[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6329-6416]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00409]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 22

February 3, 2014

Part III

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New
Residential Masonry Heaters; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734; FRL-9904-05-OAR]
RIN 2060-AP93

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to amend the Standards of Performance for
New Residential Wood Heaters and to add two new subparts: Standards of
Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air
Furnaces and Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry
Heaters. This proposal is aimed at achieving several objectives for new
residential wood heaters and other wood-burning appliances, including
applying updated emission limits that reflect the current best systems
of emission reduction; eliminating exemptions over a broad suite of
residential wood combustion devices; strengthening test methods as
appropriate; and streamlining the certification process. This proposal
does not include any requirements for heaters solely fired by gas, oil
or coal. In addition, it does not include any requirements associated
with appliances that are already in use. The EPA continues to encourage
state, local, tribal, and consumer efforts to changeout (replace) older
heaters with newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that is not
part of this federal rulemaking.
    Particulate pollution from wood heaters is a significant national
air pollution problem and human health issue. Health benefits
associated with these proposed regulations are valued to be much
greater than the cost to manufacture cleaner, lower emitting
appliances. These proposed regulations would significantly reduce
particulate matter (PM) emissions and many other pollutants from these
appliances, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Emissions from wood stoves
occur near ground level in residential communities across the country,
and setting these new requirements for cleaner stoves into the future
will result in substantial reductions in exposure and improved public
health.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2014. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before March 5, 2014.
    Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed
rule on February 26, 2014, in Boston, Massachusetts. The hearing will
be at the following location: EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Leighton Hall, Boston, MA. For directions and
public transportation, visit: http://www.epa.gov/region1/directions/.
Please note that 5 Post Office Square is a federal building, and proper
identification is required for entry.
    The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity
to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed rule. The
EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but
will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements
and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearing. Written comments must be
postmarked by the last day of the 90-day comment period.
    If you would like to present oral testimony at the hearing, please
register on-line (preferred method for registering) at http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters no later than February 19, 2014,
to request a general time slot for you to speak and any special
equipment. If this method is not available to you, please notify Mr.
David Cole no later than February 19, 2014, by email:
cole.david@epa.gov); or by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The EPA will make
every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day
of the hearing. The public hearing will begin each day at 9 a.m. (local
time) and continue into the evening until 7 p.m. (local time). The EPA
will make every effort to accommodate all other speakers who arrive and
register before 7 p.m. (local time) on the day of the hearing. The EPA
is scheduling lunch breaks from 12:30 until 2 p.m. (local time).
    Testimony will be limited to five (5) minutes for each commenter to
address the proposal. We will not be providing equipment for commenters
to show overhead slides or make computerized slide presentations unless
we receive special requests in advance. The EPA encourages commenters
to provide written versions of their oral testimonies either
electronically on computer disk or CD-ROM or in paper copy.
    The hearing schedule, including lists of speakers, will be posted
on the EPA's Web page for the proposal at: http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters prior to the hearing. Verbatim transcript of
the hearing and written statements will be included in the rulemaking
docket.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0734, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0734.
     Mail: United States (U.S.) Postal Service, send comments
to EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Please include
a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments
on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 735 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket),
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, Attention
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0734. 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 www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, 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 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 disk or CD-ROM 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
avoid the use of special characters, 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
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to section I.D.2 of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.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, will be publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Gil Wood, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Outreach and Information Division, Community and Tribal
Programs Group (C304-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5272; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
    A. What is the NSPS program?
    B. Why was the original residential wood heaters NSPS developed?
    C. What are the requirements of the current 1988 NSPS?
    D. What are the major developments since the original NSPS was
published?
    E. Why is residential wood smoke a concern?
    F. What are the major issues that drove the review process?
III. Summary of Proposed Residential Wood Heater Appliance
Amendments
    A. Room Heaters
    B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
    C. Masonry Heaters
IV. Summary of Environmental, Cost, Economic, and Non-Air Health and
Energy Impacts
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the benefits?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the non-air quality health and energy impacts?
V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments
    A. Why are we proposing to expand the scope of appliances
subject to the NSPS?
    B. How did we determine BSER and the proposed emission
standards?
    C. How did we establish the proposed compliance timelines?
    D. How are we proposing to streamline the requirements for
certification, quality assurance and laboratory accreditation?
    E. What changes and additions to the allowed test methods are we
proposing?
    F. What other changes and additions to the administrative
requirements are we proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to the
Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters (40 CFR part
60, subpart AAA) and to add two new subparts: Standards of Performance
for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces and
Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry Heaters (40 CFR
part 60, subparts QQQQ and RRRR). This proposal was developed following
a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(b)(1)(B) periodic review of the
current residential wood heaters new source performance standards
(NSPS). We concur with numerous stakeholders that the current body of
evidence justifies revision of the current residential wood heaters
NSPS to capture the improvements in performance of such units and to
expand the applicability of this NSPS to include additional wood-
burning residential heating devices that are in the market. The
proposed changes are aimed at achieving several objectives, including
applying updated emission limits that reflect the current best systems
of emission reduction (BSER); eliminating exemptions over a broad suite
of residential wood combustion devices; strengthening test methods as
appropriate; and streamlining the certification process. This proposal
does not include any requirements for heaters solely fired by gas, oil
or coal. In addition, it does not include any requirements associated
with wood heaters or other wood-burning appliances that are already in
use. The EPA continues to encourage state, local, tribal, and consumer
efforts to changeout (replace) older heaters with newer, cleaner, more
efficient heaters, but that is not part of this federal rulemaking.
    These revisions will help reduce the health impacts of fine
particle pollution, of which wood smoke is a contributing factor in
many areas. Residential wood smoke contains fine particles with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), CO,
toxic air pollutants (e.g., benzene and formaldehyde), and climate-
forcing emissions (e.g., methane and black carbon). Residential wood
smoke can increase PM2.5 to levels that cause significant
health concerns. Populations that are at greater risk for experiencing
health effects related to fine particle exposures include older adults,
children and individuals with pre-existing heart

or lung disease. Each year, smoke from wood heaters contributes
hundreds of thousands of tons of fine particles throughout the
country--mostly during the winter months. Nationally, residential wood
combustion accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile
polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions, nearly 25 percent of all
area source air toxics cancer risks and 15 percent of noncancer
respiratory effects.\1\ Residential wood smoke causes many counties in
the U.S. to either exceed the EPA's health-based national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles or places them on the cusp
of exceeding those standards.\2\ To the degree that older, higher
emitting, less efficient wood heaters are replaced by newer heaters
that meet the requirements of this rule, or better, the emissions would
be reduced, the efficiencies would be increased and fewer health
impacts should occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke. EPA-456/B-
13-001, March 2013. Prepared by Outreach and Information Division,
Air Quality Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. pp. 4-5.
    \2\ Air Quality and Emissions Data; Supporting Information for
the Residential Wood Heater New Source Performance Standard, August
14, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action is conducted under the authority of section 111 of the
CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,'' under
which the EPA establishes federal standards of performance for new
sources within source categories that cause or contribute significantly
to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. Consistent with section 111(h), if it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, the
Administrator may instead promulgate a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that
reflects the best system of continuous emission reduction, which
(taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission
reduction, and any non-air quality, health, and environmental impact
and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Proposed Regulatory Action
    In response to the results of the NSPS review, we are proposing to
amend 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New
Residential Wood Heaters. The current regulation applies to affected
appliances manufactured after 1988. The current emission limits would
remain in effect for the heaters and model lines manufactured before
the effective date of this rule until their current EPA certification
expires (maximum of 5 years) or is revoked. After the certification
expires or is revoked, these heaters and other new heaters would have
to meet updated emission standards. We propose to broaden the
applicability of the regulation beyond adjustable burn rate wood
heaters (the focus of the original regulation), to specifically include
all single burn rate wood heaters/stoves and pellet heaters/stoves.
(Some pellet heaters/stoves were not affected by the 1988 regulation.)
Note that this preamble uses the following terms interchangeably:
heaters, stoves and heaters/stoves. Heaters/stoves and model lines
manufactured after the effective date of the rule would be required to
meet PM standards.
    As with the 1988 regulation, the source category covered by this
NSPS is fundamentally different from the typical NSPS source category
in several ways. For example, most NSPS source categories focus on
industrial or commercial facilities, and typically these heaters are
installed and operated in residences, not industrial or commercial
facilities. Also, residential wood heaters, hydronic heaters, forced-
air furnaces, and most masonry heaters are mass-produced consumer
items, rather than industrial processes typically regulated by NSPS.
Therefore, as in 1988, we are proposing that manufacturers participate
in a certification program that tests a representative heater per model
line rather than requiring testing each heater. If the representative
heater meets the applicable emission limits, the entire model line may
be certified and the manufacturer would not be required to test every
heater. Individual heaters within the model line would still be subject
to all other requirements, including labeling and operational
requirements. Manufacturers would be required to have quality assurance
programs to ensure that all heaters within the model line conform to
the certified design and meet the applicable emission limits. The EPA
would continue to have the authority to conduct audits to ensure
compliance. We ask for comments on all aspects of this approach,
especially whether more than one representative heater should be tested
prior to certification of the model line.
    The 1988 regulation also addressed some of the specific
characteristics of this source category by developing a two-step
compliance approach that provided a reasonable, phased implementation
of emission limits for manufacturers. We believe such an approach is
prudent this time also to allow manufacturers lead time to develop,
test, field evaluate and certify current technologies across their
consumer product lines. In 1988, there were ``logjam'' concerns about
the capacity of accredited laboratories to conduct certifications tests
and time for the EPA to review the tests and adequately assure
compliance if all the NSPS requirements were to be immediate. Those
concerns have been expressed this time also. Thus, upon the effective
date of this rule, new heaters/stoves would be required to meet Step 1.
Five years later, new heaters/stoves would be required to meet Step 2.
The rule also would require that each unit be equipped with a permanent
NSPS label. The two-step approach would apply to all the heater types
addressed in this rulemaking except for masonry heaters. For masonry
heaters, we are not proposing a second more stringent emission limit.
    Additional requirements would apply to entities other than the
manufacturer. The wood heater test laboratory would be subject to
quality assurance requirements. The rule would continue to require the
proper burn practices that currently apply to the owner or operator of
a wood heating appliance. In addition, new pellet heater/stove owners
and operators would be required to use only the grade of licensed
pellet fuels that are included in the heater/stove certification tests,
or better. We are proposing to streamline the current enforcement and
audit provisions of the current subpart to reflect changes in industry
practices and development of new tools and procedures. We are proposing
improvements to the previous test methods as well as new test methods.
    We are also proposing new subpart QQQQ, which would apply to new
wood-fired residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces, and
new subpart RRRR, which would apply to new residential masonry heaters.
These new subparts are being proposed to address the remaining heater
appliance types in the 1987 residential wood heater source category
listing that were not regulated by the 1988 NSPS. Both subparts are
designed using principles similar to those in subpart AAA, i.e.,
certification testing of a representative unit in a model line, label
requirements, associated quality assurance requirements and phased
implementation. Subpart RRRR has some additional features to address
very small volume manufacturers, including a proposed compliance
extension and the ability to use a software certification

approach rather than a laboratory emission test.
    The proposed PM standards for subparts QQQQ and RRRR would be
implemented in two steps. For subpart QQQQ, upon the effective date of
the rule, hydronic heaters would be required to meet a Step 1 PM limit
of 0.32 pound per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) output and
forced-air furnaces would be required to meet a Step 1 PM limit of 0.93
lb/MMBtu heat output. Five years after the effective date of the rule,
both hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces would be required to meet
a Step 2 PM limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu heat output. For subpart RRRR
(masonry heaters), upon the effective date of the rule, large
manufacturers (defined as manufacturers constructing greater than or
equal to 15 masonry heaters per year) would be required to meet a PM
limit of 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output. Five years after the effective date
of the rule, small volume masonry heater manufacturers (defined as
manufacturers constructing less than 15 masonry heaters per year) would
be required to meet the 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output PM limit.
3. Costs and Benefits
    Consistent with Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' we have estimated the cost and benefits of the
proposed rule. The estimated net benefits of our proposed rule at a 3
percent discount rate are $1.8 billion to $4.1 billion or $1.7 billion
to $3.7 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. The non-monetized
benefits include 33,000 tons of CO reductions; 3,200 tons of VOC
reductions; reduced exposure to HAP, including formaldehyde, benzene,
and POM; reduced climate effects due to reduced black carbon emissions;
reduced ecosystem effects; and reduced visibility impairments. Table 1
is a summary of the results of the analysis per type of residential
wood heater. We have provided estimates reflecting average annual
impacts for the 2014 to 2022 timeframe, which are the implementation
years for the options analyzed in the RIA for this proposal. Monetized
benefits are not currently available for masonry heaters. We ask for
emission and projected sales data per model that would help us prepare
emission reduction estimates and corresponding monetized benefits
estimates for masonry heaters.

 Table 1--Summary of Compliance Costs, Monetized Benefits, and Monetized Net Benefits (2010 Dollars) by Type of
                            Heater in the 2014-2022 Time Frame for the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Total annualized       Monetized benefits ($        Monetized net benefits ($
         Type of heater          costs ($ millions)          millions) a b                    millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood stoves....................                $4.2  $62 to $140..................  $62 to $140.
Single burn rate stoves........                 0.9  $290 to $650.................  $290 to $650.
Pellet stoves..................                 3.5  $19 to $43...................  $19 to $43.
Forced-air furnaces............                 2.3  $1,000 to $2,200.............  $1,000 to $2,200.
Masonry heaters................                 0.3  N/A \c\......................  N/A.
Hydronic heating systems.......                 4.5  $480 to $1,100...............  $480 to $1,100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the time frame from 2014 to 2022 inclusive. These results include units anticipated to
  come online and the lowest cost disposal assumption. Total annualized costs are estimated at a 7 percent
  interest rate.
\b\ Total monetized benefits are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The total monetized benefits reflect
  the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted
  PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated
  with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Krewski et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012). These
  models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing
  premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect
  estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were generated using benefit-per-ton estimates, we do not
  break down the total monetized benefits into specific components.
\c\ The monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not available because we do not have national estimates of
  the potential emission reductions.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The potentially regulated sources that are the subject of this
proposal are listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers
regarding entities likely to be affected by this proposed action. This
standard, and any changes considered in this rulemaking, would be
directly applicable to sources as a federal program. Thus, federal,
state, local and tribal government entities are not affected by this
proposed action.

                 Table 2--Potentially Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
          Category               NAICS \a\ Code      regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Wood Heating....  333414--Heating       Manufacturers,
                               Equipment (except     owners and
                               Warm Air Furnaces)    operators of wood
                               Manufacturing.        heaters, pellet
                                                     heaters/stoves,
                                                     hydronic heaters,
                                                     and masonry
                                                     heaters.
                              333415--Air-          Manufacturers,
                               Conditioning and      owners and
                               Warm Air Heating      operators of forced-
                               Equipment and         air furnaces.
                               Commercial and
                               Industrial
                               Refrigeration
                               Equipment
                               Manufacturing.
                              238140--Masonry       Manufacturers,
                               Contractors.          owners, operators
                                                     and testers of
                                                     masonry heaters.
Testing Laboratories........  541380--Testing       Testers of wood
                               Laboratories          heaters, pellet
                               (except Medical,      heaters/stoves,
                               Veterinary).          hydronic heaters
                                                     and masonry
                                                     heaters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal, following signature by the EPA Administrator, will be
posted at the following address: http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Instead, clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI and send or deliver only to
the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer
(C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. For CBI
information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that you claim as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the
public docket. If you submit a disk or CD-ROM that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 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 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions. Respond to specific questions and
organize comments by a section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats or character assassination.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline.

II. Background

A. What is the NSPS program?

    Under section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' the EPA lists categories of sources that, in the
EPA's judgment, cause or contribute significantly to air pollution,
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(A), and then promulgates federal
standards of performance for new sources within such categories under
section 111(b)(1)(B). At the time the EPA proposes and establishes
standards for certain pollutants for a source category, the EPA
prepares an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated
with the NSPS, which includes the benefits from reductions in
pollutants for which the standards do not set limits. For example,
emission reductions associated with the requirements of this proposed
rule will generate health benefits by reducing emissions of
PM2.5, other criteria pollutants, such as CO, and non-
criteria HAP. Consistent with section 111(h), if it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, the Administrator may
instead promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof, which reflects the best system of
continuous emission reduction which (taking into consideration the cost
of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality, health,
and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated. The NSPS do not establish
standards of performance for existing sources. However, numerous states
have acted independent of this rule to address new and existing sources
as part of state implementation plan (SIP) measures necessary to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Several examples are discussed
in section II.E of this preamble.
    The level of control prescribed by section 111 of the CAA
historically has been referred to as ``Best Demonstrated Technology''
or BDT. To better reflect that section 111 was amended in 1990 to
clarify that ``best systems'' may or may not be ``technology,'' the EPA
is now using the term ``best systems of emission reduction'' or BSER.
As was done previously in analyzing BDT, the EPA uses available
information and considers the emissions reductions and incremental
costs for different systems available at reasonable cost. The
residential wood heaters source category is different from most NSPS
source categories in that it is for mass-produced residential consumer
products. Thus, important elements in determining that BSER include the
significant costs and environmental impacts of delaying production
while models with those systems are being designed, tested, field
evaluated and certified. As noted earlier and discussed more fully
later in this preamble, the 2-step approach that the EPA is proposing
considers these factors. That is, for this rulemaking, the EPA has
determined the appropriate emission limits and compliance deadlines
that together are representative of BSER. Details of the BSER
determinations are included in section V.B. of this preamble.
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to periodically
(every 8 years) review an NSPS unless it determines ``that such review
is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the
efficacy of such standard.'' If needed, the EPA must revise the
standards of performance to reflect improvements in methods for
reducing emissions, including consideration of what emissions
limitation is achieved in practice. Numerous stakeholders have
suggested that the current body of evidence justifies the revision of
the current residential wood heaters NSPS to capture the improvements
in performance of such units and to expand the applicability of this
NSPS to include additional residential wood-burning heating devices
that are available today. The states of New York, Connecticut,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, as well as
the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, have filed in U.S. District Court in
Washington, DC, to ask the court to order the EPA to promptly review,
propose and adopt necessary updates to the NSPS for residential wood
heaters. Likewise, the American Lung Association, the Environmental
Defense Fund, the Clean Air Council, and Environment and Human Health,
Inc., have filed a similar request. Also, some stakeholders have
suggested that the

EPA develop additional NSPS to regulate residential heating devices
that burn fuels other than or in addition to wood, e.g., coal, corn or
grass. This proposal does not include any requirements for heaters that
solely burn fuels other than wood.

B. Why was the original residential wood heaters NSPS developed?

    The development of the residential wood heater regulations began in
the mid-1980s in response to the growing concern that wood smoke
contributes to ambient air quality-related health problems. Several
state and local governments developed their own regulations for wood
heaters. Then, in response to a lawsuit filed by New York State and the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the EPA agreed to initiate a
residential wood heaters NSPS rulemaking, with a schedule calling for
final action by January 31, 1988. The original standard was developed
using a regulatory negotiation process with the key stakeholders (the
wood heating industry, state governments, and environmental and
consumer groups) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
    Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA listed the
residential wood heater source category based on its determination that
residential wood heaters cause, or contribute significantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare (52 FR 5065, February 18, 1987). The EPA also proposed
regulations for residential wood heaters (52 FR 4994, February 18,
1987). The final standards were published on February 26, 1988 (53 FR
5860). At the time the original NSPS was proposed, the EPA estimated
that a typical pre-NSPS conventional wood heater emits about 60 to 70
g/hr of PM and that a wood heater complying with the NSPS would emit 75
to 86 percent less than conventional wood heaters.

C. What are the requirements of the current 1988 NSPS?

    The current subpart AAA defines a wood heater as an enclosed, wood-
burning appliance capable of and intended for space heating or domestic
water heating that meets all of the following criteria:
    1. An air-to-fuel ratio (ratio of the mass of combustion air
introduced into the firebox to the mass of dry fuel consumed) in the
combustion chamber averaging less than 35-to-1 as determined by the
test procedure prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534 performed at an accredited
laboratory;
    2. A usable firebox volume of less than 0.57 cubic meters (20 cubic
feet);
    3. A minimum burn rate (weight of dry test fuel consumed per hour)
of less than 5 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (11 pounds per hour (lb/hr))
as determined by the test procedure prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534
performed at an accredited laboratory; and
    4. A maximum weight of 800 kg (1,760 lb), excluding fixtures and
devices that are normally sold separately, such as flue pipe, chimney,
and masonry components that are not an integral part of the appliance
or heat distribution ducting.
    In the 1988 rulemaking, the EPA identified several types of
residential wood combustion appliances that are not subject to the
current 1988 NSPS:
     Open masonry fireplaces constructed on site
     Boilers/Heaters
     Furnaces
     Cook Stoves
    In addition, the current 1988 NSPS exempts the following from the
emission limits:
     Wood heaters used solely for research and development
(R&D) purposes
     Wood heaters manufactured for export
     Coal-only heaters
    As noted earlier, because of the specific characteristics of this
source category (e.g., it applies to mass-produced residential consumer
items), the residential wood heaters NSPS (also sometimes informally
referred to as the wood stove NSPS) allows compliance for model lines
to be certified ``pre-sale'' by the manufacturers. A typical NSPS
source category approach that imposes emission standards and then
requires a unit-specific compliance demonstration would have been very
costly and impractical. Therefore, the 1988 NSPS was designed to allow
manufacturers of wood heaters to use a certification program to test
representative wood heaters on a model line basis. Once a model line is
certified, all of the individual units within the model line are
subject to labeling, operational and other requirements. Manufacturers
are then required to conduct a quality assurance program to ensure that
appliances produced within a model line conform to the certified design
and meet the applicable emission limits. There are also provisions for
the EPA to conduct audits to ensure compliance.
    As discussed in the 1988 rulemaking, the standards limiting PM
emissions from wood heaters in the current 1988 NSPS were phased in for
this source category because of the need to consider the costs of
delayed production while new models were being developed and certified.
Advanced technology heaters/stoves including both catalytic and
noncatalytic systems were considered to be BDT (now called BSER),
because the net emissions of both systems over time were estimated to
be similar (even though the initial certification test results were
lower for catalytic models) due to possible degradation and lack of
catalyst replacement. The EPA considered requiring catalyst replacement
on a regular schedule but determined that enforcement of such a
requirement would be difficult or impractical. The EPA did require
manufacturers to provide 2-year unconditional warranties on the
catalysts and prohibited the operation of catalytic heaters/stoves
without a catalyst. Principally because of these concerns, the EPA
wanted to ensure that both catalytic and noncatalytic technology would
continue to be options for manufacturers to use and further develop.
The Subpart AAA Phase I standards issued in 1988 were very similar to
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality standards that had been
in existence for a few years. The Subpart AAA Phase II standards,
issued in 1988 and which are still in effect, are more stringent and
had to be met within 2 years of publication of the final rule, i.e., by
1990. Models equipped with a catalytic combustor cannot emit more than
a weighted average of 4.1 g of PM per hour. Models that are not
equipped with a catalytic combustor cannot emit more than a weighted
average of 7.5 g of PM per hour. The lower initial emission limit for
the catalytic combustor-equipped models incorporates an expected
deterioration rate for the catalysts such that after 5 years the
emissions from those models were expected to be similar to the
emissions from noncatalytic models.

D. What are the major developments since the original NSPS was
published?

    New systems for residential wood heating devices are commercially
available in the U.S. that perform at significantly lower g/hr emission
rates than required under the current 1988 NSPS. Furthermore, even
greater performance potentially can be achieved by greater deployment
of the best U.S. systems and the typical systems already widely
employed in Europe, especially for outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters.
The EPA has conducted a research project ``Environmental
Characterization of Outdoor Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters'' through a
cooperative R&D agreement with the New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority (NYSERDA) that evaluated four types of technology
ranging from a common outdoor wood boiler/heater to a state-of-the-art,
high-efficiency pellet boiler/heater from Austria. The study showed
considerable emission reduction due to a 2-stage combustion technology
that includes gasification of the fuel and more complete combustion.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Environmental, Energy Market, And Health Characterization Of
Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies. Prepared by U.S. EPA Office
of Research and Development, et al., prepared for NYSERDA. June
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many stakeholders have expressed concern to the EPA about a broad
range of residential wood heating appliances that do not have emission
standards in the current 1988 NSPS. These include single burn rate wood
heaters; pellet heaters/stoves that are not subject to the current
standard via the NSPS air-to-fuel ratio; wood ``boilers'' (hydronic
heaters); forced-air furnaces; and masonry heaters. Some stakeholders
have also expressed an interest in regulating non-``heater'' devices,
such as indoor and outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, cook stoves and pizza
ovens.
    One category of wood heating appliances that has undergone
significant growth is wood heaters/boilers or ``hydronic heaters.''
(Note that these units are technically called heaters rather than
boilers because many are not pressurized and do not boil the liquid.)
Hydronic heaters are typically located outside the buildings they heat
in small sheds with short smokestacks. These appliances burn wood to
heat a liquid (water or a water-antifreeze mixture) that is piped to
provide heat and hot water to occupied buildings, such as homes. Often,
in addition to supplying heat for homes, the same unit is used to
provide heat for barns and greenhouses and to provide warm water for
swimming pools. Hydronic heaters may also be located indoors and may
use other biomass (such as corn or wood pellets) or coal or a
combination for fuel.
    Studies have shown that PM2.5 concentrations in
proximity to a typical outdoor hydronic heater (aka outdoor wood
boiler) can exceed the 24-hour NAAQS.\4\ Thus, the EPA developed a
hydronic heater voluntary partnership program in order to encourage
manufacturers to reduce impacts on air quality and health through
developing and distributing cleaner hydronic heaters for those
locations where local jurisdictions allow hydronic heaters. We
developed the voluntary partnership program with the goal of bringing
cleaner models to market faster than the traditional federal regulatory
process. Properly operated Phase 1 \5\ emission level (0.60 lb/MMBtu
heat input) qualifying \6\ units are approximately 70 percent cleaner
than typical unqualified units. After March 31, 2010, units that only
meet the Phase 1 emission level are no longer considered ``qualified
models'' under the voluntary partnership program. Properly operated
Phase 2 emission level (0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output) qualifying units are
estimated to be approximately 90 percent cleaner than typical
unqualified units. Typically, qualified models have improved
insulation, secondary combustion, separation of the firebox from the
water jacket, and the addition of improved heat exchangers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For more information on wood smoke health effects, see:
``Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor Wood Boilers in New York
State,'' prepared by Judith Schrieber, Ph.D., et al., for the Office
of the Attorney General of New York. August 2005. See also:
``Assessment of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers,'' prepared by NESCAUM,
March 2006 (revised June 2006).
    \5\ ``Phase 1'' and ``Phase 2'' emission levels refer to levels
established in EPA voluntary partnership programs. The earlier use
of the term ``Phase II'' (with a Roman numeral) standard refers to
standards established in the current subpart AAA for residential
wood heaters.
    \6\ The terms ``qualified'' and ``unqualified,'' or other
similar terms, refer to models that meet or have not been shown to
meet the voluntary partnership program performance levels. Later use
of the terms ``certified'' and ``uncertified,'' or other similar
terms, refers to models that are deemed to be in compliance or
noncompliance with the NSPS emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the voluntary partnership program, the EPA provided
technical and financial support for the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop a model rule that
several states have adopted to regulate hydronic heaters. The model
rule is a starting point for local regulatory authorities to consider,
and additional actions may be needed due to site-specific concerns,
e.g., local terrain, meteorology, proximity of neighbors and other
exposed individuals. Thus, some regulatory authorities have instituted
additional requirements, such as limits on proximity to neighbors,
limits on visible emissions and limits on use in non-heating seasons.
Some authorities have banned hydronic heaters entirely in some areas.
    The EPA also developed a similar voluntary partnership program for
low mass fireplaces (engineered, pre-fabricated fireplaces) and site-
built masonry fireplaces. Fireplaces were not included in the 1988 NSPS
for residential wood heaters because typical fireplaces are not
considered to be effective ``heaters.'' Most of the heat content from
the wood burned in a typical fireplace is lost out the chimney rather
than heating a room. The voluntary program began in February 2009, and
pertained only to low mass fireplaces at that time. In July 2009, the
program was expanded to masonry fireplaces. Under this program, cleaner
burning fireplaces are ones that qualify for the Phase 1 emissions
level of 7.3 grams of particles emitted per kilogram (g/kg) of fuel
burned (approximately 57 percent cleaner than unqualified models) or
the Phase 2 emissions level of 5.1 g/kg (approximately 70 percent
cleaner than unqualified models). So far, 36 models (of hundreds of
models on the market) have qualified under this voluntary partnership
program at the Phase 2 level. Typically, qualified models have improved
insulation and added secondary combustion and/or a catalyst to reduce
emissions. Some manufacturers have added doors to reduce the excess air
and thus improve combustion. The Phase 2 emission level in the
voluntary fireplace program has been considered as a starting point for
some local regulatory authorities, and additional actions have also
been considered due to site-specific concerns, e.g., local terrain,
meteorology, proximity of neighbors and other exposed individuals, and
magnitude of other emissions in the airshed. Thus, some regulatory
authorities have instituted additional requirements (e.g., ``no burn''
days on which the fireplaces cannot be operated) and some have banned
new wood-burning fireplaces in some areas.
    The current 1988 NSPS in subpart AAA have been in effect for over
25 years and manufacturers and test laboratories have gained
considerable experience in complying with the requirements of the
program. As a result, many manufacturers and test laboratories have
suggested changes to the certification process to better implement the
program, such as developing an electronic system for submittals and
approval. Many manufacturers and test laboratories have also questioned
the effectiveness of some of the current audit procedures. In addition,
they have participated in the development of new test methods and test
method improvements as part of the efforts of ASTM International
(formerly known as the American Society of Testing and Materials). The
1988 NSPS left a placeholder for development of an efficiency test
method for use in subpart AAA. On June 1, 2007, the EPA approved the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) stack loss method in B415 as an
alternative for wood heater efficiency testing in subpart AAA

provided that the tests use the same burn rate categories specified in
the EPA Reference Method 28. We are now proposing that the current
version of this method be used for efficiency testing (CSA B415.1-10).
We are also proposing EPA Method 28 WHH (wood-fired hydronic heaters)
that has been used for qualification testing of hydronic heaters in the
EPA voluntary partnership program and numerous state regulations. Other
issues that have been identified over the years regarding test methods
and emissions calculations include emissions averaging, burn rate
weightings, hot start versus cold start, emission caps per burn rate,
and catalyst degradation. Another issue is whether to change current
requirements to conduct certification tests with ``crib'' wood to
``cord'' wood. ``Crib wood'' is a specified configuration and quality
of dimensional lumber and spacers, which was intended to improve the
repeatability of the test method in 1988. ``Cord wood'' is a different
specified configuration and quality of wood that more closely resembles
what a typical homeowner would use. We address all these issues as part
of this proposal.

E. Why is residential wood smoke a concern?

    1. Health and air quality concerns. There is increasing recognition
of the health impacts of particle pollution, to which wood smoke is a
contributing factor in many areas. Wood smoke contains a mixture of
gases and fine particles that can cause immediate effects, including
burning eyes, runny nose and bronchitis. Exposure to fine particles has
been associated with a range of health effects, including aggravation
of heart or respiratory problems (as indicated by increased hospital
admissions and emergency department visits), changes in lung function
and increased respiratory symptoms, as well as premature death.
Populations at greater risk for experiencing health effects related to
fine particle exposures include older adults, children and individuals
with pre-existing heart or lung disease.\7\ Residential wood smoke
contains fine particles and toxic air pollutants (e.g., benzene and
formaldehyde). Each year, smoke from wood heaters contributes hundreds
of thousands of tons of fine particles throughout the country--mostly
during the winter months. Nationally, residential wood combustion
accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile POM emissions,
nearly 25 percent of all area source air toxics cancer risks, and 15
percent of noncancer respiratory effects.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA Burn Wise (Consumer--Health Effects), http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/healtheffects.html.
    \8\ Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke. EPA-456/B-
13-001, March 2013. Prepared by Outreach and Information Division,
Air Quality Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. pp. 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a number of communities, residential wood smoke increases
particle pollution to levels that cause significant health concerns.
Several areas with wood smoke problems either exceed the EPA's health-
based NAAQS for fine particles or are on the cusp of exceeding those
standards. For example, in places such as Keene, New Hampshire;
Sacramento, California; Tacoma, Washington; and Fairbanks, Alaska; wood
combustion can contribute over 50 percent of daily wintertime fine
particle emissions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Memorandum dated April 4, 2013, from David Cole, EPA, to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2012, the EPA issued revised NAAQS for PM to provide
increased protection of public health and welfare. The 2012 NAAQS for
PM strengthened the annual NAAQS for fine particles to 12 micrograms
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) from the 1997 standard of 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ and retained the existing 24-hour fine particle standard of 35
[micro]g/m\3\ issued in 2006. The 2012 NAAQS for PM also retains the
current 24-hour PM10 standards for health and environmental
effects at a level of 150 [micro]g/m\3\ to continue to provide
protection against effects associated with exposure to thoracic coarse
particles. Areas that do not meet the standards must take steps to
reduce PM emissions. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(NACAA), the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), NESCAUM, the
Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR), and the Lake Michigan
Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) have argued that more stringent
standards for new wood heating devices would provide a much needed tool
for states and local communities to use in addressing the growth of
pollution from these sources.10 11 Recent health studies
considered in the review of the PM NAAQS confirm the impacts on public
health. The latest information on the PM NAAQS reviews is at http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Arthur Marin, Executive Director of NESCAUM and Dan
Johnson, Executive Director of WESTAR, to Steve Page, Director
OAQPS/EPA. April 28, 2008.
    \11\ Arthur Marin, Executive Director of NESCAUM, to Gina
McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation/EPA. January
14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also concern about the health effects of other pollutants
found in wood smoke. In addition to PM, wood smoke contains harmful
chemical substances such as CO, formaldehyde and other organic gases,
and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
    Health effects from CO include:
     Interference with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to
the brain, which impairs thinking and reflexes
     Heart pain
     Lower birth weights and increased deaths in newborns
     Death
    Health effects from formaldehyde and other organic gases include:
     Irritation of eyes, nose, and throat
     Inflammation of mucous membranes, irritation of the throat
and sinuses
     Interference with lung function
     Allergic reactions
     Nose and throat cancer in animals and cancer in humans
    Nitrogen oxide can irritate the eyes and respiratory system, may
damage the immune system by impairing the body's ability to fight
respiratory infection and can affect lung function.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Department of Ecology, State of Washington, Brochure on
Wood Smoke and Your Health. September 2008, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/91br023.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Residential wood combustion emissions contain potentially
carcinogenic compounds including formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, and dioxin, which are toxic air
pollutants, but their effects on human health via exposure to wood
smoke have not been studied as extensively.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA Burn Wise (Health Effects of Breathing Wood Smoke),
http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/woodsmoke_health_effects_jan07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Concerns about existing sources. Many areas of the country are
struggling with reducing PM emissions due to residential wood smoke
from existing wood-burning appliances. Existing wood heaters will not
be affected by this rule. In addition, due to the long life span of
wood-burning appliances and slow turnover, it may be many years before
the full benefits of these regulations on new appliances will be shown.
However, there are strategies to reduce wood smoke that states,
counties and townships can take to reduce wood smoke independent of
this rule.\14\ Some states have direct legislative authority, and all
states have authority to address new and existing sources as SIP
measures necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
For examples, the State of

Oregon, Washoe County (NV), and Township of Mammoth Lakes (CA) have
required that, when a home is sold, existing wood heaters that have not
been certified to meet the NSPS be removed and destroyed and not
resold. As additional SIP strategies, some states and local authorities
have banned wood burning during certain high PM events, restricted the
amount of burning, and regulated the type of materials being burned.
Non-regulatory programs, such as education programs to teach the public
how to use their wood-burning appliances in ways that minimize
emissions, have also been implemented. The EPA has also implemented
programs that encourage good burning practices, which can have a
significant impact on emissions. The EPA, some state and local
agencies, and other stakeholders, including the Hearth, Patio and
Barbecue Association (HPBA), have been active in promoting wood heater/
stove changeout programs to replace older, higher-emitting heaters/
stoves with lower-emitting EPA-certified heaters/stoves, pellet
heaters/stoves, or other cleaner burning appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke,'' EPA-
456/B-13-001. March 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What are the major issues that drove the review process?

    We received several requests to conduct a review of the residential
wood heaters NSPS, including a joint letter from WESTAR and NESCAUM
that urged us to update and develop regulations relating to a variety
of wood combustion devices. The authors cited concerns that many
communities are measuring ambient conditions above or very close to the
PM2.5 NAAQS and that, in many instances, emissions from wood
smoke are a large contributor to those high PM2.5 levels. In
addition, wood heater technology has greatly improved since the last
revision of the NSPS. The standards we are proposing today recognize
the cleaner, more efficient technologies developed in recent years.
Other states, environmental groups, and HPBA have also recommended
several changes to the NSPS. The HPBA Outdoor Wood-fired Hydronic
Heater (OWHH) Manufacturers Caucus wrote the EPA to express their
unanimous support for the EPA to develop a federal regulation for
OWHH.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ HPBA OWHH Caucus letter to Greg Green, Director, Outreach
and Information Division, EPA. September 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specific requests from stakeholders include:
     Tightening emission standards based on current performance
data
     Addressing other pollutants of concern
     Reviewing the format of the standards, including adding
requirements to document the tested efficiency of the unit
     Reevaluating exemptions, such as those based on air-to-
fuel ratios and size and weight
     Adding other wood heating devices such as pellet heaters/
stoves, hydronic heaters, and masonry heaters to the NSPS
     Regulating fireplaces and other ``non-heater'' devices
(e.g., cook stoves)
     Regulating heating devices that burn fuel other than wood
(e.g., other solid biomass and coal)
     Updating test methods
     Streamlining the certification process to use electronic
data submittals/reviews
     Considering use of International Organization for
Standardization (ISO)-accredited labs and ISO-accredited certifying
bodies
     Improving compliance assurance/enforceability and quality
assurance/quality control
     Making the rule more consumer friendly by making more
information readily available on-line

III. Summary of Proposed Residential Wood Heater Appliance Amendments

    We are proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of
Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. We are also proposing two
new subparts to address additional types of residential wood heating
appliances. Specifically, we are proposing subpart QQQQ, Standards of
Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air
Furnaces, and subpart RRRR, Standards of Performance for New
Residential Masonry Heaters. The following sections describe the major
provisions of each subpart. This proposal does not include any
requirements that would apply to heaters that are fueled solely by gas,
oil or coal. In addition, this proposal does not include any
requirements associated with wood heaters or other wood-burning
appliances that are already in use. The EPA continues to encourage
state, local, tribal, and consumer efforts to changeout (replace) older
heaters with newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that is not
part of this federal rulemaking.

A. Room Heaters

    The current 1988 regulation (subpart AAA) applies to affected
appliances manufactured since 1988. The current emission limits would
remain in effect for the heaters and model lines manufactured before
the effective date of this rule until their current EPA certification
expires (maximum of 5 years) or is revoked. After the certification
expires or is revoked, these heaters and other new heaters would have
to meet updated emission standards. We propose to broaden the
applicability of the wood heaters regulation beyond adjustable burn
rate wood heaters (the focus of the original regulation) to
specifically also include single burn rate wood heaters/stoves, pellet
heaters/stoves, and any other affected appliance as defined in the
proposed subpart AAA as a ``room heater.'' The proposed subpart AAA
does not apply to new residential hydronic heaters, new residential
forced-air furnaces and new residential masonry heaters because they
would be subject to their own subparts. Like the 1988 current subpart
AAA, the proposed subpart AAA does not apply to fireplaces. This
proposal tightens the definition for ``cook stoves'' and adds
definitions for ``camp stoves'' and ``traditional Native American bake
ovens'' to clarify that they would not be subject to the standard other
than appropriate labeling for cook stoves and camp stoves. Finally, the
proposed subpart AAA clarifies that the emission limits would only
apply to wood-burning devices (i.e., not to devices that only burn
fuels other than wood, e.g., gas, oil or coal).
    As discussed in section II, NSPS determinations of BSER must
consider costs. The fact that this source category is for consumer
products manufactured for residential sale results in cost
considerations that are different from those for industrial process
source categories that are typical for most NSPS. Specifically, if
production and sales were to be suspended while designing, testing,
field evaluating and certifying cleaner models, the cost of potential
lost revenues would be significant, which necessitates reasonable lead
times for compliance with proposed emission limitations. This was true
in 1988, and is still true today. Thus, we propose to allow a
transition period so that heaters/stoves with EPA certification
currently in effect can continue to be manufactured and sold until the
current certification expires (5 years from date of certification) or
is revoked by the Administrator, whichever date is earlier. We would
not allow renewal of these certifications. That is, in the near term,
we are proposing to retain the current Phase II PM emission limits
(issued in the current 1988 standards for compliance in 1990) for
adjustable burn

rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/stoves with a current EPA
certification issued prior to the effective date of this rule. While
our top priorities are to ensure that emission reductions occur in a
timely manner and that there is no backsliding from the improvements
that many manufacturers have already made, it is also important to
avoid unreasonable economic impacts on those manufacturers (mostly
small businesses) who need additional time to develop a full range of
cleaner models. The compliance schedule should also help avoid
potential ``logjams'' at laboratories conducting certification testing.
We ask for specific comments on the length of this proposed transition
and the degree to which there would be any critical economic impacts on
manufacturers who have heaters with current certifications if we were
to not allow up to the full 5-year certification period for units
manufactured after the effective date of the final rule. We also ask
for specific comments on allowing grandfathering of Step 1 models that
are tested in good faith according to the proposed test methods and the
proposed emission limits, even though the final test methods may differ
from this proposal, and if so, for how long.
    We are proposing a two-step compliance approach (referred to herein
as the ``Proposed Approach'') that would apply to all new adjustable
burn rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters and pellet
heaters/stoves. Under this Proposed Approach, the Proposed Step 1
emission limits for these sources would apply to each source (a)
manufactured on or after the effective date of the final rule or (b)
sold at retail on or after the date 6 months from the effective date of
the final rule. Proposed Step 2 emission limits for these sources would
apply to each adjustable rate wood heater, single burn rate wood heater
and pellet heater/stove manufactured or sold on or after the date 5
years after the effective date of the final rule. We ask for specific
comments on the Proposed Approach and the degree to which these dates
could be sooner.
    We are also asking for comments on a three-step compliance approach
(referred to herein as the ``Alternative Approach'') for all adjustable
rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/
stoves. Under this Alternative Approach, the Alternative Step 1
emission limits would apply to each source: (a) manufactured on or
after the effective date of the final rule, or (b) sold at retail on or
after the date 6 months from the effective date of the final rule.
(Step 1 under the Alternative Approach is the same as Step 1 under the
Proposed Approach.) The Alternative Step 2 emission limits would apply
to each source manufactured or sold on or after the date 3 years after
the effective date of the final rule. The Alternative Step 3 emission
limits would apply to each source manufactured or sold on or after the
date 8 years following the effective date of the final rule (thus
providing 5 years between the Alternative Step 2 and Alternative Step
3). We ask for specific comments on this Alternative Approach,
including data and potential environmental and economic impacts on this
alternative, and the degree to which the Alternative Approach emission
levels and dates could be considered BSER. Our current preference is
the Proposed Approach, but we intend to finalize a single compliance
approach after fully considering the comments received during the
public comment period on this proposed rulemaking.
    Table 3 summarizes the PM emissions standards that would apply to
each wood heater appliance under this Proposed Approach at each step.
Table 4 summarizes the PM emissions standards that would apply to each
wood heater appliance under each step of the Alternative Approach.

       Table 3--Proposed Approach Subpart AAA PM Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          PM emissions
           Appliance                 Phases/steps             limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters    Transition period from  4.1 g/hr for
 or Pellet Heaters/Stoves with   1988 rule through the   catalytic
 current EPA certification       later of the            heaters/stoves
 issued prior to the effective   effective date of the   and 7.5 g/hr
 date of the Final Rule.         final revised rule or   for
                                 expiration of current   noncatalytic
                                 certification           heaters/stoves.
                                 (maximum of 5 years
                                 certification and no
                                 renewal).
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood  Step 1: upon the        4.5 g/hr.
 Heaters, Single Burn Rate       effective date of      1.3 g/hr.
 Wood Heaters or Pellet          final rule.
 Heaters/Stoves (includes       Step 2: 5 years after
 currently certified heaters     the effective date of
 after the certification         the final rule.
 expires, catalytic and
 noncatalytic).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 4--Alternative Approach Subpart AAA PM Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          PM emissions
           Appliance                 Phases/steps             limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters    Transition period from  4.1 g/hr for
 or Pellet Heaters/Stoves with   1988 rule through the   catalytic
 Current EPA Certification       later of the            heaters/stoves
 Issued Prior to the effective   effective date of the   and 7.5 g/hr
 date of Final Rule.             final revised rule or   for
                                 expiration of current   noncatalytic
                                 certification           heaters/stoves.
                                 (maximum of 5 years
                                 certification and no
                                 renewal).
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood  Step 1: upon the        4.5 g/hr.
 Heaters, Single Burn Rate       effective date of      2.5 g/hr.
 Wood Heaters or Pellet          final rule.            1.3 g/hr.
 Heaters/Stoves (includes       Step 2: 3 years after
 currently certified heaters     the effective date of
 after the certification         the final rule.
 expires, catalytic and         Step 3: 8 years after
 noncatalytic).                  the effective date of
                                 the final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the 1988 promulgated subpart AAA (53 FR 5860, February 26,
1988) included an additional 1-year compliance extension for low-volume
manufacturers, i.e., companies that manufacture (or export to the U.S.)
fewer than 2,000 heaters per year, this proposal does not include a
similar compliance extension. We are not proposing a delay for
adjustable burn rate wood heaters or pellet heaters/stoves because the
majority of these appliances already comply with the proposed Step 1
emission levels. See section V.C. of this preamble for more

discussion of this topic. However, we are requesting comments on the
possible need for such a compliance extension for single burn rate wood
heaters, which are not subject to the current subpart AAA requirements.
    We are proposing to make a single determination of BSER for both
catalytic and noncatalytic heater systems. The EPA considered requiring
catalyst replacement on a regular schedule but determined that federal
enforcement of such a requirement would be difficult. As in the current
1988 rule, we are proposing to require manufacturers to provide
warranties on the catalysts and prohibit the operation of catalytic
heaters/stoves without a catalyst. In addition, we are proposing to
require warranties for noncatalytic heaters/stoves. Though we are not
proposing efficiency standards at this time, we are proposing to
require testing and reporting of these data; however, we are requesting
specific comment on the need to propose efficiency standards and any
data to support the basis for these standards.
    We are also proposing to require emission testing and reporting
based on both crib wood and cord wood for the proposed Step 1
compliance, and allowing manufacturers to choose whether to certify
with crib wood or cord wood for the proposed Step 1 upon the effective
date of the final rule. For the proposed Step 2 compliance 5 years
after the effective date of the final rule, we would require certifying
with cord wood only. As discussed earlier in this preamble, ``crib
wood'' is a specified configuration and quality of dimensional lumber
and spacers that was intended to improve the repeatability of the test
method in 1988. ``Cord wood'' is a different specified configuration
and quality of wood that more closely resembles what a typical
homeowner would use. We ask for comments and test data to compare
heater performance with crib wood and cord wood.
    Although we lack sufficient data to propose a separate CO emissions
standard at this time, we propose to require that the manufacturer
determine CO emissions during the compliance test and report those
results to the EPA. We specifically request emission and cost data for
systems that reduce CO emissions. If those systems warrant inclusion in
the final rule, we would consider doing so. In addition, we ask for
specific comments on whether the final rule should explicitly require
indoor CO monitors as a critical safety component for heaters installed
in occupied buildings or other buildings or enclosures in which the
operator would enter to add fuel to the heater or conduct other normal
operation and maintenance of the heater. Numerous stakeholders have
indicated that an explicit requirement is needed.
    Like the current 1988 subpart, the EPA is using its authority under
section 114 of the CAA to require each manufacturer to submit
certifications of compliance with this rule for all models and all
units. As in the 1988 rule, provided that the certifications are
timely, complete, and accurate, the EPA is proposing to allow
certification to be determined based on testing of a representative
unit within the model line. As in 1988, the cost of testing each unit
would be an order of magnitude greater than the cost of a wood heater/
stove and would be economically prohibitive. In addition, as in 1988,
the testing of each unit could create a potential ``logjam'' that would
stymie the certification of cleaner model lines. However, as discussed
earlier, we are asking for specific comments on whether we should
require testing of more than one representative unit prior to
certification of a model line. The proposed subpart revises the
definition of ``Accredited Test Laboratory,'' from only EPA-accredited
laboratories to laboratories approved by the EPA after being accredited
by a nationally recognized accrediting body to perform testing for each
of the test methods specified in this NSPS under ISO-IEC \16\ Standard
17025, to conduct the certification testing. The laboratories would
have to register their credentials with the EPA and be approved by the
EPA prior to conducting any certification testing or related work used
as a basis for compliance with this rule. Also, they would be required
to report any changes in their accreditation and any deficiencies found
under ISO 17025, and the EPA may revoke the approval if appropriate.
Our proposal is this laboratory definition revision be effective upon
the effective date of the final rule. However, we request specific
comments on whether we should allow a transition period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) prepare and
publish international standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would require a ``Certifying-Body-Based Certification
Process,'' upon the effective date of the final rule. Under this
process, after testing is complete, a certification of conformity with
the PM emissions standards must be issued by a certifying body with
whom the manufacturer has entered into contract for certification
services. The certification body would have to be accredited under ISO-
IEC Standard 17065 and register their credentials with the EPA and
receive EPA approval prior to conducting any certifications or related
work used as a basis for compliance with this rule and report any
changes in their accreditation and any deficiencies found under ISO
17065. We believe any certifying body that is approved by the EPA and
is ISO-accredited should be expected to act in such a way that will not
create a conflict of interest. The EPA would oversee the certification
body's work and retain the right to revoke the approval if appropriate.
Upon review of the test report and quality control plan submitted by
the manufacturer, the certifying body may certify compliance and submit
the required documentation to the EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance for review, approval and listing of the certified
appliance. Our preference is to require the new expanded certification
process (i.e., inclusion of ISO-accredited and EPA-approved certifying
bodies) for certifications that occur after the effective date of the
final rule. However, we request specific comments on whether we should
allow a transition period; that is, whether we should retain the
current ``Administrator Approval Process'' to review the certification
application, including test results, for the first year following the
effective date of the final rule. Note that models certified prior to
the effective date of the final rule would not have to be re-tested
until the certification expires or is revoked.
    As in the current 1988 NSPS, each affected unit would be required
to have an applicable permanent label and have an owner's manual that
contains specified information. We are proposing that permanent labels
would be required for each affected unit on the effective date of the
final rule. We propose to clarify that the permanent label must be
installed so that it is readily visible both before and after the unit
is installed. This clarification is needed to document the use of
complying heaters that may be required by state and local rules and/or
to determine the unit's applicability to any future changeout programs.
We also request specific comments on how to best assure that
manufacturers and retailers and online marketers of wood heaters only
use valid certification test data and not exaggerated claims.
    In the current (1988) NSPS, temporary labels (aka, hangtags) were
required for wood heaters that are subject to the standards and also
for ones that are not (e.g., coal heaters/stoves). These temporary
labels were intended primarily to contain information useful

to consumers and prospective heater purchasers to be able to compare
different appliance models and to inform the consumer about the
importance of proper operation and maintenance. These temporary labels
included the wood heater's compliance status, comparative emission and
efficiency performance data, and heat output rates and explicitly
stated that the appliance will achieve low smoke output and high
efficiency only if properly operated and maintained. The EPA no longer
believes these temporary labels are necessary for all certified heaters
because we have developed and are continuing to improve our education
and outreach program for consumers on selecting the cleanest certified
appliances and wood fuel with appropriate moisture content and on the
effective use and operation of these appliances. Consequently, we are
proposing to remove the requirement for temporary labels on certified
heaters. Consumers can get additional information that would normally
be contained on the temporary labels at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/woodheaters.html. We request comment on the
potential impact that deleting this requirement might have on a
consumer's ability to select wood heaters that meet the proposed
standards and are the cleanest and whether we should consider
developing a voluntary labeling program for the cleanest of the clean.
As discussed elsewhere, we also ask for specific comments on language
that we should require manufacturers and retailers to provide to
consumers to help explain the relative benefits of high-performing
heaters versus lower-performing heaters and how to reduce exaggerated
claims.
    In addition to the PM emissions standards, we are proposing to
continue to require the proper burn practices that already apply to the
owner or operator of a wood heating appliance. That is, the current
1988 standards already include the requirement that the owner or
operator must operate the heater consistent with the owner's manual and
not burn improper fuels and manufacturers typically void their
warranties in cases of improper operation. Numerous states have
expressed their support for the continuation of these requirements.
Some states and local jurisdictions have enforced similar requirements,
and this proposal would allow potential delegation of enforcement
authority of these NSPS requirements upon the EPA approval of state
requests.
    The proposed revision clarifies that the current requirement to
operate according to the owner's manual continues to include a list of
prohibited fuel types that create poor or even hazardous combustion
conditions and includes operation of pellet fuel appliances only with
the grades of pellet fuels that are included in the certification
tests, or better. We propose that pellets for the certification tests
be only those that have been produced under a licensing agreement with
the Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI), or equivalent (after request and
subsequent approval by the EPA), to meet certain minimum requirements
and procedures for a quality assurance process. Details of the PFI
program are available at http://pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/pfi-standards-program/. We are not aware of any other U.S. organization
that has a pellet fuel quality assurance program similar in quality to
the PFI program. However, we request specific comments on whether
another high quality program exists. Manufacturers' data show that
pellet fuel quality assurance is necessary to ensure that the
appliances operate properly such that emissions are reduced as
intended. We ask for specific comments on how to determine equivalency
for fuel pellets, and whether we should include other requirements of
best burn practices or adjustments to help ensure proper operation,
e.g., chimney height and draft specifications, moisture content of wood
and limits on visible emissions.
    The proposed subpart AAA still contains the crucial quality
assurance provisions in the current 1988 NSPS. A comprehensive
discussion of the rationale is included in the 1988 preamble. For
example, a model line must be recertified whenever any change is made
in the original design that could affect the emissions rate for that
model line or when any of several specified tolerances of key
components are changed. The 1988 requirements for manufacturer quality
assurance programs would be superseded by a Certifying-Body-Based
Quality Assurance program. (As noted earlier in this preamble, we would
not require retesting for models that are certified prior to the
effective date of the final rule until the certification expires or is
revoked.) The certifying body would conduct regular, unannounced audits
to ensure that the manufacturer's quality control plan is being
implemented properly.
    The EPA audit testing programs of the 1988 NSPS will be maintained
under the proposed changes, although they will be streamlined and
simplified to better ensure compliance and to clarify that audits can
be based on any information the EPA has available and do not have to be
statistically random. Also, we clarify that the EPA and states are
allowed to be present during the audits and that states (and other
entities, including the public) may provide the EPA with information
that may ultimately be used in the EPA enforcement and compliance
assurance efforts.
    As discussed earlier, the EPA developed Method 28 in 1987 and 1988
as part of our efforts on the 1988 NSPS. We received input at that time
from manufacturers, laboratories, and some states. Oregon Method 7 was
the starting point for Method 28 and, thus, Method 28 has many aspects
similar to Oregon Method 7. The details on the history and development
of Method 28 are contained in the February 18, 1987, proposal in the
Federal Register (52 FR 5003) and the February 26, 1988, final rule in
the Federal Register (53 FR 5866).
    The manufacturers, laboratories, states and the EPA have more than
25 years of experience with Method 28, and it has been very useful for
certifying hundreds of model lines of wood heaters/stoves. We asked the
manufacturers, EPA-accredited laboratories and states for their
insights on Method 28. Many stakeholders agree that changes should be
made to improve the reproducibility and repeatability of the test
procedures and to address concerns about how to best ensure protection
across the entire U.S. when various operating scenarios are used and
various wood species and densities are used. For example, to address
some of these concerns, ASTM has used a ``consensus-based'' process to
develop E2515-10 ``Standard Method for Determination of Particulate
Matter Emissions in a Dilution Tunnel.'' The EPA is proposing that this
sampling and analysis method be used for all of the appliances in this
rulemaking. As with all test methods, there are opportunities for
continual improvement, and the EPA requests specific comments and
supporting data for additional potential improvements to E2515-10.
    A number of states have expressed concern about ASTM's Intellectual
Property Policy which requires all participants to give their
intellectual property rights to ASTM so that, in turn, ASTM can control
distribution of the drafts and final test methods and sell the final
test methods to potential users. Attorneys General for several states
have indicated that state employees in their states cannot give to ASTM
the property rights for property that their states paid for via the
employee salaries and other expenditures and thus cannot participate in
ASTM's ``consensus-

based'' process. For this rulemaking, ASTM is allowing public review,
for no charge, of the ASTM test methods and draft work products
relevant to this proposed rule at www.astm.org/epa. The EPA requests
specific comments and supporting data on the substance of all of the
test methods relevant to this rulemaking and specific comments on the
ASTM process and ways to ameliorate the process concerns.
    The ASTM methods E2779-10 ``Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Emissions from Pellet Heaters'' and E2780-10 ``Standard
Test Method for Determining Particulate Emissions from Wood Heaters''
are being considered for potentially replacing the wood heater fueling
and operation requirements in Method 28 for pellet heaters and wood
heaters, respectively. Note that ASTM intends to use the same E2515-10
for the sampling and analysis portion for all the appliances and then
separate methods per appliance types for the fueling and operation
portions of these methods. The EPA believes E2525-10 is a sound method
for sampling and analysis and we are proposing its use. The EPA also
believes that E2779-10 is a sound method for measuring emissions from
pellet heaters/stoves and includes reasonable measures to reduce
testing costs for continuously-fed appliances, and we are proposing its
use. However, because, as noted earlier, some states were not able to
participate in the ASTM method development process, we specifically
request comments and supporting data of all aspects of not only these
test methods but also all the proposed methods as part of the comments
on this proposed rule.
    Similarly, the EPA believes that ASTM Method E2780-10 includes
improvements for testing adjustable and single burn rate wood heaters,
and we are proposing many of the improvements today. For example, we
are proposing the use of the E2780-10 appendix for testing single burn
rate appliances. However, we, and some states, do not agree with all
the changes that ASTM has made for adjustable burn rate wood heaters,
and some provisions are not as protective as we, and some states, now
believe they need to be. As noted above, several states are concerned
about how to best ensure that the methods are protective for the entire
U.S., considering differences in wood species, density, and homeowner
operation. The EPA and the states are particularly concerned about
scenarios in which heaters/stoves will have higher emissions in home
use than the emissions measured in the laboratories. For example, the
states and the EPA are concerned about the ASTM changes on burn rate
categories, i.e., easing or eliminating the lowest burn rates that
often occur in home operations and are typically the highest emitting
and least efficient. The EPA is asking for specific comments on these
issues and recommendations and supporting data for other changes. The
following paragraphs discuss some of the key test method provisions we
are proposing and not proposing. Additional information on the methods
is at http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters and at www.astm.org/epa.
    1. We do not agree with the ASTM changes to the burn rate
categories, low burn rate requirement, and weightings in Method 28.
Several states are very concerned that easing these items would create
the potential for backsliding. Also, we are aware of several design
changes being considered by a number of manufacturers that are
relatively inexpensive (i.e., less than $20 dollars) and will reduce
the emissions during periods when operated at low burn rates. We
instead propose that the original provisions in Method 28 be retained
for the burn rate categories and low burn rate requirement. We
considered the weightings and believe that if weightings are to be
used, they should be the same as the original requirements in Method
28. We are also proposing that the burn rates not be weighted at all
for the Step 2 standards but rather that the emission limits be
separate for Burn Rate Category 1 (lowest burn rate category) and Burn
Rate Category 4 (maximum burn rate category) and that compliance for
each be shown separately.
    2. We propose to not allow 5 minutes for startup before closing the
doors because startup is often the highest emitting part of the wood
heater operation, and manufacturers need to ensure that startup
emissions are also reduced. Again, relatively inexpensive means exist
to reduce these emissions.
    3. We are not proposing to use the new ASTM equation for converting
the emission test values between the EPA Reference Method 5G
``Determination of Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a
Dilution Tunnel Sampling Location'' and the EPA Reference Method 5H
``Determination of Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a Stack
Location'' currently allowed in the NSPS. Rather, we are proposing that
Method 5G(3) test values be reported as tested for heaters that have
valid certifications prior to the effective date of this rule and ASTM
E2515-10 for all other heaters and that Method 5H not be used for
testing for certifications after the effective date of this rule. We
request data to help inform our decision for the final rulemaking.
    4. We are not proposing to allow manufacturers to specify a smaller
volume of the firebox for testing because of our concerns about how to
ensure that homeowners do not circumvent such a specification during
operation, thereby increasing emissions beyond the levels that are
measured during testing.
    5. We are proposing several tighter specifications on the test fuel
moisture content, fuel load and coal bed depth in order to improve the
reproducibility and repeatability of the certification tests. This part
of the proposal is based on recommendations from one of the original
EPA-accredited laboratories. We specifically request comments and
supporting data regarding the following proposed tighter specifications
for the laboratory test: (a) tightening fuel load dry-basis moisture
content tightened from the Method 28-allowed 6 percentage-point range
from 19 percent to 25 percent to a reduced range of 22.5 percent +/-1
percent; (b) tightening the Method 28-allowed range for fuel load
weight from 7.0 lb/ft \3\ +/-10 percent of the fuel load weight (or 7
lb/ft \3\ +/-0.7 lb/ft \3\) to 7 lb/ft \3\ +/-1 percent (or 7 lb +/-
0.07 lb) of the fuel load weight, calculated in accordance with Method
28; and (c) tightening the Method-28-allowed range for the test-
initiation coal-bed weight from 20 percent to 25 percent of the fuel
load weight to 22 percent +/-1 percent of the fuel load weight.
    6. We propose to require efficiency testing according to CSA
B415.1-10\17\ using the stack loss method. That is, during each test
run, data must be obtained and presented for the purpose of calculation
of overall efficiency as specified in CSA B415.1-10. This would include
CO and carbon dioxide (CO2), flue gas temperature and
appliance mass. CSA B415.1-10 was developed by a ``consensus'' process,
but no states were part of the process. Thus, we specifically request
comments on our proposal to require use of this method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``CSA B415.1-10: Performance testing of solid-fuel-burning
heating appliances,'' Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. We propose that electronic test report submittals include the
locked spreadsheets so the formulas used and relevant calculations can
be evaluated in detail. We request comments on this specific proposal.
    8. We propose that the test report include a narrative detailing
specifics about test conditions and operations, such as how the test
was run, operating conditions, issues and special procedures.

    9. We propose that each individual moisture content reading must be
in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry basis and the average
moisture content of each piece of test fuel must be in the range of 19
to 25 percent. Also, we propose the following procedure for the
moisture measurements: ``Using a fuel moisture meter as specified,
determine the fuel moisture for each test fuel piece used for the test
fuel load by averaging at least five fuel moisture meter readings, one
from each of three sides, measured parallel to the wood grain.
Penetration of the moisture meter insulated electrodes shall be \1/4\
(one-fourth) the thickness of the fuel piece or 19 millimeters (mm) (3/
4 in.), whichever is less, for 3 of the measurements made at
approximately 3 inches from each end and the center. Two additional
measurements at approximately one-third the thickness shall be made
centered between the other three locations.''
    10. We also propose this alternate procedure developed by
Brookhaven National Laboratory: \18\ ``Select three pieces of cord wood
from the same batch of wood as the test fuel and the same weight as the
average weight of the pieces in the test load  1.0 lb. From
each of these three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice shall be \1/
2\ to \3/4\ thick. One slice shall be cut across
the center of the length of the piece. The other two slices shall be
cut half way between the center and the end. Immediately measure the
mass of each piece in pounds. Dry each slice in an oven at 220 [deg]F
for 24 hours or until no further weight change occurs. The slices shall
be arranged in the oven so as to provide separation between faces.
Remove from the oven and measure the mass of each piece again as soon
as practical in pounds. The moisture content of each slice, on a dry
basis, shall be calculated as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``A Test Method for Certification of Cord Wood-Fired
Hydronic Heating Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage:
Measurement of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating
Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage.'' Prepared for NYSERDA by
Brookhaven National Laboratory, February 15, 2013.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCslice = 100 [middot] (WSliceWet-WSliceDry)/WSliceDry

Where: WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds;
WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds;
[and] MCSlice = moisture content of the slice in % dry
basis.''

    11. We propose to require two Step 1 tests, one using crib wood and
one using cord wood and reasonable additional non-binding tests with a
range of fuels for which the appliance is designed for warranted and/or
advertized operation. These tests are needed to show how emissions and
efficiency vary according to test methods, operating scenarios, wood
species and density and other variables such as cord wood versus crib
wood. We believe that such testing would help assure consumers,
neighbors and other stakeholders that the appliances perform as well on
all manufacturer-listed fuels and operating scenarios as they do for
the EPA laboratory test scenarios. Proposed Step 2 tests will use cord
wood and not crib wood. The EPA, industry and states believe that
moving to cord wood testing will help address concerns about actual
emissions from heaters/stoves in home use versus test laboratories. We
are working with states and industry on a cord wood test method and
evaluating potential revisions to the current version of the ASTM
E2780-10 cord wood test method. Industry is conducting tests now using
the cord wood test method, and we will consider the results of that
testing when it becomes available during the public comment period of
this rulemaking.

B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces

    The proposed subpart QQQQ would apply to new wood-fired residential
hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces and any other affected
appliance as defined in subpart QQQQ as a ``central heater.'' We
believe this new ``central heater'' categorization will better ensure
that all appliances potentially affected under new proposed subpart
QQQQ are included in this proposed action. The provisions of subpart
QQQQ would apply to each affected unit that is manufactured or sold on
or after April 4, 2014. This proposal does not include any requirements
for heaters that are fueled solely by gas, oil or coal. In addition,
this proposal does not include any requirements associated with
appliances that are already in use. The EPA continues to encourage
state, local, tribal and consumer efforts to changeout (replace) older
heaters with newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that is not
part of this federal rulemaking.
    As discussed earlier in this preamble, subpart QQQQ affects a
source category of mass-produced residential consumer products rather
than typical industrial processes. Thus, this proposed NSPS has many
aspects that are similar to those in Subpart AAA, e.g., certification
of model lines and phased implementation. This Proposed Approach would
apply to all new residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces.
Under the Proposed Approach, the Proposed Step 1 emission limit for
residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply upon
the effective date of the final rule. The Proposed Step 2 emission
limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would
apply 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. We ask for
specific comments on the Proposed Approach and the degree to which
these dates could be sooner.
    We also considered an alternative three-step approach (Alternative
Approach) for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters.
Under this Alternative Approach, as in the Proposed Approach, the
Alternative Step 1 emission limits for residential hydronic heaters and
forced air heaters would apply upon the effective date of the final
rule. The Proposed Step 1 emission limits and the Alternative Approach
Step 1 emission limits are identical. The Alternative Step 2 emission
limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would
apply 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The
Alternative Step 3 emission limit for residential hydronic heaters and
forced air heaters would apply 8 years after the effective date of the
final rule (thus providing 5 years between the Alternative Step 2 and
the Alternative Step 3). The Proposed Step 2 emission limits and the
Alternative Approach Step 3 emission limits are identical. We ask for
specific comments on this Alternative Approach and the degree to which
these dates could be sooner.
    Table 5 summarizes the proposed PM emissions standards that would
apply under this Proposed Approach at each step. Table 6 summarizes the
PM emissions standards that would apply under each step of the
Alternative Approach. Similar to the proposed requirements for subpart
AAA, we are not proposing a standard for CO or efficiency, but we are
proposing to require manufacturers to collect and report CO emissions
and efficiency data during certification tests. Some regulatory
authorities have instituted additional requirements such as limits on
visible emissions and limits on use in non-heating seasons and we ask
for specific comments on the appropriateness of such limits and other
requirements in this NSPS.

     Table 5--Proposed Approach Subpart QQQQ PM Emissions Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Particulate
           Appliance                     Steps          matter emissions
                                                             limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Hydronic Heater...  Step 1: Upon the        0.32 lb/MMBtu
                                 effective date of the   heat output and
                                 final rule.             a cap of 7.5 g/
                                                         hr for
                                                         individual test
                                                         runs.
                                Step 2: 5 years after   0.06 lb/MMBtu.
                                 the effective date of
                                 final rule.
Forced-Air Furnace............  Step 1: Upon the        0.93 lb/MMBtu.
                                 effective date of the
                                 final rule.
                                Step 2: 5 years after   0.06 lb/MMBtu.
                                 the effective date of
                                 final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6--Alternative Approach Subpart QQQQ PM Emissions Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Particulate
           Appliance                     Steps          matter emissions
                                                             limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Hydronic Heater...  Step 1: Upon the        0.32 lb/MMBtu
                                 effective date of the   heat output and
                                 final rule.             a cap of 7.5 g/
                                                         hr for
                                                         individual test
                                                         runs.
                                Step 2: 3 years after   0.15 lb/MMBtu.
                                 the effective date of
                                 final rule.
                                Step 3: 8 years after   0.06 lb/MMBtu.
                                 the effective date of
                                 the final rule.
Forced-Air Furnace............  Step 1: Upon the        0.93 lb/MMBtu.
                                 effective date of the
                                 final rule.
                                Step 2: 3 years after   0.15 lb/MMBtu.
                                 the effective date of
                                 final rule.
                                Step 3: 8 years after   0.06 lb/MMBtu.
                                 the effective date of
                                 final rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the 1988 subpart AAA requirements, the subpart QQQQ
requirements would not provide an additional time period for the sale
of unsold units manufactured before the compliance date. No additional
time is prudent because cleaner EPA-qualified Phase 2 hydronic heaters
systems have already been readily available for several years, the
older systems have caused numerous complaints nationwide, and this
proposal publication is ample notice for the remaining old high-
emitting units. For the same reasons, the subpart QQQQ requirements
would not include a small volume manufacturer compliance extension. See
section V.C. of this preamble for more discussion of this topic. We ask
for comments on the timing for implementation.
    As in the current subpart AAA for wood heaters/stoves, we are
proposing a list of prohibited fuels because their use would cause poor
combustion or even hazardous conditions. We request comment on these
requirements and data to support additional requirements, if warranted.
Also, as in the current subpart AAA for wood heaters/stoves, we are
proposing that the owner or operator must not operate the hydronic
heater or forced-air furnace in a manner that is inconsistent with the
owner's manual. For pellet-fueled appliances, this proposal makes it
clear that operation according to the owner's manual includes operation
only with pellet fuels that have been used in the certification test
and have been graded and marked under a licensing agreement with the
PFI, or equivalent (after request and subsequent approval by the EPA),
to meet certain minimum requirements and procedures for a quality
assurance process. Details of the PFI program are available at http://pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/pfi-standards-program/. Data show that
quality assurance provisions are necessary to ensure that the
appliances operate properly such that emissions are reduced as
intended. We ask for specific comments on the use of the PFI program
and the PFI specifications, especially the degree to which the PFI
program will adequately ensure the absence of construction and
demolition waste (and associated toxic contaminants) in the pellets.
(No other organization has volunteered to develop such a quality
program.)
    The proposed labeling requirements and owner's manual requirements
are similar to the guidelines in the EPA's current voluntary hydronic
heater program with some improvements. We request specific comments on
ways to improve the delivery of information on the permanent label and
in the owner's manual and whether different information might be useful
to the consumer and to the regulatory authorities.
    The structure of the rest of the proposed subpart QQQQ is similar
to the proposed subpart AAA certification and quality assurance
process. We request specific comments on changes or improvements to
that process that might be needed to address any special concerns
related to the certification of hydronic heaters and forced-air
furnaces.
    As discussed earlier, the EPA developed Method 28 OWHH, in 2006, as
part of our efforts for voluntary qualification of cleaner hydronic
heaters. We received input at that time from manufacturers,
laboratories, and some states in order to quickly develop a mostly
consensus-based method that we incorporated into the program
partnership agreements. We used Method 28 for wood heaters/stoves as
the foundation. Thus, Method 28 OWHH has many aspects similar to Method
28. Three significant differences are: (1) Method 28 OWHH uses larger
cribs because hydronic heater fireboxes are typically much larger than
wood heater fireboxes; (2) Method 28 OWHH uses red oak instead of
Douglas fir because red oak is the more common fuel in the U.S.; and
(3) Method 28 OWHH includes procedures for determining 8-hour heat
output and efficiency. The manufacturers, laboratories, states and the
EPA have now had over 7 years of experience with Method 28 OWHH and its
successor Method 28 WHH (improved and expanded to include indoor
heaters, not just outdoor heaters).
    All the stakeholders that have provided input on the test methods
agree that the methods should be thoroughly vetted and changed as
necessary to improve the method's accuracy and precision and to address
concerns about how to best ensure protection across the entire U.S.
when various operating scenarios and wood species and densities are
used. ASTM has developed E2618-13 to address some of these concerns,
and the EPA believes that E2618-13 does include some improvements.
However, as with the wood heater/stove methods, we and some states do
not agree with all the changes that ASTM has made. For example, the
states of Washington and Oregon are very concerned that Method

28 WHH and ASTM E2618-13 do not specify fueling with Douglas Fir, which
is used in EPA Method 28 for wood heaters/stoves and which these states
require in their regulations for residential wood heaters, including
hydronic heaters. They are concerned that hydronic heaters tested with
red oak will have higher emissions when fueled with Douglas Fir and
other less dense species typical in their states and have provided test
data that shows higher emissions. Thus, they require testing with
Douglas Fir in their states. Also, a number of states and the EPA are
concerned about the ASTM changes to the burn rate categories, i.e.,
easing or eliminating testing at the lowest burn rates, which often
occur in home operations and are typically the highest-emitting and
least efficient. For several years, we have been communicating with
European certification laboratories to learn how they conduct their
tests under EN 303-5 and to consider if incorporating some of their
testing procedures might improve our test methods.
    More recently, because of initial concerns about some surprisingly
high laboratory test efficiencies for a couple of the EPA voluntary
partnership program Phase 2 qualified partial heat storage models, the
EPA, the Northeast states that regulate hydronic heaters, laboratories
(including EPA-accredited laboratories and Brookhaven National
Laboratory) and manufacturers have conducted a review of voluntary
partnership program qualifying test reports. All of the stakeholders
that provided input on the test methods agree that we need a change in
the test method for testing of non-integral partial heat storage models
(i.e., models that have separate heat storage but the storage does not
have the capacity to safely handle all the heat generated by a full
load of fuel). ASTM has been leading an effort to develop an Appendix
X2 to the test method for such models but has not completed that effort
as of this proposal. Brookhaven National Laboratory recommended a
method to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) and NYSDEC is requiring that method be used for certification
of such models in their states. We are proposing that method be used
for certification of the NSPS for hydronic heaters equipped with a
partial heat storage unit.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See footnote 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we are proposing revisions to Method 28 WHH that would
require that all affected non-pellet hydronic heaters, subject to new
subpart QQQQ, conduct certification compliance testing using both crib
wood and cord wood for the Step 1 emission limits upon the effective
date of the final rule and solely cord wood for the Step 2 emission
limits 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.
    We are asking for specific comments on whether the EPA should use:
(1) One or more of the draft versions of Appendix X2 being considered
as part of ASTM work product WK26581; (2) the European Union test
method EN303-05 as the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
approved for certification of hydronic heaters in their state as
equivalent to the EPA Method 28 WHH; (3) the partial thermal storage
test method developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory; and/or (4)
some other test method(s). For use of any of the test methods, the EPA
would require that the amount of heat storage for the actual sale and
installation of the hydronic heaters be no less than the amount used
for the certification tests. Because EN303-05 does not currently use
heat storage during the certification test, if the EPA were to use
EN303-05 test results, the EPA would require the installed heater to
have heat storage that can safely handle at least 60 percent of the
maximum heat output of the heater or a greater level if the
manufacturer specifies a greater level. The EPA is asking for specific
comments on the appropriateness of this heat storage level or other
levels. The EPA will consider any or all of these options as the
preferred reference test methods or as acceptable emission testing
alternatives. (ASTM previously developed an Appendix X1 for testing of
models that have ``full'' heat storage that can safely accept the heat
from the full load of fuel.) We request comments on all aspects of
heater testing and are especially interested in emission test data that
compare the results for testing by these different methods.
    Also, the review discussed above found a number of areas in the
methods to improve the quality of the data and reduce anomalies. In
June 2011, the voluntary partnership program stakeholders agreed to a
number of changes to Method 28 OWHH, and we are proposing the revised
method as EPA Reference Method 28 WHH. The EPA is asking for specific
comments on this method and recommendations and supporting data for
other changes or acceptable alternatives. The following paragraphs
discuss some of the changes we are proposing for comment. Additional
information on the EPA methods is available at http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters. The ASTM methods and draft work products are
available at www.astm.org/epa.
1. Heater (aka Boiler) Temperature Range
    We propose that for all tests, the return water temperature to the
heater must be 120 [deg]F or greater. We additionally propose that if
the manufacturer specifies a thermal control valve or other arrangement
to be installed and set to control the return temperature at 120 [deg]F
or higher, the valve must be installed and set per the manufacturer's
written instructions.
2. Efficiency Calculations
    We propose to require the use of thermopiles to measure the
temperature change ``delta T'' and verify accuracy of the load side
flow meter. The accuracy of the flow meter is determined separately by
direct weighing of timed water collection. Thermocouples must measure
water temperature at the inlet and outlet of the load side heat
exchanger. We propose to delete the requirement for supply side flow
measurements and require one load side reading with thermopiles (using
a commercial system or a homemade system). Efficiency would be measured
on the output (load) side of the heat exchanger. The flow meter would
be calibrated before and after each test run within the flow range used
for the test.
3. Time Period for Recording Temperatures
    We propose that all water temperatures, differential water
temperatures and water flow rates must be recorded at time intervals of
1 minute or less. This data file must be submitted with the test
report. For determination of heat output, the data for these parameters
must be measured in equal time intervals no greater than 10 minutes or
at a frequency that results in a minimum of 50 equal intervals per test
run, whichever is greater.
4. Test Fuel Moisture Content
    We propose that each individual test fuel moisture content reading
must be in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry basis and the average
moisture content of each piece of test fuel must be in the range of 19
to 25 percent.
    We also propose the following moisture measurement procedure: Using
a fuel moisture meter as specified in the test method, determine the
fuel moisture for each test fuel piece used for the test fuel load by
averaging at least five fuel moisture meter readings, one from each of
three sides, measured parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of the
moisture meter insulated

electrodes must be one-fourth the thickness of the fuel piece or 19 mm
(3/4 in.), whichever is less for 3 of the measurements made at
approximately 3 inches from each end and the center. Two additional
measurements at approximately one-third the thickness shall be made
centered between the other three locations. We request specific
comments on the moisture content limits and the procedures for
determining the moisture content and the typical variances due to the
measurement procedures.
    We also request specific comments on the following approach for
determining moisture content. ``Select three pieces of cord wood from
the same batch of wood as the test fuel and the same weight as the
average weight of the pieces in the test load  1.0 lb. From
each of these three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice shall be \1/
2\'' to \3/4\'' thick. One slice shall be cut across the center of the
length of the piece. The other two slices shall be cut half way between
the center and the end. Immediately measure the mass of each piece in
pounds. Dry each slice in an oven at 220 [deg]F for 24 hours or until
no further weight change occurs. The slices shall be arranged in the
oven so as to provide separation between faces. Remove from the oven
and measure the mass of each piece again as soon as practical in
pounds. The moisture content of each slice, on a dry basis shall be
calculated as:

MCslice = 100 [middot] (WSliceWet -WSliceDry) / WSliceDry

Where: WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds;
WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds; [and] MCSlice =
moisture content of the slice in % dry basis.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See footnote 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, we propose that moisture must not be added to previously
dried fuel pieces except by storage under high humidity conditions and
temperature up to 100 [deg]F. Fuel moisture must be measured no more
than 4 hours before using the fuel for a test. The test report must
describe the source and storage history of the test fuel.
5. Water Density
    a. We propose that the measured volumetric flow from the flow meter
be converted to mass basis by using the water density based on water
temperature. The same method must be used on both the load and supply
side if the optional supply side meter is used.
    b. We propose that the water density be calculated using the water
temperature measured at the flow meter.
6. Calculations
    a. We propose that the electronic test reports submittals include
all data within the locked spreadsheets so the formulas used and
relevant calculations can be reviewed in detail.
    b. To ensure common application, we propose to require averages to
be calculated on each 10-minute reading rather than averaging over the
entire test run.
7. Overall Efficiency (CSA B415.1-10 Stack Loss Method)
    We propose that during each test run, data must be obtained and
presented for the purpose of calculation of overall efficiency as
specified in the stack loss method in CSA B415.1-10. This includes CO
and CO2, flue gas temperature, and appliance mass (remaining
fuel weight). Overall efficiency for each run must be determined as per
CSA B415.1-10 and reported. Whenever the CSA B415.1-10 overall
efficiency is found to be lower than the overall efficiency based on
the load side measurements, as determined by this method, the report
must include a discussion of the reasons for this result.
8. Wood Loading
    Test fuel loads would be determined by multiplying the firebox
volume by 4.54 kg (10 lb) of wood (as used, wet weight) per cubic foot,
or a higher load density as recommended by the manufacturer's operating
instructions. As discussed earlier, the EPA will require separate tests
in the proposed Step 1 using cribs and using cord wood. In the proposed
Step 2, the tests would all be using cord wood. There are ongoing
discussions on how to improve both types of tests. We are working with
states and industry on a cord wood test method and evaluating making
revisions to the current version of the ASTM cord wood test method and
states' ideas on cord wood testing. Also, we are reviewing European
experiences with cord wood testing.
9. Drawing of Test Apparatus
    The test report would be required to contain a drawing of the test
apparatus, including thermocouples, piping arrangements including any
recirculation loops, the thermopile and flow meter(s).
10. Aquastat Settings
    Aquastat or other heater output control device settings that are
adjustable would be set using manufacturer specifications, either as
factory set or in accordance with the owner's manual, and must remain
the same for all burn categories.
11. Narrative