\10\ James E. Houck and Paul Tiegs. There's a Freight Train
Comin'. Hearth and Home. December 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA) provided detailed
estimates of adjustable burn rate wood stoves and hydronic heater model
development costs. According to HPBA, the proposal cost estimates are
deficient because they do not reflect specific emission rates or
emission performances. Their detailed wood stove cost estimates are
located in Attachment 2 of the HPBA comments and were prepared by
National Economic Research Associates (NERA) Economic Consulting (May
2014).\11\ Appendix A of the document, Woodstove Cost Modeling
(prepared by Ferguson, Andors & Company) contains the detailed cost
estimates we reviewed and adapted for this analysis.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Comment on the proposed rule to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734
from the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734-1643.
    \12\ Ferguson, Robert (Ferguson, Andors & Company), prepared for
the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association. Proposed Wood Heater NSPS
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Analyses, Appendix A: Woodstove Cost
Modeling. May 2014. p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Ferguson analysis provides cost estimates for four categories
of emission reductions based on the proposed emission levels,
consisting of modifying 7.5 g/hr stoves to comply with a new 4.5 g/hr
emission limit, modifying the 4.5 g/hr stoves to comply with new
emission limits of 2.5 g/hr or 1.3 g/hr stoves, and

modifying a 2.5 g/hr stove to a new emission limit of 1.3 g/hr. The
resulting cost components consisted of capital costs per model (R&D,
engineering labor, tooling, equipment integration, preliminary testing,
and other costs to design and manufacture the modified wood stove
model) and other fixed costs per model (certification testing and
safety testing, roll-out of the modified products including store
display models and burn programs, brochures, user manuals, training and
product discounts). The mid-point capital costs presented by Ferguson
range from $281,725 to $532,050 depending on the emission reduction
range.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Ferguson, Robert (Ferguson, Andors & Company), prepared for
the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association. Proposed Wood Heater NSPS
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Analyses, Appendix A: Woodstove Cost
Modeling. May 2014. pp. 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier in section III.A, unlike the proposed rule,
the final subpart AAA rule only contains a Step 1 PM emission limit of
4.5 g/hr and a Step 2 PM emission limit of 2.0 g/hr, with no
alternative, three-step emission limits. The comments overwhelmingly
indicated that the three-step emission limit approach was inferior not
only environmentally but also economically because it would, in effect,
require many small manufacturers to engage in two rounds of R&D rather
than one in order to obtain the same eventual endpoint.
    The Step 1 cost for 7.5 to 4.5 g/hr is a reasonable representation
of model development costs for all models subject to subpart AAA, with
some exceptions, described below. The Ferguson analysis shows that
several of the cost components are identical across scenarios. The
analysis claims, however, that other cost components vary according to
the specified emission reduction scenario. These differences were not
supported in the comments. For purposes of this analysis, we used the
7.5 to 4.5 g/hr scenario as a baseline case and modified it to reflect
the deletion of cost categories that were inappropriate for the NSPS
analyses, e.g., costs for trips to industry trade shows that would
occur for all products regardless of the NSPS.
    We did accept the assumptions and logic related to evaluating the
tooling cost difference between steel stoves and cast iron stoves, as
both are commonly manufactured. Like Ferguson, we used an average of
their tooling costs to reflect product differences, even though this
may overestimate the number of cast iron stoves in the market place.
While we recognize the range in capital cost estimates provided both
prior to and after proposal of the draft standards leave room for
additional cost scenarios, especially the much lower cost scenario for
Woodstock Soapstone Stoves, the Ferguson costs represent the best
documented cost ranges and cost categories available at this time.
    For the final cost analysis, we used the mean wood stove costs. For
our analyses, these model development costs represent feasible costs
for adjustable burn rate stoves and pellet stoves. For single burn rate
stoves, as we did at proposal, the analyses reflect that additional R&D
may be required to bring these stoves to qualifying levels. Rather than
doubling the total model development costs during the first 2 years as
we did at proposal, the new costs for the R&D/Engineering cost portion
of the total costs are doubled in the first 2 years, with ``normal''
model development proceeding thereafter.
    Details of our responses to cost comments are in the RTC document
and the technical and cost memoranda in the docket for this final rule.
b. Central Heaters
    At proposal, our analyses reflected that hydronic heaters and
forced-air furnaces would face the same model development costs as room
heaters. Some commenters objected to this characterization,
particularly based on the detailed hydronic heater cost estimates
located in Attachment 3 of the HPBA comments as prepared by NERA
Economic Consulting (May 2014).\14\ Appendix A of that document,
Hydronic Heater Cost Modeling (prepared by Ferguson, Andors & Company)
contains the detailed cost estimates we reviewed and adapted for this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Comment on the proposed rule to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734
from the HPBA available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734-1643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HPBA costs for hydronic heaters were prepared with the same
methodology and overall assumptions as they used in development of the
wood heater costs. The Ferguson analysis provides cost estimates for
four categories of hydronic heater emission reductions, based on the
proposed emission levels consisting of modifying uncontrolled heaters
to comply with a new 0.32 lb/mmBtu emission limit, modifying the 0.32
lb/mmBtu heaters to comply with new emission limits of 0.15 or 0.06 lb/
mmBtu, and modifying a 0.15 lb/mmBtu heater to a new emission limit of
0.06 lb/mmBtu. The resulting cost components consisted of capital costs
per model (R&D, engineering labor, tooling, equipment integration,
preliminary testing, and other costs to design and manufacture the
modified wood stove model) and other fixed costs per model
(certification testing and safety testing, roll-out of the modified
products including store display models and burn programs, brochures,
user manuals, training and product discounts). The mid-point capital
costs presented by Ferguson range from $1,743,750 to $2,162,300
depending on the emission reduction range.\15\ We used these cost
estimates in our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Ferguson, Robert (Ferguson, Andors & Company), prepared for
HPBA. Proposed Wood Heater NSPS Incremental Cost Effectiveness
Analyses, Appendix A: Hydronic Heater Cost Modeling. May 2014. p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier in section III.A, unlike the proposed rule,
the final rule contains a Step 1 PM emission limit of 0.32 lb/mmBtu and
a Step 2 PM emission limit of 0.10 lb/mmBtu, with no alternative three-
step PM emission limits. The comments overwhelmingly indicated that the
three-step PM emission limit approach was inferior not only
environmentally but also economically because it would, in effect,
require many small manufacturers to engage in two rounds of R&D rather
than one in order to obtain the same eventual endpoint.
    The Step 1 PM emission limit cost for modifying uncontrolled
heaters to comply with 0.32 lb/mmBtu is a reasonable representation of
model development costs for all models subject to subpart QQQQ, with
some exceptions, described below. The Ferguson analysis shows that
several of the cost components are identical across scenarios. The
analysis claims that other cost components vary according to the
specified emission reduction scenario; however, no support was provided
for these claims in the Ferguson analysis. For purposes of our
analysis, we used the scenario of uncontrolled to 0.32 lb/mmBtu as a
baseline case and modified it to reflect the deletion of cost
categories that were inappropriate for the NSPS impact analyses, e.g.,
costs for trips to industry trade shows that would occur for all
products regardless of the NSPS.
    For our final rule cost analysis, we used the mean hydronic heater
costs estimated in Table 5-2 of the final RIA. These model development
costs represent feasible costs for hydronic heaters. For forced-air
furnaces, as we did at proposal, our analysis included the additional
R&D that may be required to bring these heaters to qualifying levels.
Rather than doubling total model development costs during the first 2
years as we did at proposal, for the final rule analysis the R&D/
Engineering cost portion of the total costs are doubled in

the first 2 years, with ``normal'' model development proceeding
thereafter.
    Details of our responses to cost comments are in the RTC document
and the technical and cost memoranda in the docket for this final rule.
2. Economic Impacts
    As discussed in detail in the RIA and summarized in section D.1
above, we received numerous comments on the costs, and we have adjusted
our cost estimates as appropriate. Since the economic impacts are based
on the costs and other factors, we have adjusted the economic impacts
accordingly. The details of the adjustments are in the RIA, and a
summary is in sections IV.C and VI of this preamble.

F. Test Methods

1. Crib Wood vs. Cord Wood
    We received a full range of comments on this issue, from complete
support for the proposed cord wood testing requirements to complete
opposition to requiring cord wood testing at this time. We considered
all comments and focused on those that discussed the data in detail. As
discussed earlier in section IV, based on the data and comments
submitted, we have determined that it is premature to require a cord
wood-based Step 2 PM emission limit at this time (except for forced-air
furnaces for which CSA B415.1-10 already specifies cord wood as the
test fuel). Rather, we are basing the Step 2 PM emission limit on crib
wood testing and including an alternative compliance option to meet an
emission limit based on cord wood testing, to encourage manufacturers
to certify with cord wood as soon as possible to provide consumers with
better information for their actual in-home-use performance. There are
some manufacturers that already achieve the cord wood emission level
and we expect that many more manufacturers will take this option and
submit data that will inform development of a required cord wood
certification test in a future rulemaking.
    Based on the existence of a viable draft cord wood test method and
the expectation at proposal that the ASTM test methods for cord wood
would be complete soon after proposal and that significant testing of
wood heaters re-tuned to perform well on cord wood would occur before
promulgation of this final rule, the EPA proposed to require testing
only with cord wood for compliance with Step 2 emissions limits. We
still encourage manufacturers to design wood heaters that best
represent actual in-home-use performance on cord wood. However, the
ASTM cord wood test methods have not been completed and only limited
testing using the draft methods has occurred. For the cord wood
alternative compliance option, we will consider approval of requested
test methods on a case-by-case basis. We believe the current draft ASTM
test methods are sufficient to be used, upon request, for the cord wood
alternative compliance option until better test methods can be
developed. We will also be receptive to other alternative test method
requests that are adequately demonstrated, ideally according to the EPA
Method 301 validation procedures. (Note that forced-air furnaces are
tested according to the cord wood test method already specified in CSA
B415.1-10.
2. Compliance for Individual Burn Rates Versus Weighted Averages
    We received a full range of comments on this issue, from complete
support for the proposed Step 2 compliance for individual burn rates to
using only the weighted averages similar to the 1988 NSPS. We
considered all comments and focused on those that discussed the data in
detail. As mentioned earlier in section IV, based on the data and
comments submitted, we have determined that the final rule will require
weighted averages for Step 2 in subpart AAA and individual burn rates
for Step 2 in subpart QQQQ.
    For subpart AAA Step 2 emission limits, we proposed to require
certification compliance at the lowest burn rate (Category 1) and the
maximum burn rate (Category 4) rather than the weighted average of the
four burn rates, which was required in the 1988 rule. Many comments on
the proposal and the data in the NODA strongly supported the proposed
compliance determinations per individual burn rates. Many other
comments strongly opposed the proposal. Considering all of the comments
and focusing on the available test data, especially the EPA wood stove
certification test data by burn rate that we included in the July 1,
2014 NODA, we are requiring certification calculations based on the
weighted average of the four burn rates for subpart AAA. As discussed
earlier in section V.A, the data show that for weighted averages, 18
percent of noncatalytic stoves (that represent over 80 percent of the
market) achieve 2.0 g/hr. However, on an individual burn rate basis,
only 6 percent (7 of 110 stoves) achieve 2.0 g/hr, a relatively small
percentage of wood stoves manufactured today. This supports our
decision that a Step 2 limit of 2.0 g/hr, based on a weighted average
of the multiple burn rates, better represents BSER for wood stoves/
heaters subject to revised subpart AAA, compared to a Step 2 limit
based on individual burn rates.
    For subpart QQQQ, the final rule retains the proposed Step 1 g/hr
emission cap for all burn rates (for hydronic heaters) and the Step 2
requirement for lb/mmBtu compliance at each burn rate (for both
hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces) given concerns about the
sometimes very large emissions at individual burn rates. The emission
limits reflect the data available. For a more detailed discussion of
these comments and responses, see the RTC document in the docket for
this rule.
3. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    We received a full range of comments on this issue, from complete
support to adamant disagreement with our determinations under the NTTAA
at proposal that some portions of some of the ASTM test methods were
not applicable or impractical for this rule because they did not
achieve the Agency's mission, goals and objectives. (The NTTAA directs
agencies to use voluntary consensus standards whenever applicable
methods are available unless they are impractical.) As discussed in the
proposal preamble in section VI.I, the rule incorporates some voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) by reference, including some ASTM methods and
CSA B415.1-10. We could not use some ASTM test methods and other VCS
because they were not applicable. That is, the inapplicable VCS did not
fully achieve the intent of this rule or the primary mission of the
Agency and many tribes, states and local agencies to protect human
health and the environment.
    Some comments claimed that the EPA cannot take portions of VCS but
rather must only use the whole VCS. That position is inconsistent with
the intent of the NTTAA goal for reducing duplication of effort. That
is, using valuable portions of VCS helps reduce potential duplicative
efforts.
    Some comments suggested that because the EPA unofficial
participants (the EPA employees who were not ASTM members but
participated in some of the calls) in certain ASTM test method
development efforts did not submit official negatives on the standard,
that somehow that meant that the EPA approved all of the details of the
draft ASTM test methods. The EPA participants often expressed that the
draft test methods were not fully applicable to the needs of the EPA
and states; but since the draft test methods

may meet some of the immediate needs of the industry participants, the
EPA did not want to stop the ASTM efforts to develop improved drafts.
Further, the NTTAA guidance explicitly states that Agency participation
does not indicate Agency approval or endorsement.
4. Real World, Cold Starts, Cycling, Moisture, Heat Demand
    Many comments indicated a critical need for test methods that
reflect the ``real world'' with cord wood, cold starts, cycling,
moisture, heat demand and shorter averaging periods.
    We strongly agree, and we will consider alternative cord wood test
method requests on a case-by-case basis until we are convinced that
improved test methods have been sufficiently demonstrated that they can
be relied upon for regulatory purposes. Additionally, we expect that
within the next few years we will receive enough ``real world'' cord
wood test data for the EPA to establish revised certification
requirements based on those test data.

G. Health Effects and Benefits

    A more detailed summary of the comments is in the RTC document in
the docket.
1. Additional Health Outcomes
    Several comments suggested that the EPA should expand its
assessment of health benefits.
    The RIA includes all possible health impacts related to exposure to
wood combustion-related PM2.5. Table 7-1 of the RIA on human
health effects of ambient PM2.5 has an extensive list of the
above mentioned health endpoints that were considered and monetized,
including exacerbation of asthma among children. However, several were
assessed qualitatively due to time and resource limitations. Table 7-2
of the RIA shows the results of the assessed health incidence
reductions and related benefits from reduced PM2.5 exposure
associated with the proposed option.
2. Additional Pollutants and Outcomes
    Comments suggested that the EPA should expand its assessment to
include benefits of reductions in CO and VOC and certain non- human
health-related benefits including: environmental degradation;
accelerated depreciation of capital; haze; contribution to
anthropogenic climate change; and harm to pets and livestock.
    The EPA understands that the benefits assessment in the RIA
reflects only a subset of the benefits attributable to the health
effects reductions associated with ambient fine particles. Limitations
in data, time and resources prevented the EPA from quantifying the
impacts to, or monetizing the benefits from, several important benefits
categories, including benefits associated with the potential exposure
to ozone formation due to VOC emissions as a precursor, VOC emissions
as a PM2.5 precursor, CO, as well as ecosystem effects, and
visibility impairment due to the absence of air quality modeling data
for these pollutants among others in this analysis. However, the EPA
provided an extensive qualitative assessment of those benefits. The EPA
realizes that the benefits presented are an underestimate of the
overall benefits resulting from this rule and that these reductions
will help with ozone and PM planning.
3. Additional Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gases
    Comments suggested that we expand the benefits analyses to include
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gases.
    The EPA agrees that there will be added benefits from assessing
impacts of emission reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane and black carbon. While we know that these emissions will be
reduced along with the reductions of PM emission and the increases in
efficiency of the affected heaters, we do not have robust emissions
test data to make quantitative benefits analysis on climate change at
this time.
    One commenter referred to the interagency Social Cost of Carbon
(SCC) estimates. The comment suggested that (1) EPA should use SCC to
reflect the monetized CO2 impacts of the proposed rule in
the RIA; and (2) EPA should use the SCC estimates published in 2010
instead of the updated SCC estimates published in 2013 because the
updated estimates have not been subject to public comment. The SCC
represents the monetized net damages of incremental changes in the
amount of CO2 emissions in a given year. Given that
CO2 impacts of the proposed rule were not analyzed, the SCC
estimates were not used in the RIA.
4. Uncertainty of ``Value per Statistical Life''
    Commenters stated that the EPA's use of the Value per Statistical
Life (VSL)--that is, the monetized value attributable to mortality
reduction--is a source of uncertainty.
    While the Agency is updating its guidance by incorporating the most
up-to-date literature and recent recommendations from the Science
Advisory Board Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (SAB-EEAC),
it has determined that a single, peer-reviewed estimate applied
consistently best reflects the SAB-EEAC advice until updated guidance
is available. Therefore, the EPA, after consulting with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), has decided to use the value established
in the 2000 Guidelines for all the EPA actions until a revised estimate
can be fully vetted.
    The EPA will continue to look into approaches based on the best
available science as appropriate. The EPA will continue to recommend
the central estimate of $7.4 million ($2006), updated to the year of
the analysis, be used in all benefits analyses that seek to quantify
mortality risk reduction benefits regardless of the age, income, or
other population characteristics of the affected population until
revised guidance becomes available. This approach was vetted and
endorsed by the Agency when the 2000 ``Guidelines for Preparing
Economic Analyses'' were drafted. Although $7.4 million ($2006) remains
EPA's default guidance for valuing mortality risk changes, the Agency
has considered and presented others and may well consider the commenter
recommendation in future assessments.
    We agree that there is uncertainty. Recent analyses have estimated
substantial increases in life expectancy and the number of life years
gained due to improved PM2.5 air quality. For example,
Hubbell (2006) estimated that reducing exposure to PM2.5
from air pollution regulations may result in an average gain of 15
years of life for those adults prematurely dying from PM2.5
exposure. In contrast, Pope et al. (2009) estimated changes in average
life expectancy at birth over a 20-year period, suggesting that
reducing exposure to air pollution may increase average life expectancy
at birth by approximately 7 months, which was 15 percent of the overall
increase in life expectancy at birth from 1980 through 2000.
5. Uncertainty in the EPA Analyses Regarding the Constant Benefits-per-
Ton Simplifying Assumption, Dose-Response Relationship, and Benefits
Transfer Approach
    Comments suggested that the relationship between pollution and
human health is more complex than the EPA's simplifying assumptions and
thus more uncertain.
    The EPA's methods for quantifying health benefits of emission
reductions are based on the best available peer-reviewed science and
methods that have withstood scrutiny from the EPA's independent Science
Advisory Board (SAB), the National Academy of

Sciences (NRC, 2002), and continuous interagency review.
    The RIA references a peer-reviewed manuscript and technical support
document (TSD) that each describe the methods EPA employed to quantify
the per-ton benefit of reducing fine particle levels from various
sources. The air quality modeling attributed fine particle levels to
residential wood heaters, holding all other sectors constant--giving us
greater confidence that we have correctly characterized the air quality
and health impacts attributable to this sector.
    With respect to the incidence of benefits among populations living
in locations already attaining the primary NAAQS, the EPA acknowledges
that primary NAAQS are set at a level deemed by the EPA Administrator
to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. At
the same time, primary NAAQS are not set at a level of zero risk and
there is no known threshold below which PM2.5 does not cause
adverse health effects. Thus, the EPA recognizes that reducing the
emissions level in those areas could still have health benefits.
    Additional detail of our responses is included in the final RIA.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Cost, Economic, and Non-Air Health and
Energy Impacts

    The EPA estimates the total annualized average nationwide costs
associated with this rule would be $45.7 million ($2013) over the
timeframe of 2015 through 2020. The economic impacts for industries
affected by this rule over this same period, estimated as a percent of
annual compliance cost to sales, range from 1.1 percent for manufacture
of pellet stove models to 17.1 percent for manufacture of hydronic
heater models. These impacts do not presume any pass-through of impacts
to consumers. With pass-through to consumers, these impact estimates to
manufacturers will decline proportionate to the degree of pass-through.

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    In section IV of the preamble to the proposed rule, we described
the procedure we used to determine the air quality impacts on the
industries affected by this rule. Following proposal, we revised the
standards for room heaters and central heaters based on public
comments. Table 6 is a summary of the revised estimated annual average
emissions reductions over years 2015 through 2020 resulting from
implementing the final NSPS compared to baseline conditions (for the
years analyzed in the final RIA). As in the proposal, we developed
emission factors for each appliance type and then applied those
emission factors to shipment data for each of the appliance types
subject to the final NSPS.\16\ We developed the emission factors using
the EPA Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) emission estimation tool,\17\
which is a Microsoft Access database that compiles nationwide RWC
emissions using county-level, process-specific data and calculations.
The compilation of such data is a large, important, continually
improving effort by the EPA and the states to ensure that we and the
states have access to the best information available. For the final
rule, we used the updated version of the tool. The updated tool
includes the results of a peer-reviewed emission testing study of
hydronic heaters conducted by the EPA Office of Research and
Development and the New York State Energy Research and Development
Agency. (The study was added to the docket prior to proposal but the
tool was not updated until after proposal.) The results of that study
show much higher emissions for hydronic heaters at baseline than we
estimated at proposal. We have used the updated emission factors
because they are based on the best available scientific information. We
summed the estimated nationwide number of appliances and the estimated
total tons of wood burned for each of the relevant product categories
in the inventory and then made some adjustments/assumptions to the
baseline RWC inventory to reflect emission characteristics specific to
new units. As described below, to avoid any potential for overstating
baseline emissions, we went a step further and assumed that all new
shipments will meet the current State of Washington Department of
Ecology limits, which are approximately 40 percent less than the 1988
NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Memo to USEPA from EC/R, Inc. Estimated Emissions from Wood
Heaters. January 2015.
    \17\ Emission factors are based on EPA's Residential Wood
Combustion Tool version 4.1 with updates from the 2012 EPA report
(Gullett et al. Environmental, Energy Market, and Health
Characterization of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater, Final Report, June
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Single burn rate stoves are not included in the RWC database as
separate identifiable units. For our analysis, we used the same
baseline emission factor as freestanding non-certified wood stoves. We
used the average tons burned per appliance factor as representative of
these stoves as well.
    After calculating a baseline average emission rate/appliance (or
``emission inventory category''), we multiplied the total tons of wood
burned for the appliance by the RWC emission factor (adjusted as
appropriate) to calculate the total tons of PM2.5 emissions.
We divided this value by the number of appliances in the category to
calculate the baseline average PM2.5 emissions per
individual appliance. The next step was to develop emission factors
representing the final NSPS. The timing of the NSPS emission limits
used in this analysis matches the phased-in compliance dates.
    For the subpart AAA analysis, we used HPBA data from their 2010
analysis that indicated that at least 90 percent (130 out of 145
catalytic, non-catalytic and pellet stoves combined) already meet the
Step 1 PM emission limit. Manufacturers are expected to focus on
existing models that already meet the Washington State DOE limits in
order to comply with the Step 1 PM emission limit. Furthermore,
certification data \18\ indicate that 26 percent of non-catalytic and
catalytic stoves combined and 70 percent of pellet stoves already meet
the Step 2 PM emission limit. For our analysis, we used 26 percent of
adjustable burn rate stoves and 70 percent of pellet stoves for the
percentages that can already meet the Step 2 PM emission limit without
intensive R&D efforts. Although previously unregulated and a less
developed technology than adjustable burn rate stoves, single burn rate
stove designs have been undergoing R&D in anticipation of the proposed
NSPS and cleaner designs are in progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Memo to USEPA from EC/R, Inc. Derivation of wood heater
model percentages meeting Step 2 standards. November 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the subpart QQQQ analysis for hydronic heaters, we note that
the Step 1 PM emission limit is the EPA ``Phase 2'' voluntary program
lb/mmBtu weighted average emission limit is already met by 50 hydronic
heater models built by U.S. manufacturers participating in the
voluntary program. We also note that 19 additional qualification tests
have been recently submitted to EPA and, if valid, all 19 will be added
as Phase 2 qualified models and Step 1 NSPS certified models. The NSPS
Step 2 PM emission limit is already met by 9 hydronic heater models
built by U.S. manufacturers participating in the voluntary program, as
well as over 100 European models per test method EN 303-05 and over 20
pellet boilers (U.S. and European) that have been qualified in the RHNY
program. Data indicate that at least 18 percent of current hydronic
heater model designs can meet the Step 2 emission limit without
intensive R&D efforts.

    For the subpart QQQQ analysis for forced-air furnaces, we note that
the Step 1 PM emission limit is based on test data from certifications
under the Canadian standard B415.1-10 (circa 2010) and conversations
with industry regarding cleaner forced-air furnace models currently
being tested in R&D. As discussed earlier in this preamble, forced-air
furnace designs able to meet the Step 2 limit are based on technology
transferred from hydronic heater designs and/or wood stove designs.
    Next we used data in the Frost & Sullivan Market (F&S) report \19\
on 2008 shipments by product category, and F&S revenue forecasts which
incorporated the weak economy in years 2009 and 2010, to calculate the
reduced number of shipments in years 2009 and 2010. Forced-air furnaces
were outside the scope of the F&S report. Instead, we used manufacturer
estimates of total industry sales in 2008 and applied the F&S market
factors to estimate shipments through 2010. The F&S wood stove numbers
included both certified and non-certified stoves, so we estimated
numbers of non-certified stove shipments out of the total reported wood
stove category (i.e., 40,000 single burn rate stoves shipped in 2008).
These shipments were deleted from the total wood stove category
shipments. We expanded the 2008 single burn rate estimate using the F&S
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Market Research and Report on North American Residential
Wood Heaters, Fireplaces, and Hearth Heating Products Market.
Prepared by Frost & Sullivan. April 26, 2010. P. 31-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For years 2011 through 2029, estimated shipments are generally
based on a forecasted revenue growth rate of 2.0 percent, in keeping
with the average annual growth in real U.S. GDP predicted by the
Conference Board.\20\ Historically wood heater shipments have most
closely corresponded to GDP, housing starts, and price of wood relative
to natural gas. The overall trend in the projection is reasonable in
the absence of additional specific shipment projections. We did not
change the relative percentages of one type of residential wood heater
versus other types of residential wood heaters over this time period.
The only exceptions to the use of a 2.0 percent U.S. GDP-based growth
rate are for years 2012 and 2018, in which we used industry estimates
for hydronic heater and wood stove shipments, respectively. For year
2012, an HPBA consultant estimated there were 13,100 baseline hydronic
heater sales.\21\ For year 2018, the same HPBA consultant projected
there to be 100,000 wood stove sales.\22\ We adjusted our estimated
shipment data accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Global Economic Outlook 2014, projections prepared by the
Conference Board, May 2014 update; http://www.conference-board.org/data/globaloutlook.cfm.
    \21\ Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative Hydronic Heater
New Source Performance Standards, prepared for the Hearth, Patio,
and Barbecue Association by NERA Economic Consulting, May 2014.
(Attachment 3 of HPBA's comment to the Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734).
    \22\ Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative Woodstove New
Source Performance Standards, prepared for the HPBA by NERA Economic
Consulting, May 2014. (Attachment 2 of HPBA's comment to Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0734).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our cost effectiveness analysis (CE) is based on industry data that
show that a given model design will often be sold for approximately 10
years before being redesigned (a 10-year ``model design lifespan'') and
that each individual stove will be used for 20 years before it is
replaced in a residence (a 20-year ``use/emitting appliance
lifespan''). These time periods were used to best characterize the
actual model design and use lifespans. For proposal, we used a 20-year
model design lifespan because many models developed for the 1988 NSPS
are still being sold (after 25 years), with many ``new'' models
retaining the same internal working parts with merely exterior cosmetic
changes. In response to comments on the proposed rule,\23\ however, in
which some industry representatives commented that a shorter model
lifespan is more typical, and provided data for models for several
manufacturers, we reduced the model design lifespan to 10 years for
this analysis. Regarding the emitting lifespan of the appliance, most
wood heaters in consumer homes emit for at least 20 years and often
much longer. Therefore, our CE analysis tracks shipments through year
2029 (using a 10-year design life for a model meeting the Step 2
emission limit in year 2020) and emissions through year 2048 (using a
20-year emitting life for an appliance shipped in year 2029).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Comments on the proposed NSPS are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket IDs EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 is a summary of the average emissions reductions over years
2015 through 2020 resulting from implementing the NSPS compared to
baseline conditions (for the years analyzed in the RIA).

                                         Table 6--Estimated Annual Average (2015-2020) Air Quality Impacts \24\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         PM2.5 (tons)                         VOC (tons)                           CO (tons)
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Appliance type                               Revised    Emission                 Revised    Emission                 Revised    Emission
                                               Baseline      NSPS      reduction   Baseline      NSPS      reduction   Baseline      NSPS      reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Heaters................................         422         388          34         601         554          47       6,048       5,528         520
Single Burn Rate Heaters....................         922         238         684       1,597         326       1,271       6,954       3,830       3,124
Pellet Heaters/Stoves.......................          59          53           6           1           1           0         307         277          30
Furnace: Indoor, Cord Wood..................       6,984       2,944       4,040       7,355       3,101       4,254      39,285      16,561      22,724
Hydronic Heating Systems....................       3,844         338       3,506       4,048         356       3,692      21,623       1,902      19,721
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................      12,231       3,962       8,269      13,602       4,337       9,265      74,218      28,099      46,119
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table only includes the emissions during the first year of the life of each wood heater. That is, this table does not include the emissions
  that continue for the duration of the lifetime of each appliance's use, typically greater than 20 years. The EPA acknowledges that this is an
  underestimate of the actual total emission impacts but this table is provided to allow comparisons on a first year basis.
Minor discrepancies are due to rounding.

B. What are the benefits?

    Emission reductions associated with the requirements of this rule
will generate substantial health benefits by reducing emissions of
PM2.5, HAPs, as well as criteria pollutants and their
precursors, including CO and VOC. VOC are precursors to
PM2.5 and ozone. For this rule, we were only able to
quantify the monetized health co-benefits associated with reduced
exposure from directly emitted PM2.5. Our benefits reflect
the average of annual PM2.5 emission reductions occurring
between 2015 and 2020 (inclusive). We estimate the monetized
PM2.5-related health benefits of the residential wood
heaters NSPS in the 2015-2020 timeframe to be $3.4 billion to $7.6
billion (2013 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $3.1 billion to
$6.9 billion (2013 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. (These
estimates are greater than the estimates at proposal because the
emission reduction estimates are greater, as discussed in section VI.A
of this preamble and the RIA.) Using alternate relationships between
PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher
and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-
based estimates fall between these two estimates.\25\ A summary of the
emission reduction and monetized benefits estimates for this rule at
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 7 of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Memo to USEPA from EC/R, Inc. Estimated Emissions from Wood
Heaters. January 2015.
    \25\ Roman, et al., 2008. ``Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S.,'' Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

 Table 7--Summary of Monetized PM2.5-Related Health Benefits for Proposed Residential Wood Heaters NSPS in 2015-
                                                 2020 Timeframe
                                        [millions of 2013 dollars] a b c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Estimated
                                                     emission       Total monetized          Total monetized
                    Pollutant                       reductions   benefits (3% discount    benefits (7% discount
                                                      (tpy)              rate)                    rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly emitted PM2.5...........................        8,269         $3,400 to $7,600         $3,100 to $6,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                PM2.5 Precursors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..............................................        9,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a All estimates are for the 2015-2020 timeframe (inclusive) and are rounded to two significant figures so
  numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated
  with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX, and directly emitted
  PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure
  to HAP, direct exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, VOC, ecosystem effects, effects from black carbon or
  visibility impairment.
b PM benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012).
c 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
  effects estimates by particle type.

    These benefit estimates represent the monetized human health
benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from emission
limits established to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this rule.
Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air
quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a ``benefit-per-ton''
approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the
benefit-per-ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert
emissions of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient
PM2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in
human health associated with that change in air quality, which are then
divided by the emissions in specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton
estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann, et al.,
(2012),\26\ but they have since been updated to reflect these studies
and population data in the 2012 p.m. NAAQS RIA.\27\ Specifically, we
multiplied the benefit-per-ton estimates from the ``Residential Wood
Heaters'' category by the corresponding emission reductions.\28\ All
national-average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the geographic
distribution of the modeled air quality. The air quality modeling may
not reflect the local variability in population density, meteorology,
exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for
any specific location. More information regarding the derivation of the
benefit-per-ton estimates for this category is available in the
technical support document, which is referenced in footnote 26 and is
available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012.
``Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of
emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission
sectors across the U.S.'' Environment International 49 41-151.
    \27\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-003. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division. December 2012. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
    \28\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical support
document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing
PM2.5 precursors from 17 sectors. Research Triangle Park,
NC. January 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 effects estimates by particle type. Even though we
assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the
location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels,
which drive population exposure.
    It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for
premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based on
the American Cancer Society cohort study \29\ and the extended Six
Cities cohort study.\30\ In the RIA for this rule, which is available
in the docket, we also include benefits estimates derived from expert
judgments (Roman et al., 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty

regarding the PM2.5-mortality relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D.
Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. ``Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine
Particulate Air Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical
Association 287:1132-1141.
    \30\ Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. ``Chronic
Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of
the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.'' Environ Health
Perspect. Jul;120(7):965-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature,
reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical studies,
the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter \31\
documents the association between elevated PM2.5
concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased
premature mortality. This assessment, which was reviewed twice by the
EPA's independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, concluded
that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-threshold
model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response
relationship. Therefore, in this analysis, the EPA assumes that the
health impact function for fine particles is without a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we
estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide
with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological
studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less
confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5
concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these
studies. Concentration benchmark analyses [e.g., lowest measured level
(LML) or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data
in the study] allow readers to determine the portion of population
exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above different
concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of
uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There
are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which
our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less, and
the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the
EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration
threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air
quality improvements.
    For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not
available. Thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature
mortality associated with this specific rule's emission reductions at
each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality
impacts, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at each
PM2.5 level using the source apportionment modeling used to
calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates for this sector. Using the
Krewski, et al., (2009) study, 93 percent of the population is exposed
to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8
[mu]g/m\3\. Using the Lepeule, et al., (2012) study, 67 percent of the
population is exposed above the LML of 8 [mu]g/m\3\. It is important to
note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact
function, along with baseline incidence rates, population, and change
in air quality. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the
LML assessment for this rule.
    Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change
in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by
data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage) and
uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to
configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, the
benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable indication of the
expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a set of reasonable
estimations.
    One should note that the monetized benefits estimates provided
above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including exposure to HAP, VOC and ozone exposure, as well
as ecosystem effects, visibility impairment and greenhouse gas impacts.
Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to
provide monetized estimates for these benefits in this rule, we include
a qualitative assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA \32\
for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ RIA for the Final Residential Wood Heaters NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rule, which is available in the docket.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    In analyzing the potential cost impacts of the NSPS, we considered
two types of impacts. The first was the impact to the manufacturer to
comply with the proposed standards. The second was the increase in
price of the affected unit. In both of these cases, we considered the
same input variables: Research and development (R&D) cost to develop
and certify complying model lines, certification costs (where these are
separate from R&D), reporting and recordkeeping costs, numbers of
shipments of each appliance category (modified, from Frost & Sullivan
report), number of manufacturers, and number of models per
manufacturer. This section of the preamble contains a summary of these
costs. For more detailed information, see the manufacturer cost impact
memo \33\ and unit cost memo \34\ in the docket. Unless otherwise
specified, all costs are in 2013 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Memo to USEPA from EC/R, Inc. Residential Heater
Manufacturer Cost Impacts. January 2015.
    \34\ Memo to USEPA from EC/R, Inc. Unit Cost Estimates of
Residential Wood Heating Appliances. January 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in detail in section IV.C, we reviewed information
provided by HPBA and manufacturers. Based on this information, we
estimated \35\ average costs to develop a new model line. The estimates
of the cost of R&D are crucial to our estimates of overall costs and
economic impacts and greatly influence our decisions on BSER and
implementation lead times. We annualized the R&D costs over 6 years,
applied the NSPS implementation assumptions, and estimated the average
manufacturing cost per model line per manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In developing average R&D costs, we used the highest
industry R&D estimates supplied for cost components we deemed
attributable to the NSPS, in order to avoid under-estimating
potential costs per model line. We also assumed no model
consolidation to avoid understating the number of model lines that
would undergo R&D nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of the number of model types was derived from
information provided by HPBA, individual manufacturers, and Internet
searches of product offerings. For numbers of manufacturers, we started
with HPBA data and modified the dataset based on Internet searches of
manufacturers of the major appliance types. Table 8 is a summary of the
nationwide average annual NSPS-related cost increases to manufacturers.
The average annual cost increases are presented over the 2015 to 2020
period consistent with the years analyzed in the RIA,\36\ but were also
analyzed over the 2015 to 2029 period. The 2015 to 2029 period
encompasses the 2015 NSPS compliance year through the life span of
models designed to meet the NSPS, as explained further below and in our
background analyses.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ RIA for the Final Residential Wood Heaters NSPS.
    \37\ Memo to USEPA from EC/R, Inc. Residential Heater Cost
Effectiveness Analysis. January 2015.

      Table 8--Summary of Nationwide Average Annual Cost Increases
                                 [2013$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2015-2020
                       Appliance type                           Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Heaters...............................................   $3,020,000
Single Burn Rate Heaters...................................      870,000
Pellet Heaters/Stoves......................................    1,520,000
Forced-Air Furnaces........................................   15,360,000

Hydronic Heating Systems...................................   24,880,000
                                                            ------------
  Total Average Annual Cost................................   45,660,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop estimates of potential unit cost increases, we used
major variables including the estimated number of units shipped per
year, the costs to develop new models, baseline costs of models, and
the schedule by which the revised NSPS would be implemented. Both the
number of shipped units and the baseline costs of models
(manufacturers' cost not retail price) were initially based on data
from the Frost & Sullivan report with modifications to address
additional appliances or subsets of appliances and industry comments as
discussed in our background analyses.\38\ We also estimated the
potential additional manufacturing costs to make NSPS complying models.
These expenses result from the use of more expensive structural
materials, components to enhance good combustion, etc. We estimated the
following additional manufacturing costs per unit based on appliance
type:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Memo to USEPA from EC/R, Inc. Unit Cost Estimates of
Residential Wood Heating Appliances. January 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Certified wood stoves and pellet stoves represent a well-
developed technology and we could not identify price differences
between models with lower emission levels compared to models with
higher emission levels. Some stoves with lower emission sell for less
than some stoves with higher emissions and vice versa. Therefore, we
have assumed no additional manufacturing costs.
     One manufacturer estimated that it will cost an average of
$100 more to manufacture a lower emitting single burn rate product
(exclusive of recovering R&D cost), which we updated to 2013 ($),
approximately $110.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ NSPS Review and Comments. Confidential Business
Information. September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We have limited information that indicates the cost to
produce a forced-air furnace that complies with a Step 1 emission limit
is approximately 75 percent more, or $1,700 (exclusive of recovering
R&D cost).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Confidential Business Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     As can be seen in hydronic heater market survey results,
the prices of qualified model hydronic heaters range from $6,995 to
$15,395, with the average retail price of $10,193. We adjusted this
value to exclude the 25 percent retail markup, resulting in a
manufacturers' cost estimate of $8,154.\41\ We estimated an approximate
increase of $3,200 to manufacture a qualified unit compared to an
unqualified unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative Hydronic Heater
New Source Performance Standards. Prepared by NERA Consulting for
the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association. May 2014. p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our next step was to develop the following incremental cost
formula: Cost of amortized R&D multiplied by number of models divided
by number of units shipped per year equals the incremental cost of
developing a new unit, spread over the number of units expected to be
sold during a given year in the 6-year model development period. In
developing this calculation, we included the concept that the R&D costs
per model line are recovered in the sales price of future models, which
means that the more units that are sold, the lower the incremental cost
per unit. For our unit cost analysis, we used a flat rate in
shipments--that is, future shipments over the 6-year model development
period would be equal to the shipments estimated in the first year of
the 6-year model development period (2015). The flat rate was used
because we had no basis for concluding that sales of a given model line
would increase or decrease over time due to market competition with
other wood heaters or non-wood heaters, changes in consumer demand,
changes in the relative price for that model compared to other models
or any other factors. Where there are additional manufacturing costs as
discussed above, we added these to the unit cost number. Table 9 shows
the change in cost to develop and manufacture a stove from baseline
(before the NSPS revisions) to after the NSPS revisions are
implemented. The economic impacts of these costs are discussed in
section C, ``What are the economic impacts?'' More information on both
the costs and economic impacts is available in the RIA.

                                         Table 9--Summary of Unit Costs
                                           [Appliance prices in 2013$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost      Incremental
                                                                      Cost at       during NSPS    cost increase
                         Appliance type                              baseline          model        (to recover
                                                                      (2014)        development      amortized
                                                                                (2015-2020)       costs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified Wood Heaters..........................................          $1,259          $1,307             $48
Single Burn Rate Heaters........................................             271             410             139
Pellet Heaters/Stoves...........................................           1,384           1,430              46
Forced-Air Furnaces.............................................             974           3,225           2,251
Hydronic Heating Systems........................................           4,923          10,287           5,364
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information is available in the RIA.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impacts of the rule are estimated using industry-level
estimates of annualized compliance cost to value of shipments
(receipts) for affected industries. In this case, cost-to-receipts
ratios approximate the maximum price increase needed for a producer to
fully recover the annualized compliance costs associated with a
regulation. Essentially, the revenues to producers will likely fully
cover the annualized compliance cost incurred by producers at this
maximum price increase. Any price increase above the cost-to-receipts
ratio provides revenues that exceed the compliance costs. These
industry level cost-to-receipts ratios can be interpreted as an average
impact on potentially affected firms in these industries. Cost-to-
receipts ratios for the affected product types range from 1.1 percent
for pellet heaters/stoves to up to 17.1 percent for hydronic heaters.
More

information on how these impacts are estimated can be found in Chapters
5 and 6 of the RIA.
    In estimating the net benefits of regulation, the appropriate cost
measure is ``social costs.'' Social costs represent the welfare costs
of the rule to society and fully represent the cost impacts regardless
of whether they are ultimately borne by manufacturers or consumers.
Social costs are best approximated by the compliance costs estimated
for this rule. Thus, the annualized social costs are best estimated to
be $45.7 million, based on the estimate of costs to manufacturers and
assuming no cost pass-through to consumers. Several comments noted that
these potential price increases can often be offset by the homeowner in
one or two heating seasons by the reduced cost of fuel due to the
increased heating efficiencies. More information on how these social
costs are estimated can be found in Chapter 5 of the RIA.

E. What are the non-air quality health and energy impacts?

    These NSPS are anticipated to have no impacts or only negligible
impacts on water quality or quantity, waste disposal, radiation or
noise. To the extent new NSPS models are more efficient, that would
lead to reduced wood consumption, thereby saving timber and preserving
woodlands and vegetation for aesthetics, erosion control, carbon
sequestration, and ecological needs.
    It is difficult to determine the precise energy impacts that might
result from this rule. On the one hand, to the extent that the NSPS
wood-fueled appliance is more efficient, energy outputs per mass of
wood fuel consumed will rise. However, wood-fueled appliances compete
with other biomass forms as well as more traditional oil, electricity,
and natural gas. Robust data are not available for us to be able to
determine the potential for consumers to choose other types of fuels
and their associated appliances if the consumer costs of wood-fueled
appliances increase and at what level that increase would drive
consumer choice. Similarly, robust data are not available for us to
determine the degree to which better information on the energy
efficiency of the NSPS appliances will encourage consumers to choose
new wood-fueled appliances over other new appliances.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis,
``Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Residential Wood Heaters NSPS
Revision, Final Report'' (EPA-452/R-15-001), is available in the
docket.
    A summary of the monetized benefits and net benefits for the final
rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 1 of this
preamble, and a more detailed discussion of the benefits is found in
section IV.B of this preamble. For more information on the benefits
analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rulemaking, which is
available in the docket. For more information on the cost analysis,
please refer to the RIA or cost memoranda prepared for this rulemaking,
all of which is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in the rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared for each subpart have
been assigned the EPA ICR number 1176.12 for subpart AAA and ICR number
2442.02 for subpart QQQQ. You can find a copy of the ICR documents in
the docket for this rule, and they are briefly summarized here. The new
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    This final rule will require manufacturers of new residential wood
heating devices to submit applications for certification of model
lines, to submit results of emissions tests conducted to demonstrate
that the model lines would comply with the emission limits and produce
certified units according to a quality control plan approved by an
independent certifying body. Manufacturers must submit a notification
of the initial test and biennial reports that each certified model line
remains unchanged. They must also maintain records of all certification
data, maintain results of quality assurance program inspections and
emissions test data, and seal and store the tested appliance.
    Consistent with the current ICR for subpart AAA, we have included
costs to manufacture and apply permanent labels on each applicable unit
prior to sale. These labels provide important compliance information to
enforcement officials and important information to consumers for
purchasing appliances. The amended NSPS allows (voluntary) use of EPA
temporary labels for the cleanest heaters in order to provide consumers
the ability to select wood heaters that meet or exceed the Step 2
standards prior to the 2020 compliance date. This voluntary temporary
label option ends upon the 2020 compliance date. Furthermore, the
amended NSPS also allows (voluntary) use of temporary EPA labels to
indicate wood heaters that meet Step 2 based on cord wood instead of
crib wood, allowing consumers to select heaters better tuned to in-home
performance. The cost of the voluntary temporary labels are not
included because they are not required.
    Test laboratories that want to conduct NSPS certification testing
will need to apply for approval, conduct proficiency testing and report
the results of all such testing. The approved laboratories must
maintain records of all certification tests, proficiency tests and
compliance audit test data.
    The required notifications are used to inform the agency when a new
model line is expected to be tested. The EPA and states may then
observe the testing, if desired. Emissions test reports are needed as
these are the agency's record of a model line's initial capability to
comply with the emission limit, and serve as a record of the operating
conditions under which compliance was achieved. All information
submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made
(e.g., design drawings) will be safeguarded according to the EPA
regulations set forth in 40 CFR 2.201 et seq., Chapter 1, Part 2,
Subpart B--Confidentiality of Business Information.
    Adequate recordkeeping and reporting are necessary to ensure
compliance with these standards as required by the CAA. The information
collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used
for prioritizing inspections and is of sufficient quality to be used as
evidence in court. We have reviewed all the current requirements and
have removed the portions of the recordkeeping that are not necessary.
    The EPA considered how to minimize the potential ICR burdens and
has incorporated several features that make a major paperwork reduction
impact.

For example, the rule allows one representative heater to be tested for
a model line rather than requiring every heater to be tested. The
revised subpart AAA itself ``deems'' automatic EPA certification of
heaters that have EPA certifications under the 1988 NSPS that show that
they would meet the Step 1 emission limits until Step 2. That is, no
additional certification is required until Step 2. Also, the new
subpart QQQQ deems automatic EPA NSPS Step 1 certification for hydronic
heaters with valid EPA Phase 2 qualifications under the EPA Hydronic
Heater Partnership Agreement of October 12, 2011 or hydronic heaters or
forced-air furnaces certified by the NYSDEC that show compliance with
the Step 1 emission levels. That is, no additional certification is
required until Step 2. Also, residential pellet hydronic heaters/
boilers that have been qualified under the Renewable Heat New York
(RHNY) program will be automatically deemed EPA certified to meet the
NSPS Step 1 and no additional certification is required until Step 2
provided that they comply with the RHNY requirements for installation
and operation with adequate thermal storage.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of new residential
wood heaters and laboratories that conduct or plan to conduct wood
heater certification tests.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under section 111 of
the CAA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 72 respondents under subpart AAA
(66 manufacturers and 6 testing laboratories); 41 respondents under
subpart QQQQ (37 manufacturers and 4 testing laboratories).
    Frequency of responses: once per model line, annually, biennially,
variable and/or infrequent.
    Total estimated burden: 2,947 labor hours (per year) under subpart
AAA; 2,337 labor hours (per year) under subpart QQQQ. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,716,990 (per year) under subpart AAA,
includes $1,466,440 annualized capital and operation & maintenance
costs; $3,383,100 (per year) under subpart QQQQ, includes $3,191,200
annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule
and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain
advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. Summaries of
the IRFA and Panel recommendations are presented in the proposed rule
at 79 FR 6329.
    As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the
proposed rule. The complete FRFA is available for review in the docket
and is summarized here.
     Reason Why Action Is Being Considered. As discussed
earlier in this preamble, this final rule was developed following CAA
section 111(b)(1)(B) review of the existing residential wood heater
NSPS, and because emissions from residential wood heaters can be a
significant source of air pollution, and thus adverse health effects,
in some areas.
     Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis of Rule. As
discussed earlier in this preamble, the EPA is amending Standards of
Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters and adding one new
subpart, Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters
and Forced-Air Furnaces. This final rule achieves several objectives,
including applying updated emission limits that reflect BSER; improving
coverage of the broad suite of residential wood heaters; improving the
test methods; and streamlining the certification process. This final
rule does not include any requirements on heaters solely fired by coal,
gas or oil. This final rule does not establish new emissions limits for
existing heaters. This rule was developed under the authority of CAA
section 111.
     Response to Any Comments to the Proposed Rule Filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The SBA's Chief Counsel for
Advocacy did not file any comments to the proposed rule.
     Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, small entities that the EPA
anticipates being affected by this rule will include almost all
manufacturers of residential wood heaters. We estimate that roughly
250-300 U.S. companies manufacture residential wood heaters.
Approximately 90 percent of these manufacturers meet the SBA small-
entity definition of having fewer than 500 employees.
     Description of reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements
are described in the section immediately above (B. Paperwork Reduction
Act). As discussed there, the information collection requirements
(ICR), including reporting and recordkeeping, in this rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. For subpart AAA, we estimated the potential annual
burden averaged over the first 3 years of the ICR to be a total of
2,947 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $250,551 per year
and an average annual labor burden per response of 12 hours. For
subpart QQQQ, we estimated 2,337 labor hours per year at a total labor
cost of $191,904 per year and an average annual labor burden per
response of 12 hours.
     Description of other compliance requirements. As described
earlier in this preamble, this rule will apply updated emission limits
that reflect the current best systems of emission reduction (BSER) and
improve the coverage of the expanded variety of types of residential
wood heaters. We estimate the NSPS's total annualized average
nationwide costs will be $45.7 million (2013$) over the 2015 through
2020 period. The economic impacts for industries affected by this rule
over this same period range from 1.1 percent for manufacture of pellet
stove models to as much as 17.1 percent compliance cost-to-sales
estimate for manufacture of hydronic heater models. These impacts do
not presume any pass-through of impacts to consumers. With pass-through
to consumers, these impact estimates to manufacturers will decline
proportionate to the degree of pass-through. We estimate that small
entities will have annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of their
sales in all affected industries, and NAICS 442299 with receipts less
than $10 million. Those establishments in NAICS 332510, 333414 and
423720 with cost-to-receipt ratios higher than 1 percent account for 90
percent of small entities affected in these industries. Establishments
in NAICS 442299 with cost-to-receipt ratios higher than 1 percent
account for

99 percent of small entities affected in these industries.
     Relevant federal rules that may overlap or conflict with
this rule. There are no other relevant federal rules.
     Significant alternatives. The significant alternatives to
this rule, especially those that might minimize potential impacts on
small entities, are presented in the remainder of this section.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the EPA also
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (Panel) to obtain
advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities
that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. The
following paragraphs describe the process, the type of small entity
representatives, the outreach efforts and the Panel members.
    Well before beginning the formal SBREFA process, the EPA actively
engaged in outreach with HPBA, MHA and PFI and many of their member
companies to discuss the rule under development and to provide these
contacts with an early opportunity to ask questions and discuss their
concerns.\42\ The EPA provided each small business with general
information on the SBREFA process and background information on the
NSPS rulemaking process and current schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Also, as noted in the proposal preamble in the discussion
of development of the proposed hydronic heater emission limits, the
EPA worked with the hydronic heater industry in 2006 to develop a
voluntary partnership program to encourage manufacture of cleaner
models, www.epa.gov/burnwise/participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on consultations with the SBA, and resulting from solicited
self-nominations, we prepared a list of 30 potential Small Entity
Representatives (SERs), from residential wood heating appliance
manufacturers (wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves, hydronic heaters,
forced-air furnaces and masonry heaters), other wood-burning appliance
manufacturers (fireplaces, cook stoves), equipment suppliers, chimney
sweeps, test laboratories, masons and trade associations. Once the
official pre-Panel process began and potential SERs were identified,
the EPA held an outreach meeting with the potential SERs and invited
representatives from the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (OA/SBA) and the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OIRA/OMB) on June
29, 2010, to solicit their feedback on the upcoming proposed
rulemaking. Representatives from 26 of the 30 companies and
organizations that we selected as potential SERs for this SBREFA
process participated in the meeting (in person and by phone). At that
meeting, the EPA solicited written comments from the potential SERs,
which were later summarized and shared with the Panel as part of the
convening document.
    The SBAR Panel convened on August 4, 2010. The Panel consisted of
representatives of the EPA, OA/SBA and OIRA/OMB. The Panel held a
formal outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs on August 25,
2010. To help the SERs prepare for this meeting, on August 11, 2010,
the Panel sent a list of questions, preliminary cost information and
other materials to each of the SERs via email. Additional materials
were emailed to the SERs on August 19, 2010. The Panel provided the
opportunity for questions and comment during the meeting on various
aspects of the proposal being developed, including the expanded scope
of the rule, changes to the current requirements under consideration,
preliminary cost information and follow up from the June 29, 2010,
meeting on the SERs' ideas for regulatory flexibility. During the
August 25 meeting, SERs voiced general support for the planned proposed
rule and shared specific concerns with the Panel members. As a result
of this meeting, the EPA received many useful verbal comments, and the
EPA received many helpful written comments by September 10, 2010.
    Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
elements of the Interim Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. A copy of the
Panel final full report is included in the docket for this rule. We
have attempted to follow the Panel's recommendations to the degree we
can while also ensuring that the options are practicable, enforceable,
environmentally sound and consistent with the CAA. For those
recommendations not adopted by the EPA, we included an explanation at
proposal for why we rejected them.
    Further information about the panel is provided in the FRFA and the
SBREFA Panel final report that are included in the docket for this
rule.
    In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide
to help small entities comply with this rule. Small entities can obtain
of a copy of this guide at http://www.epa.gov/rfa/compliance-guides.html or http://www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters. We expect
the Small Entity Compliance Guide to be available by April 2015.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandates of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments. The
nationwide annualized average compliance cost of this rule for directly
affected appliances is $45.7 million/yr in the 2015-2020 timeframe
(2013$). Therefore, this final rule is not be subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule does not
apply to such governments and will impose no obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    The rule will not impose any requirements on state and local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final
rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this final action, the EPA did consult with representatives of state
and local governments in developing this action. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote
communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA
solicited comment on the proposed rule from state and local officials.
We have responded to their significant comments in this preamble and in
the RTC document.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule will not impose any requirements on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the
development of this action. A summary of that consultation is provided
here. During

the development of the proposed rulemaking, the EPA conducted outreach
with numerous tribal representatives to provide opportunities for input
prior to development of the proposed rule. We provided information at
the July 2010, National Tribal Forum/National Tribal Air Association
(NTAA) meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the November 2010, EPA
Region 10 Tribal Leaders Summit in Juneau, Alaska. We also presented
information on this proposed rulemaking in the April 2010, issue of
Tribal Air News and during the EPA/NTAA tribal workgroup conference
calls (April 2010, July 2010, August 2010, and May 2013). Specifically,
we received input from the EPA/NTAA tribal workgroup members on
culturally relevant exclusions from the proposed standards. We agreed
with their input, clarified that we do not intend to regulate
ceremonial fires, and added a definition to the rule to exclude
traditional Native American bake ovens.
    On February 18, 2011, the EPA mailed letters to about 600 elected
tribal leaders in the U.S. offering an opportunity for consultation on
this proposal. We received requests from six tribes. These tribes
agreed to discuss this proposal with us in a conference call held on
March 22, 2011. The tribes were very supportive of this proposal and
provided some helpful clarifications of definitions (e.g., Native
American bake ovens) that we have incorporated in this proposal. We
continued to provide updates on the rule on the EPA/NTAA conference
calls and to offer opportunities to tribal leaders for consultation. On
January 30, 2014, and September 25, 2014, we presented updates for
tribes at the monthly EPA/NTAA conference calls.
    The air quality and public health benefits to be achieved by this
rule will benefit tribes. The emissions occur in neighborhoods and
affect people in their homes. To the extent that populations are
particularly sensitive to asthma, this rule will help.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the RIA as
well as the report ``Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood
Combustion Emissions for Different Socio-Economic Groups'' \43\ which
shows that on a nationwide basis, cancer risks due to residential wood
smoke emissions among disadvantaged population groups generally are
lower than the risks for the general population due to residential wood
smoke emissions. One of the demographic variables examined for this
report was that of people 18 years and younger. The full report is
available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ ``Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion
Emissions for Different Socio-Economic Groups, Revised Draft
Report.'' Prepared for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Prepared by EC/R
Inc., EPA Contract No. EP-D-05-085, Work Assignment No. 4-3. April
22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule is expected to reduce environmental impacts for
everyone, including children. This action promulgates emissions limits
at the levels based on BSER, as required by the CAA. Based on our
analysis, we believe this rule will not have a disproportionate impact
on children, and, in fact, will result in improvements to children's
health. These emissions happen in neighborhoods and affect people in
their homes. To the extent that children are particularly sensitive to
asthma, this rule will help.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any significant adverse energy effects. In
general, we expect the NSPS to improve technology, including energy
efficiency. Reducing emissions and increasing efficiency might increase
the use of wood fuel, which would relieve pressure on traditional coal
or petroleum based energy sources. However, as described in section
VI.E, it is difficult to determine the precise energy impacts that
might result from this rule. This is because wood-fueled appliances
compete with other biomass forms as well as more traditional oil,
electricity and natural gas. Robust data are not available to determine
the potential conversion to other types of fuels and their associated
appliances if the consumer costs of wood-fueled appliances increase and
at what level that increase would drive consumer choice.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
use several VCS ASTM International test methods, in full or in part,
including the following:
     E2515-11 ``Standard Test Method for Determination of
Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution Tunnel.'' This
test method is applicable for the determination of particulate matter
emissions from solid-fuel-burning appliances including woodstoves,
pellet-burning appliances, factory-built fireplaces, masonry
fireplaces, masonry heaters, indoor furnaces, and indoor and outdoor
hydronic heaters within a laboratory environment;
     E2779-10 ``Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions from Pellet Heaters.'' This test method
covers the fueling and operating protocol for determining particulate
matter emissions from fires in pellet or other granular or particulate
biomass burning room heaters and fireplace inserts;
     E2780-10 ``Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters.'' This test method
covers the fueling and operating protocol for determining particulate
matter emissions from wood fires in wood-burning room heaters and
fireplace inserts as well as determining heat output and efficiency;
and
     E2618-13 ``Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Particulate Matter Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Outdoor Solid
Fuel-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances.'' This test method applies to
wood-fired or automatically fed biomass burning hydronic heating
appliances. These appliances transfer heat to the indoor environment
through circulation of a liquid heat exchange media such as water or a
water-antifreeze mixture.
    In addition, we determined that the VCS ASTM E871-82 (Reapproved
2013), ``Standard Test Method for Moisture Analysis of Particulate Wood
Fuels'' is acceptable as an alternative to that portion of the EPA
Methods 5H and 28. ASTM E871-82 (Reapproved 2013) covers the
determination of total weight basis moisture in the analysis sample of
particulate wood fuel. These VCS test methods are available for
purchase from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box
CB700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
http://www.astm.org. A hard copy of this material is also available for
viewing in

the docket for this rule (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734), the EPA
Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The EPA will also use, in part, the following test VCS CSA method
available at the CSA Web site http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/fuel-burning-equipment/b4151-10/invt/27013322010/:CSA_B415.1-10
``Performance Testing of Solid-fuel-burning Heating Appliances.'' This
standard specifies requirements for performance testing of solid-fuel-
burning heating appliances, including maximum emission rates. This
standard also specifies a method for determining heat outputs,
appliance efficiencies, emission levels and composition, and flue gas
flow rates. A hard copy of this material is also available for viewing
in the docket for this rule (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734) at the
EPA Docket Center located at the address and telephone numbers above.
    Finally, we will use, in part, the following VCS test method,
European National (EN) standard prepared by the European Union: EN 303-
5 ``Heating boilers for solid fuels, hand and automatically stoked
nominal heat output of up to 1025 MBtu--Terminology, requirements,
testing, and marketing.'' This EN standard applies to heating boilers
including safety devices up to a nominal heat output of 500 kilowatts,
which are designed for the burning of solid fuels only and are operated
according to the instructions of the boiler manufacturer. This EN
standard material is available for purchase at http://www.en-standard.eu/csn-en-303-5-heating-boilers-part-5-heating-boilers-for-solid-fuels-manually-and-automatically-stoked-nominal-heat-output-of-up-to-500-kw-terminology-requirements-testing-and-marking/?gclid=CMv3wrbFrsACFU4F7Aod3yoAcw. A hard copy of this material is also
available for viewing in the docket for this rule (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0734), at the EPA Docket Center located at the address and
telephone numbers above. We believe that all the methods listed above
have some positive aspects that can help stakeholders determine
emissions under various operation conditions. For more details, please
refer to section 6 of the RTC document.
    The search identified five other VCS that were potentially
applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. However,
the EPA determined that the five candidate VCS would not be applicable
and practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation
data and other important technical and policy considerations. The five
VCS and other information and conclusion, including the search and
review results, are in the docket for this rule. The EPA solicited
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking. Specifically, we
invited the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why such standards, in whole or in
part, should or should not be used in this regulation. The EPA's
responses to the significant comments are presented in section V of
this preamble and in section 6 of the RTC document.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. The results of
this evaluation are contained in the report ``Analysis of Exposure to
Residential Wood Combustion Emissions for Different Socio-Economic
Groups'' which shows that on a nationwide basis, cancer risks due to
residential wood smoke emissions among disadvantaged population groups
generally are lower than the risks for the general population due to
residential wood smoke emissions.\44\ Rather, the rule increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low-
income or indigenous population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ ``Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion
Emissions for Different Socio-Economic Groups, Revised Draft
Report.'' Prepared for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Prepared by EC/R
Inc., EPA Contract No. EP-D-05-085, Work Assignment No. 4-3. April
22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule establishes national standards that will reduce primarily
PM emissions from new residential wood heaters and, thus, is expected
to decrease the amount of these emissions to which all affected
populations are exposed. These emissions happen in many neighborhoods
nationwide, including in minority and low-income neighborhoods and
affect people in their homes. To the extent that minority populations
and low-income populations are more vulnerable, this rule will help.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hazardous substances,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 3, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and the
introductory text to paragraph (g); and by adding paragraphs (g)(202)
through (206), (s) and (t) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the EPA must publish notice of change in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, and is available
from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202)
741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/

code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
* * * * *
    (g) The following material is available for purchase from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box CB700, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959,<PHONE_NUMBER>, http://www.astm.org.
* * * * *
    (202) ASTM E871-82 (Reapproved 2013), Standard Test Method for
Moisture Analysis of Particulate Wood Fuels, (Approved August 15,
2013), IBR approved for Appendix A-8: Method 28R.
    (203) ASTM E2515-11, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution Tunnel, (Approved
November 1, 2011), IBR approved for Sec.  60.534 and Sec.  60.5476.
    (204) ASTM E2779-10, Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions from Pellet Heaters, (Approved October 1,
2010), IBR approved for Sec.  60.534.
    (205) ASTM E2618-13 Standard Test Method for Measurement of
Particulate Matter Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Outdoor Solid
Fuel-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances, (Approved September 1, 2013),
IBR approved for Sec.  60.5476.
    (206) ASTM E2780-10, Standard Test Method for Determining
Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters, (Approved October 1,
2010), IBR approved for Appendix A: Method 28R.
* * * * *
    (s) This material is available for purchase from the Canadian
Standards Association (CSA), 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada L4W 5N6, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (1) CSA B415.1-10, Performance Testing of Solid-fuel-burning
Heating Appliances, (March 2010), IBR approved for Sec.  60.534 and
Sec.  60.5476. (The standard is also available at http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/fuel-burning-equipment/b4151-10/invt/27013322010)
    (2) [Reserved]
    (t) This European National (EN) standards material is available for
purchase at European Committee for Standardization, Management Centre,
Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium, Telephone: + 32 2 550 08
11.
    (1) DIN EN 303-5:2012E (EN 303-5), Heating boilers--Part 5: Heating
boilers for solid fuels, manually and automatically stoked, nominal
heat output of up to 500 kW--Terminology, requirements, testing and
marking, (October 2012), IBR approved for Sec.  60.5476. (The standard
is also available at http://www.en-standard.eu/csn-en-303-5-heating-boilers-part-5-heating-boilers-for-solid-fuels-manually-and-automatically-stoked-nominal-heat-output-of-up-to-500-kw-terminology-requirements-testing-and-marking/?gclid=CJXI2P_97MMCFdccgQodan8ATA)
    (2) [Reserved]

0
3. Subpart AAA is revised to read as follows:
Subpart AAA--Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters
Sec.
60.530 Am I subject to this subpart?
60.531 What definitions must I know?
60.532 What standards and associated requirements must I meet and by
when?
60.533 What compliance and certification requirements must I meet
and by when?
60.534 What test methods and procedures must I use to determine
compliance with the standards and requirements for certification?
60.535 What procedures must I use for EPA approval of a test
laboratory or EPA approval of a third-party certifier?
60.536 What requirements must I meet for permanent labels, temporary
labels (hangtags), and owner's manuals?
60.537 What records must I keep and what reports must I submit?
60.538 What activities are prohibited under this subpart?
60.539 What hearing and appeal procedures apply to me?
60.539a Who implements and enforces this subpart?
60.539b What parts of the General Provisions do not apply to me?

Subpart AAA--Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood
Heaters

Sec.  60.530  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you manufacture, sell, offer
for sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to distribute, introduce
or deliver for introduction into commerce in the United States, or
install or operate an affected wood heater specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c)
of this section.
    (1) Each adjustable burn rate wood heater, single burn rate wood
heater and pellet stove manufactured on or after July 1, 1988, with a
current EPA certificate of compliance issued prior to May 15, 2015
according to the certification procedures in effect in this subpart at
the time of certification is an affected wood heater.
    (2) All other residential wood heaters as defined in Sec.  60.531
manufactured or sold on or after May 15, 2015 are affected wood
heaters, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Each affected wood heater must comply with the provisions of
this subpart unless exempted under paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of
this section. These exemptions are determined by rule applicability and
do not require EPA notification or public notice.
    (1) Affected wood heaters manufactured in the United States for
export are exempt from the applicable emission limits of Sec.  60.532
and the requirements of Sec.  60.533.
    (2) Affected wood heaters used for research and development
purposes that are never offered for sale or sold and that are not used
for the purpose of providing heat are exempt from the applicable
emission limits of Sec.  60.532 and the requirements of Sec.  60.533.
No more than 50 wood heaters manufactured per model line can be
exempted for this purpose.
    (3) Appliances that do not burn wood or wood pellets (such as coal-
only heaters that meet the definition in Sec.  60.531 or corn-only
pellet stoves) are exempt from the applicable emission limits of Sec.
60.532 and the requirements of Sec.  60.533 provided that all
advertising and warranties exclude wood burning.
    (4) Cook stoves as defined in Sec.  60.531 are exempt from the
applicable emission limits of Sec.  60.532 and the requirements of
Sec.  60.533.
    (5) Camp stoves as defined in Sec.  60.531 are exempt from the
applicable emission limits of Sec.  60.532 and the requirements of
Sec.  60.533.
    (6) Modification or reconstruction, as defined in Sec.  60.14 and
Sec.  60.15 of subpart A of this part does not, by itself, make a wood
heater an affected facility under this subpart.
    (c) The following are not affected wood heaters and are not subject
to this subpart:
    (1) Residential hydronic heaters and residential forced-air
furnaces subject to subpart QQQQ of this part.
    (2) Residential masonry heaters that meet the definition in Sec.
60.531.
    (3) Appliances that are not residential heating devices (for
example, manufactured or site-built masonry fireplaces).
    (4) Traditional Native American bake ovens that meet the definition
in Sec.  60.531.

Sec.  60.531  What definitions must I know?

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the
meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.
    Adjustable burn rate wood heater means a wood heater that is
equipped with or installed with a damper or other mechanism to allow
the operator to vary

burn rate conditions, regardless of whether it is internal or external
to the appliance. This definition does not distinguish between heaters
that are free standing, built-in or fireplace inserts.
    Approved test laboratory means a test laboratory that is approved
for wood heater certification testing under Sec.  60.535 or is an
independent third-party test laboratory that is accredited under ISO-
IEC Standard 17025 to perform testing using the test methods specified
in Sec.  60.534 by an accreditation body that is a full member
signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
Mutual Recognition Arrangement and approved by the EPA for conducting
testing under this subpart.
    Camp stove (sometimes also called cylinder stove or wall tent
stove) means a portable stove equipped with a pipe or chimney exhaust
capable of burning wood or coal intended for use in a tent or other
temporary structure used for hunting, camping, fishing or other outdoor
recreation. The primary purpose of the stove is to provide space
heating, although cooking and heating water may be additional
functions.
    Catalytic combustor means a device coated with a noble metal used
in a wood heater to lower the temperature required for combustion.
    Chip wood fuel means wood chipped into small pieces that are
uniform in size, shape, moisture, density and energy content.
    Coal-only heater means an enclosed, coal-burning appliance capable
of space heating or space heating and domestic water heating, which is
marketed and warranted solely as a coal-only heater and has all of the
following characteristics:
    (1) An opening for emptying ash that is located near the bottom or
the side of the appliance;
    (2) A system that admits air primarily up and through the fuel bed;
    (3) A grate or other similar device for shaking or disturbing the
fuel bed or a power-driven or mechanical stoker;
    (4) Installation instructions, owner's manual and marketing
information that state that the use of wood in the stove, except for
coal ignition purposes, is prohibited by law; and
    (5) A safety listing as a coal-only heater, except for coal
ignition purposes, under accepted American or Canadian safety codes, as
documented by a permanent label from a nationally recognized
certification body.
    Commercial owner means any person who owns or controls a wood
heater in the course of the business of the manufacture, importation,
distribution (including shipping and storage), or sale of the wood
heater.
    Cook stove means a wood-fired appliance that is designed, marketed
and warranted primarily for cooking food and that has the following
characteristics:
    (1) An oven, with volume of 0.028 cubic meters (1 cubic foot) or
greater, and an oven rack;
    (2) A device for measuring oven temperatures;
    (3) A flame path that is routed around the oven;
    (4) An ash pan;
    (5) An ash clean-out door below the oven;
    (6) The absence of a fan or heat channels to dissipate heat from
the appliance;
    (7) A cooking surface with an area measured in square inches or
square feet that is at least 1.5 times greater than the volume of
firebox measured in cubic inches or cubic feet. Example: A cook stove
with a firebox of 2 cubic feet must have a cooking surface of at least
3 square feet;
    (8) A portion of at least four sides of the oven (which may include
the bottom and/or top) is exposed to the flame path during the heating
cycle of the oven. A flue gas bypass may exist for temperature control.
    Fireplace means a wood-burning appliance intended to be used
primarily for aesthetic enjoyment and not as a space heater. An
appliance is a fireplace if it is in a model line that satisfies the
requirements in paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) of this definition.
    (1) The model line includes a safety listing under recognized
American or Canadian safety standards, as documented by a permanent
label from a nationally recognized certification body affixed on each
unit sold, and that said safety listing only allows operation of the
fireplace with doors fully open. Operation with any required safety
screen satisfies this requirement.
    (2) The model line has a safety listing that allows operation with
doors closed, has no user-operated controls other than flue or outside
air dampers that can only be adjusted to either a fully closed or fully
opened position, and the requirements in either paragraph (2)(i) or
(2)(ii) of this definition are satisfied.
    (i) Appliances are sold with tempered glass panel doors only
(either as standard or optional equipment), or
    (ii) The fire viewing area is equal to or greater than 500 square
inches.
    (3)(i) A model line that is clearly positioned in the marketplace
as intended to be used primarily for aesthetic enjoyment and not as a
room heater, as demonstrated by product literature (including owner's
manuals), advertising targeted at the trade or public (including web-
based promotional materials) or training materials is presumptively a
fireplace model line.
    (ii) The presumption in paragraph (3)(i) of this definition can be
rebutted by test data from an EPA-approved test laboratory reviewed by
an EPA-approved third-party certifier that were generated when
operating the appliance with the door(s) closed, and that demonstrate
an average stack gas carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration over
the duration of the test run equal to or less than 5.00 percent and a
ratio of the average stack gas CO2 to the average stack gas
carbon monoxide (CO) equal to or greater than 15:1. The stack gas
average CO2 and CO concentrations for the test run shall be
determined in accordance with the requirements in CSA B415.1-10 (IBR,
see Sec.  60.17), clause 6.3, using a sampling interval no greater than
1 minute. The average stack gas CO2 and CO concentrations
for purposes of this determination shall be the average of the stack
gas concentrations from all sampling intervals over the full test run.
    Manufactured means completed and ready for shipment (whether or not
assembled or packaged) for purposes of determining the date of
manufacture.
    Manufacturer means any entity that constructs or imports into the
United States a wood heater.
    Model line means all wood heaters offered for sale by a single
manufacturer that are similar in all material respects that would
affect emissions as defined in this section.
    Particulate matter (PM) means total particulate matter including
coarse particulate (PM10) and fine particulate
(PM2.5).
    Pellet fuel means refined and densified fuel shaped into small
pellets or briquettes that are uniform in size, shape, moisture,
density and energy content.
    Pellet stove (sometimes called pellet heater or pellet space
heater) means an enclosed, pellet or chip fuel-burning device capable
of and intended for residential space heating or space heating and
domestic water heating. Pellet stoves include a fuel storage hopper or
bin and a fuel feed system. Pellet stoves include, but are not limited
to:
    (1) Free-standing pellet stoves--pellet stoves that are installed
on legs or on a pedestal or other supporting base. These stoves
generally are safety listed under ASTM E1509, UL-1482, ULC S627 or ULC-
ORD C1482.

    (2) Pellet stove fireplace inserts--pellet stoves intended to be
installed in masonry fireplace cavities or in other enclosures. These
stoves generally are safety listed under ASTM E1509, UL-1482, ULC-S628
or ULC-ORD C1482.
    (3) Built-in pellet stoves--pellet stoves intended to be recessed
into the wall. These stoves generally are safety listed under ASTM
E1509, UL-127, ULC-S610 or ULC-ORD C1482.
    Representative affected wood heater means an individual wood heater
that is similar in all material respects that would affect emissions to
other wood heaters within the model line it represents.
    Residential masonry heater means a factory-built or site-built
wood-burning device in which the heat from intermittent fires burned
rapidly in the firebox is stored in the refractory mass for slow
release to building spaces. Masonry heaters are site-built (using local
materials or a combination of local materials and manufactured
components) or site-assembled (using factory-built components), solid
fuel-burning heating appliances constructed mainly of refractory
materials (e.g., masonry materials or soapstone. They typically have an
interior construction consisting of a firebox and heat exchange
channels built from refractory components, through which flue gases are
routed. ASTM E-1602 ``Standard Guide for Construction of Solid Fuel
Burning Masonry Heaters'' provides design and construction information
for the range of masonry heaters most commonly built in the United
States. The site-assembled models are generally listed to UL-1482.
    Sale means the transfer of ownership or control, except that a
transfer of control of an affected wood heater for research and
development purposes within the scope of Sec.  60.530(b)(2) is not a
sale.
    Similar in all material respects that would affect emissions means
that the construction materials, exhaust and inlet air systems and
other design features are within the allowed tolerances for components
identified in Sec.  60.533(k)(2), (3) and (4).
    Single burn rate wood heater means a wood heater that is not
equipped with or installed with a burn control device to allow the
operator to vary burn rate conditions. Burn rate control devices
include stack dampers that control the outflow of flue gases from the
heater to the chimney, whether built into the appliance, sold with it,
or recommended for use with the heater by the manufacturer, retailer or
installer; and air control slides, gates or any other type of
mechanisms that control combustion air flow into the heater.
    Sold at retail means the sale by a commercial owner of a wood
heater to the ultimate purchaser/user or noncommercial purchaser.
    Third-party certifier (sometimes called third-party certifying body
or product certifying body) means an independent third party that is
accredited under ISO-IEC Standards 17025 and 17065 to perform
certifications, inspections and audits by an accreditation body that is
a full member signatory to the International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation Mutual Recognition Arrangement and approved by the EPA for
conducting certifications, inspections and audits under this subpart.
    Traditional Native American bake oven means a wood or other solid
fuel burning appliance that is designed primarily for use by Native
Americans for food preparation, cooking, warming or for instructional,
recreational, cultural or ceremonial purposes.
    Unseasoned wood means wood with an average moisture content of 20
percent or more.
    Valid certification test means a test that meets the following
criteria:
    (1) The Administrator was notified about the test in accordance
with Sec.  60.534(g);
    (2) The test was conducted by an approved test laboratory as
defined in this section;
    (3) The test was conducted on a wood heater similar in all material
respects that would affect emissions to other wood heaters of the model
line that is to be certified; and
    (4) The test was conducted in accordance with the test methods and
procedures specified in Sec.  60.534.
    Wood heater means an enclosed, wood burning-appliance capable of
and intended for residential space heating or space heating and
domestic water heating. These devices include, but are not limited to,
adjustable burn rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters and
pellet stoves. Wood heaters may or may not include air ducts to deliver
some portion of the heat produced to areas other than the space where
the wood heater is located. Wood heaters include, but are not limited
to:
    (1) Free-standing wood heaters--Wood heaters that are installed on
legs, on a pedestal or suspended from the ceiling. These products
generally are safety listed under UL-1482, UL-737 or ULC-S627.
    (2) Fireplace insert wood heaters--Wood heaters intended to be
installed in masonry fireplace cavities or in other enclosures. These
appliances generally are safety listed under UL-1482, UL-737 or ULC-
S628.
    (3) Built-in wood heaters--Wood heaters that are intended to be
recessed into the wall. These appliances generally are safety listed
under UL-1482, UL-737, UL-127 or ULC-S610.

Sec.  60.532  What standards and associated requirements must I meet
and by when?

    (a) 2015 particulate matter emission standards. Unless exempted
under Sec.  60.530(b), each affected wood heater manufactured, imported
into the United States, and/or sold at retail on or after May 15, 2015
must be certified to not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that
contain particulate matter in excess of a weighted average of 4.5 g/hr
(0.010 lb/hr), except that a wood heater manufactured before May 15,
2015 may be imported into the United States and/or sold at retail on or
before December 31, 2015. Compliance for all heaters must be determined
by the test methods and procedures in Sec.  60.534.
    (b) 2020 particulate matter emission standards. Unless exempted
under Sec.  60.530(b) or electing to use the cord wood alternative
means of compliance option in paragraph (c) of the section, each
affected wood heater manufactured or sold at retail for use in the
United States on or after May 15, 2020 must not discharge into the
atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in excess of a
weighted average of 2.0 g/hr (0.0044 lb/hr). Compliance for all heaters
must be determined by the test methods and procedures in Sec.  60.534.
    (c) 2020 cord wood alternative compliance option. Each affected
wood heater manufactured or sold at retail for use in the United States
on or after May 15, 2020 must not discharge into the atmosphere any
gases that contain particulate matter in excess of a weighted average
of 2.5 g/hr (0.0055 lb/hr). Compliance must be determined by a cord
wood test method approved by the Administrator and the procedures in
Sec.  60.534.
    (d) Chip wood fuel requirements. Operators of wood heaters that are
certified to burn chip wood fuels must only burn chip wood fuels that
have been specified in the owner's manual. The chip wood fuel must meet
the following minimum requirements:
    (1) Moisture content: less than 35 percent;
    (2) Inorganic fines: less than or equal to 1 percent;
    (3) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300 parts per million by
weight;
    (4) Ash content: no more than 2 percent;
    (5) No demolition or construction waste; and

    (6) Trace metals: less than 100 mg/kg.
    (e) Pellet fuel requirements. Operators of wood heaters that are
certified to burn pellet fuels must only burn pellets that have been
specified in the owner's manual and graded under a licensing agreement
with a third-party organization approved by the EPA. The Pellet Fuels
Institute, ENplus and CANplus are initially deemed to be approved
third-party organizations for this purpose, and additional
organizations may apply to the Administrator for approval. The pellet
fuel must meet the following minimum requirements as assured through a
quality assurance program licensed by a third-party organization
approved by the EPA:
    (1) Density: consistent hardness and energy content with a minimum
density of 38 pounds/cubic foot;
    (2) Dimensions: maximum length of 1.5 inches and diameter between
0.230 and 0.285 inches;
    (3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal to 1 percent;
    (4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300 parts per million by
weight;
    (5) Ash content: no more than 2 percent;
    (6) Contains no demolition or construction waste;
    (7) Trace metals: less than 100 mg/kg; and
    (8) None of the prohibited fuels in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (f) Prohibited fuel types. No person is permitted to burn any of
the following materials in an affected wood heater:
    (1) Residential or commercial garbage;
    (2) Lawn clippings or yard waste;
    (3) Materials containing rubber, including tires;
    (4) Materials containing plastic;
    (5) Waste petroleum products, paints or paint thinners, or asphalt
products;
    (6) Materials containing asbestos;
    (7) Construction or demolition debris;
    (8) Paper products, cardboard, plywood, or particleboard. The
prohibition against burning these materials does not prohibit the use
of fire starters made from paper, cardboard, sawdust, wax and similar
substances for the purpose of starting a fire in an affected wood
heater;
    (9) Railroad ties, pressure-treated wood or pallets;
    (10) Manure or animal remains;
    (11) Salt water driftwood or other previously salt water saturated
materials;
    (12) Unseasoned wood;
    (13) Any materials that are not included in the warranty and
owner's manual for the subject wood heater; or
    (14) Any materials that were not included in the certification
tests for the subject wood heater.
    (g) Operation of affected wood heaters. The user of an affected
residential wood heater must operate the heater in a manner consistent
with the owner's manual. The owner's manual must clearly specify that
operation in a manner inconsistent with the owner's manual would void
the warranty.
    (h) Temperature sensor requirement. An affected wood heater
equipped with a catalytic combustor must be equipped with a temperature
sensor that can monitor combustor gas stream temperatures within or
immediately downstream [within 2.54 centimeters (1 inch)] of the
catalytic combustor surface.

Sec.  60.533  What compliance and certification requirements must I
meet and by when?

    (a) Certification requirement. Each affected wood heater must be
certified to be in compliance with the applicable emission standards
and other requirements of this subpart. For each model line
manufactured or sold by a single entity (e.g., company or
manufacturer), compliance with applicable emission standards of Sec.
60.532 must be determined based on testing of representative affected
wood heaters within the model line. If one entity licenses a model line
to another entity, each entity's model line must be certified. If an
entity intends to change the name of the entity or the name of the
model, the manufacturer must apply for a new certification 60 days
before the intended name change.
    (1) Except for model lines meeting the requirements of paragraph