g/hr cap
but required the devices to meet the emission limit at each individual
burn rate to prevent large emission discharges.
    Based on concerns raised since promulgating the 2015 NSPS, the EPA
is soliciting comment on determining compliance with weighted averages
instead of individual burn rates. Commenters should describe the
relevant issues pertaining to compliance with the Step 2 emission limit
with individual burn rates versus a weighted average and also include
data to support their position. Commenters should also discuss and
support with data how a weighted average would impact emissions and
compliance costs.

F. Step 2 Emission Limit for Wood Heaters

    As of March 20, 2018, there were a total of 78 models that when
certified for the Step 1 and Step 2 standards reported emission levels
that meet the Step 2 standard for wood heaters (as required under 40
CFR 60.532(b) or 60.532(c)). These models are listed in the document
titled ``List of EPA certified Wood Heating Devices March 2018,'' which
is in the docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196. Also see link https://www.epa.gov/compliance/wood-heater-compliance-monitoring-program.
    The EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of the costs
associated with the Step 2 standards for wood heaters compared to the
costs estimated by the EPA in the 2015 NSPS and whether Step 2 is
achievable at a reasonable cost. The EPA requests comment on the
potential cost difference for consumers to operate different types of
wood heaters and, in particular, the cost of operating a pellet wood
heater compared to the cost of operating a cord/crib wood heater.
    If you are a manufacturer that has been unable to design a wood
heater to

meet the Step 2 standard, the EPA is interested in whether you think
the Step 2 standard applicable to your device is achievable at a mean
capital cost per model of $162,300 (for wood stoves and pellet stoves,
in 2016 dollars) by the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date and whether
this cost is reasonable.\9\ The EPA is requesting comment on the
technical feasibility of achieving the Step 2 standards for 40 CFR part
60, subpart AAA wood heaters including both pellet and cord/crib wood
heaters and whether the Agency should consider creating separate source
categories for these different wood heaters types.\10\ Since more
pellet stoves meet Step 2 than crib/cord wood stoves, the EPA is
interested in hearing from manufacturers and the public on the concept
of different emission standards for pellet-fired and crib/cord wood-
fired heating devices. The Agency is also interested in receiving
information regarding the efforts you have undertaken to design a wood
heater, both for pellet and crib/cord wood heaters, to meet the
applicable Step 2 standard, including the cost of your efforts to do
so. In addition, the EPA requests information on how many models of
pellet and crib/cord wood heaters you expect will be and will not be
ready for certification by the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date, and
when you expect to submit your application(s) for certification to the
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Estimate is based on the mean capital cost per model in
Table 5-1, p. 5-5 of that RIA, escalated to 2016 dollars from the
original 2013 dollar estimate of $156,000. Escalation uses the
annual value of GDP implicit price deflator, which is 1.04127 higher
in 2016 than 2013.
    \10\ In the 2015 final rule, the EPA noted that it was ``making
a single determination of BSER for catalytic, noncatalytic, hybrid,
cord wood and pellet heaters and furnaces in order to not restrict
open market competition.'' Furthermore, as noted in the Response to
Comment document: ``It is up to manufacturers to decide what
combustion technology/wood fuel to use to meet the emission limits
and up to consumers to decide what types of heaters they wish to
purchase that are certified to meet those limits.'' Performance
standards may drive competition in the marketplace; however,
maintaining just one source category for these wood heaters may
distort the marketplace and raise costs for both manufacturers and
consumers if only a limited number of wood heaters or predominantly
one type of wood heater can meet the Step 2 standards. Pellet wood
heaters may be more readily able to meet more stringent standards
due to the consistent fuel type and continual operating mode
compared to crib/cord wood heaters that may require more costly
redesigns to meet the Step 2 standards. In addition, the agency did
not consider the lifetime operating costs in the 2015 NSPS as the
difference in fuel costs between operating a crib/cord wood and
pellet wood heater could be considerable over the lifetime of the
wood heater if consumer choice is limited to just pellet stoves due
to the Step 2 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has received informal comments from several
parties regarding emissions testing variability and, along with those
discussions, issues have been raised regarding the units or format of
the Step 2 emission limit in 40 CFR 60, subpart AAA. One issue raised
is that the existing emission limit in units of grams per hour (g/hr)
increases variability in that the duration of the performance test
directly impacts the g/hr result, thus incentivizing longer test
periods. The EPA is soliciting comments on this form of the standard
(g/hr) and whether it is appropriate for the purpose of defining the
compliance limit and, if not, what form of a standard would be more
appropriate and reasons supporting those positions. Other possible unit
options for the emission limit could be g/kg or lb/mmBtu. Commenters
are asked to provide relevant information and data (where available) to
support their comments.

G. The EPA Compliance Audit Testing

    The EPA seeks comment with respect to the EPA compliance audit test
provisions in the current rules (2015 NSPS), found at 40 CFR 60.533(n)
(80 FR 13708) for wood heaters and at 40 CFR 60.5475(n) (80 FR 13721)
for hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces. Specifically, the Agency
is seeking comment on whether revisions to the current compliance audit
test provisions are necessary to ensure compliance. First, the Agency
is seeking comment on 40 CFR 60.533 (n)(2)(i) and 40 CFR
60.5475(n)(2)(i) regarding if it is appropriate for the EPA to select a
lab to perform the audit test from any approved test laboratory, and
whether the EPA should also consider using a federal laboratory.
Alternatively, the EPA seeks comment on whether audit tests should be
performed by the same lab that did the certification test for a given
wood heater appliance. If the audit test should be done by the
certifying lab, the EPA seeks comment on how to handle situations where
the original certifying lab is out of business or unable to accommodate
the audit test. Commenters should include any relevant information and
data that support their views and comments.
    Second, as some variability is inherent in emissions testing, the
Agency is seeking comment (and information) on whether and, if so, to
what degree, the EPA should consider this variability when assessing
the result of an audit test to determine if a wood burning appliance
successfully passed the test, or not. Please provide relevant
information and data to support your comments.
    Third, the Agency is seeking comment on establishing (as well as
how best to manage the regulatory cost of), through NSPS regulation, a
program using ASTM E691-99 ``Standard Practice for Conducting an
Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method.''
The intent of such a program would be to develop and establish wood
heating device audit test acceptability criteria, and to provide data
useful to the EPA in both refining wood heating device test methodology
development and in aiding the regulatory data collection with respect
to wood heater, forced-air furnace, and hydronic heater emissions and
standards setting processes. The EPA is also requesting comment on the
cost or any concerns with specifying a specific certification lab and
any discussion of the use of a federal versus a private lab. For the
2015 NSPS, the EPA estimated a cost of $63,564 for each compliance
audit conducted for each hydronic heater and forced-air furnace over
the period of 2015 to 2017, an estimate documented in the Supporting
Statement for the standard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NSPS for New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (40 CFR part
60, subpart QQQQ) (Final Rule). January 2015. Pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. ISO-Accredited Third-Party Review

    In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA included a new feature to improve the
process by which manufacturers of wood heating devices apply for
certification (see 80 FR 13684, and the ISO-accredited third-party
review at 80 FR 13706 and 80 FR 13719). The ISO-accredited third-party
review was included in the 2015 NSPS to streamline and speed up the
review process.
    The EPA is seeking comment on whether third-party review has
streamlined the process for manufacturers to submit their certification
applications and/or what issues and problems stakeholders have
experienced with third-party review process. The EPA also solicits
suggestions for improving the third-party review and reducing
regulatory burden, including what specific rule changes would be
appropriate, and why. Commenters should provide relevant information
and data to support their comments and suggestions.
    The current process allows the EPA-approved certifying lab to also
act as the third-party reviewer for a given appliance. Some external
stakeholders have raised concerns about allowing a lab to act as both
the certifying test lab and third-party reviewer for a given
certification test. The EPA solicits comments as to whether an EPA-
approved lab should be allowed to act

as both the certifying lab and third-party reviewer. Commenters should
address whether this is a problem and provide available data to support
their position.

I. Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)

    The EPA seeks comment on establishing electronic reporting for
submitting the non-confidential business information (CBI)
certification application, including the compliance test data, rather
than via hard copy, to relieve manufacturer burden and enhance
efficiencies. One possibility is the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT). The ERT is a Microsoft Access[supreg] application that generates
electronic versions of source test reports. Information on the ERT can
be found at https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. The EPA believes that using the ERT will
relieve the burden on manufacturers in the certification application
process by standardizing the reporting format by having specific data
elements reported, thereby helping to ensure completeness and accuracy
of the data submitted. As a result, the electronically submitted
application with complete and accurate data will enable an efficient
and timely review. In addition, because the ERT performs the required
method calculations, certification test report errors will be reduced
and the burden of performing these calculations manually will be
eliminated for the manufacturers as well as for the third-party
certifiers and the EPA reviewers. If the ERT were used, it would
generate a non-CBI test report (in pdf format) along with the ERT-
generated Access database (accdb) file that could be submitted to the
EPA for certification and once certified, posted to the manufacturer's
website. This ERT-generated test report would include a list of
attachments in the ERT file but not the attachments themselves. The
attachments would be contained in the ERT accdb file and if posted to
the manufacturer's website would be available to the public. Posting
the pdf will also address the version control concerns of the ERT-
generated database file. These two components could satisfy the
reporting requirements in 80 FR 13713 and 13725. The EPA seeks comment
on whether to include the option of using the ERT to create a non-CBI
and a CBI test report and certification package (pdf and .accdb file)
that satisfies the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 60.537(f) and
60.5479(f), which requires the manufacturer to submit the results of a
certification test within 60 days of completing each performance test.
If the EPA changes the current provisions, the Agency expects that the
manufacturers would still be required to post the full non-CBI test
report (pdf with all attachments or ERT generated pdf with the Access
database (accdb) file) on the manufacturer's website and submit the CBI
test report separately to the EPA. Manufacturers, who claim that some
of the information being submitted is CBI (e.g., design drawings),
could also utilize the same non-CBI test report generated by the ERT
and add the design drawings as an attachment to be submitted to the EPA
as CBI in order to satisfy the requirements under 40 CFR 60.537(f) and
60.5479(f). Similarly, the non-CBI report with no CBI information
attached could be posted to the manufacturer's website within 30 days
of receiving a certification of compliance to satisfy 40 CFR 60.537(g)
and 60.5479(g). Please provide as much detailed information as possible
to support your comments regarding this approach.

J. Warranty Requirements for Certified Appliances

    The 2015 NSPS requires owners or operators to operate wood heating
devices consistent with the owner's manual (see 40 CFR 60.532(f)(13)
and (g) and 60.5474(f)(13) and (g)). The 2015 NSPS also requires
manufacturers to provide an owner's manual that clearly states that
operation in a manner inconsistent with the manual, such as burning
prohibited material or pellets that do not meet the minimum
requirements of the 2015 Rule, would void the warranty (see 80 FR
13751, appendix I to Part 60). The cost of this requirement to provide
an owner's manual is an average of $3,750 per hydronic heater or
forced-air furnace model over the time period of 2015 to 2017,
according to the Supporting Statement for the 2015 NSPS.\12\ Although
numerous states expressed their support for these requirements as a
mechanism to help enforce the 2015 NSPS, some stakeholders have
questioned whether the EPA has the statutory authority to impose these
requirements. Stakeholders have also raised other issues regarding the
warranty requirements. The EPA is, therefore, soliciting comments
regarding retention, revision, or elimination of the warranty
requirements. For example, the EPA would be interested in hearing
whether such requirements are necessary for the safe and efficient
operation of the wood heater devices. Commenters supporting retention
of the requirements should address whether any changes are recommended
to the warranty requirements along with data, as appropriate, and an
explanation to support their position. Commenters supporting
elimination of the requirements should provide an explanation to
support their position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NSPS for New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (40 CFR part
60, subpart QQQQ). January 2015. pp. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is a ``significant
regulatory action.'' Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order
12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action. Because this action does not
propose or impose any requirements, and instead seeks comments and
suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a
subsequent proposed rule, the various statutes and Executive Orders
that normally apply to rulemaking do not apply in this case. Should the
EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, the EPA will address
the statutes and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure.

    Dated: November 21, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-26082 Filed 11-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7769-7772]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02020]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-
2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-
2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066;
FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2009-0011;
FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385;
FMCSA-2011-0276; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-2012-0339;
FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006;
FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301;
FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0031; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0210;
FMCSA-2016-0212; FMCSA-2018-0207; FMCSA-2018-0209]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 53
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirements in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before March 3,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6480, Docket No. FMCSA-
2000-7006, Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363, Docket No. FMCSA-2000-8398,
Docket No. FMCSA-2001-10578, Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12294, Docket No.
FMCSA-2002-13411, Docket No. FMCSA-2004-19477, Docket No. FMCSA-2005-
23238, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24783, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26066, Docket
No. FMCSA-2008-0021, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0266, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-
0340, Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0011, Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0303, Docket
No. FMCSA-2010-0187, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0354, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-
0385, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0276, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0379, Docket
No. FMCSA-2012-0161, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0339, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-
0174, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0002, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0003, Docket
No. FMCSA-2014-0006, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0007, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-
0299, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0300, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0301, Docket
No. FMCSA-2016-0027, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0031, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-
0033, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0210, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0212, Docket
No. FMCSA-2018-0207, or Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0209 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363;
FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-13411;
FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066;
FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2009-0011;
FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385;
FMCSA-2011-0276; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-2012-0339;
FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006;
FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0301;
FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0031; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0210;
FMCSA-2016-0212; FMCSA-2018-0207; FMCSA-2018-0209), indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit
your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if
there

are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-
7363; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-
13411; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-
2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-
2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-
2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0276; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-
2012-0339; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-
2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-
2014-0301; FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0031; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-
2016-0210; FMCSA-2016-0212; FMCSA-2018-0207; FMCSA-2018-0209), in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click
on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box
on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment
as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-
7363; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-
13411; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-
2006-26066; FMCSA- 2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-
2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-
2010-0385; FMCSA-2011-0276; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-
2012-0339; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-
2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-
2014-0301; FMCSA-2016-0027; FMCSA-2016-0031; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-
2016-0210; FMCSA-2016-0212; FMCSA-2018-0207; FMCSA-2018-0209), in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.
    The 53 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 53
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the vision standard (see 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR
20251; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 77066; 65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311;
66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 67 FR 38311; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR
57267; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 1654; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 69434;
69 FR 26921; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 64806; 69 FR 71098; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR
7545; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 44946; 70 FR 53412; 70 FR 74102; 71 FR 5105;
71 FR 19600; 71 FR 27033; 71 FR 32184; 71 FR 32185; 71 FR 41311; 71 FR
53489; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 1054; 72 FR 1056; 72 FR 7812; 72
FR 11426; 73 FR 11989; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 28186; 73 FR
42403; 73 FR 51336; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 76439;
73 FR 78421; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6689; 74 FR 8302; 74 FR
60021; 74 FR 60022; 75 FR 4623; 75 FR 9480; 75 FR 13653; 75 FR 19674;
75 FR 22176; 75 FR 27623; 75 FR 38602; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 52062; 75 FR
63257; 75 FR 64396; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR 77492; 75 FR 77949; 75 FR 79079;
75 FR 79083; 75 FR 79084; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR
9859; 76 FR 11215; 76 FR 67248; 76 FR 75942; 76 FR 79761; 77 FR 543; 77
FR 15184; 77 FR 17107; 77 FR 17108; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR
29447; 77 FR 41879; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 52391; 77 FR 60010; 77 FR 64582;
77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74734; 77 FR 75496; 77 FR 76166; 78 FR 800; 78 FR
1919; 78 FR 8689; 78 FR 11731; 78 FR 12817; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR 67452;
78 FR 67460; 78 FR 76707; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR
14571; 79 FR 17642; 79 FR 18391; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27043;
79 FR 28588;

79 FR 35212; 79 FR 37842; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR 41735; 79 FR
46300; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 56104; 79 FR 73397; 79 FR 73686;
79 FR 73687; 79 FR 74169; 80 FR 603; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR
6162; 80 FR 7678; 80 FR 8751; 80 FR 9304; 80 FR 15859; 80 FR 18693; 80
FR 20562; 80 FR 67481; 81 FR 15401; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR
26305; 81 FR 28138; 81 FR 52514; 81 FR 59266; 81 FR 66724; 81 FR 68098;
81 FR 71173; 81 FR 72664; 81 FR 74494; 81 FR 80161; 81 FR 81230; 81 FR
86063; 81 FR 90050; 81 FR 91239; 81 FR 94013; 81 FR 96165; 81 FR 96196;
82 FR 12683; 82 FR 13043; 82 FR 13048; 83 FR 2306; 83 FR 6919; 83 FR
15195; 83 FR 28325; 83 FR 28332; 83 FR 34661; 83 FR 53724; 83 FR 56140;
83 FR 56902; 84 FR 2309; 84 FR 2311; 84 FR 2314; 84 FR 2323; 84 FR
16320; 84 FR 16336). They have submitted evidence showing that the
vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at
Sec.  391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In
addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the
respective vision deficiencies over the past 2 years indicates each
applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These
factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability
to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA
concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a
period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of March and
are discussed below. As of March 1, 2021, and in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 44 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR 68195; 65
FR 20245; 65 FR 20251; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 77066; 66 FR
53826; 66 FR 66966; 67 FR 38311; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 57267;
68 FR 1654; 68 FR 69434; 69 FR 26921; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 64806; 69 FR
71098; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 7545; 70 FR 44946; 70 FR 53412; 70 FR 74102;
71 FR 5105; 71 FR 19600; 71 FR 27033; 71 FR 32184; 71 FR 32185; 71 FR
41311; 71 FR 53489; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 1054; 72 FR 1056; 73
FR 11989; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 28186; 73 FR 42403; 73 FR
51336; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 76439; 73 FR 78421;
73 FR 78423; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 60021; 74 FR 60022; 75 FR 4623; 75 FR
9480; 75 FR 13653; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 22176; 75 FR 27623; 75 FR 38602;
75 FR 47883; 75 FR 52062; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR 64396; 75 FR 72863; 75 FR
77492; 75 FR 79079; 75 FR 79083; 75 FR 79084; 76 FR 2190; 76 FR 4413;
76 FR 5425; 76 FR 67248; 76 FR 75942; 76 FR 79761; 77 FR 543; 77 FR
15184; 77 FR 17107; 77 FR 17108; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 27850; 77 FR 29447;
77 FR 41879; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 52391; 77 FR 60010; 77 FR 64582; 77 FR
74273; 77 FR 74734; 77 FR 75496; 77 FR 76166; 78 FR 800; 78 FR 1919; 78
FR 11731; 78 FR 12817; 78 FR 67452; 78 FR 67460; 78 FR 76707; 79 FR
1908; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 14571; 79 FR 17642; 79 FR 18391;
79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 27043; 79 FR 28588; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR
37842; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR 41735; 79 FR 46300; 79 FR 47175;
79 FR 53514; 79 FR 56104; 79 FR 73397; 79 FR 73686; 79 FR 73687; 79 FR
74169; 80 FR 603; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 8751; 80 FR 9304; 80 FR
18693; 80 FR 67481; 81 FR 15401; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 20435; 81 FR 26305;
81 FR 28138; 81 FR 52514; 81 FR 59266; 81 FR 66724; 81 FR 68098; 81 FR
71173; 81 FR 72664; 81 FR 74494; 81 FR 80161; 81 FR 81230; 81 FR 86063;
81 FR 90050; 81 FR 91239; 81 FR 94013; 81 FR 96165; 81 FR 96196; 82 FR
12683; 82 FR 13043; 82 FR 13048; 83 FR 2306; 83 FR 6919; 83 FR 15195;
83 FR 28325; 83 FR 28332; 83 FR 34661; 83 FR 53724; 83 FR 56140; 83 FR
56902; 84 FR 2309; 84 FR 2311; 84 FR 2314; 84 FR 16320):

Kurtis A. Anderson (SD)
Alan A. Andrews (NE)
Teddy S. Bioni (PA)
Duane N. Brojer (NM)
Chad L. Burnham (ME)
Derric D. Burrell (AL)
Laurence R. Casey (MA)
Thomas A. Crowell (NC)
Kevin J. Embrey (IN)
Douglas K. Esp (MT)
Liam F. Gilliland (MA)
Gary A. Goostree (OH)
Brian G. Hagen (IL)
Todd M. Harguth (MN)
Guadalupe J. Hernandez (IN)
Clarence K. Hill (NC)
Justin A. Hooper (MO)
Samuel L. Klaphake (MN)
Dennis E. Krone (IL)
John C. Lewis (SC)
Ernest B. Martin (KY)
Terrence L. McKinney (TX)
Norman Mullins (OH)
Robert H. Nelson (VA)
Lance C. Phares (NY)
Jack E. Potts, Jr. (PA)
Don C. Powell (NY)
Monte L. Purciful (IN)
Luis Ramos (FL)
George S. Rayson (OH)
Charles D. Reddick (GA)
Antonio Rivera (PA)
Ricky D. Rostad (MN)
Julius Simmons, Jr. (SC)
William T. Smiley (MD)
Michael G. Somma (NY)
Joshua R. Stanley (OK)
Douglas R. Strickland (NC)
David M. Taylor (MO)
Bruce A. Walker (WI)
Scott C. Westphal (MN)
Edward C. Williams (AL)
Steven E. Williams (GA)
Olen L. Williams, Jr. (TN)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-
2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-
2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066;
FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2009-0011;
FMCSA-2009-0303; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2010-0385;
FMCSA-2011-0276; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2012-0161; FMCSA-2012-0339;
FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0006;
FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2016-0027;
FMCSA-2016-0031; FMCSA-2016-0033; FMCSA-2016-0210; FMCSA-2016-0212;
FMCSA-2018-0207. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 1, 2021,
and will expire on March 1, 2023.
    As of March 4, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions
for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs
for interstate CMV drivers (67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 70 FR 7545; 72 FR
7812; 74 FR 6689; 76 FR 9859; 78 FR 8689; 80 FR 7678; 82 FR 13043; 84
FR 16320):

Ralph J. Miles (OR)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2002-13411. The
exemption is applicable as of March 4, 2021, and will expire on March
4, 2023.
    As of March 7, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (80 FR 6162; 80 FR 20562; 82 FR
13043; 84 FR 16320):

Steven D. Ellsworth (IL) and Richard A. Pierce (MO)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0301. The
exemptions are applicable as of March 7, 2021, and will expire on March
7, 2023.
    As of March 9, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and

31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (84 FR 2323; 84 FR 16336):

Henry J. Hughes (MN); Emmanuel A. Sepulveda (CA); and Nyrone Whyte (CT)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2018-0209. The
exemptions are applicable as of March 9, 2021, and will expire on March
9, 2023.
    As of March 23, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (65 FR 78256; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR
76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 13360; 70 FR 7545; 70 FR 12265; 72 FR 7812;
72 FR 11426; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 74 FR 6689; 74 FR 8302; 75 FR
77949; 76 FR 9859; 76 FR 11215; 78 FR 8689; 78 FR 12822; 80 FR 15859;
82 FR 13043; 84 FR 16320):

Howard K. Bradley (VA); Thomas F. Marczewski (WI); and Wade D. Taylor
(MO)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-
2002-13411; FMCSA-2008-0266. The exemptions are applicable as of March
23, 2021, and will expire on March 23, 2023.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified medical examiner (ME), as defined by Sec.
390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified
under Sec.  391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the
annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of
the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a
copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption
will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 53 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-02020 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P