EPA is explicitly prohibited from requiring "any new or modified source to install and operate any particular technological system of continuous emission reduction to comply with any new source standard of performance." By requiring that operators of wood heaters "may only burn pellets that have been specified in the owner's manual" and by specifying that pellet fuel "must meet . . . minimum requirements [as specified in 60.532(e)-(f) and 60.5474(e)-(f)]" EPA has impermissibly specified such a prohibited technological system.
      EPA's NSPS leaves owners and operators no choice in how to comply with its standard. It is illegal to put any pellet fuel into a new stove that does not meet explicit standards, presumably even if such fuel would obtain better emission performance. In EPA's view, case law also "makes it clear that the EPA is to consider the effect of its selection of BSER on technological innovation or development, but that EPA also has the authority to weigh this as against [the other BSER factors]."
      Thus, EPA's 2015 regulation and Options 1 and 3 fail on two counts. The standards leave the operator of a pellet wood stove no choice with respect to what technological system must be utilized, i.e., a certified stove using pellet fuel meeting EPA's explicit and exacting standards. And EPA failed to address the real-world consequences of its decision to dictate product development decisions for the pellet fuel industry. Going forward, pellet fuel manufacturers cannot develop legal standards for pellet fuel stoves unless EPA firsts approves of those standards and thereafter engages in a lengthy process to revise federal regulatory requirements. As PFI has repeatedly pointed out to the Agency, regulations that can only be changed by more regulations remove any incentive for the industry to invest in the development of new/better standards.
      Likewise, pellet stove manufacturers cannot develop new stoves or heaters that use a different size or type of pellet. The use of such stoves or heaters without using EPA's prescribed pellet is prohibited. This certainly acts as a major disincentive to new technology. And it is not a sufficient response to claim that pellet stove manufacturers might be able to gain EPA's approval to change pellet fuel standards at some point in the future. The restraint and the violation of CAA §111(b)(5) would exist at all times prior to a final rule, which could be many years in the future. ...
      EPA's Inflexible 2015 Standards and Proposed Revisions to the 2015 Standards Exceed EPA Authority and are Inconsistent with other NSPS
      EPA bluntly states that it promulgated "its own list of standard minimum pellet requirements so that these requirements could not change without EPA action." In other words, it codified industry standards developed by PFI and other industry organizations so that EPA and EPA alone could control when and how pellet fuel standards are established.
      While EPA may be commended for its transparency in revealing its regulatory motive, by locking in specific size, composition and other requirements for pellet fuel, EPA has violated the technology neutral requirement of CAA §111(b)(5). As noted above, this section specifies that if EPA does not set a work practice standard under CAA §111(h) (which EPA explicitly claims it did not in the 2015 final rule) it cannot require "any particular technological system of continuous emission reduction."
      A regulatory requirement that requires specific fuel types to be used  -  which cannot be changed without EPA's assent and a formal notice and comment regulatory process  -  is just such a particular system of control. In either the 2015 final rule or Option 1 of Option 3 of the proposed rule, there are no waivers or alternative standards to accommodate a different technological system of control. Precisely-defined pellet fuel must be used by all operators of all new pellet stoves subject to the risk that per day/per violation fines could be assessed if any other system of emission control was used  -  even if such system met the emission standards that the stove was certified to.
      EPA cites no other NSPS new source standard which contains similar requirements. EPA also does not offer prior legal interpretations of CAA §111 or cite past practices to justify is approach to determining BSER with respect to Options 1 or 3 of the proposed rule.
      Many other CAA §111 source categories rely on industry standards or those set by testing organizations such as ASTM. In this rulemaking, EPA references industry standards but then determines that they are insufficient, imposing instead a combination of different standards and prohibitions that apply only to pellet fuel. This highly restrictive "one-size-fits-all" approach to pellet fuel standards is in stark contrast to other NSPS which allow for source and fuel flexibility. For example:
       Subpart D for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators affects both fossil-fuel and fossil-fuel and wood-residue steam generating units. With regard to fossil-fuel-fired units utilizing coal, an affected source can use any solid fuel "classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite." EPA does not specify how such coal is to be processed prior to being used in a boiler, such as specifications for pulverizing the coal even though such processing could impact emissions. And certain other sources subject to the NSPS, such as units that use natural gas, are exempt from some requirements applicable to other units. Nitrogen oxides standards also vary with respect to the type of fossil fuel used.
       Subpart Da for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units applies to units based on heat input capacity. Emission limits for nitrogen oxide are variable, based on different types of natural gas and distillate oil, residual oil or coal used in an affected unit. Emission limits are adjusted when two or more fuels are combined.
       Subpart F for Portland Cement Plants imposes particulate matter standards on the basis of pounds per ton of feed into a kiln. Regulated sources have options to determine clinker production and have protocols for missing data on such production using most recent data.
       Subpart CCCC addressing incineration units exempts certain incinerators, including air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, clean lumber and mixtures of wood waste, clean lumber and/or yard waste. Such incineration units are not subject to emission standards, but must only obtain a Title V permit. Thus, not only are such incinerators not regulated as an affected source, they are allowed to burn material that is prohibited for pellet fuel stoves, e.g., yard waste.
      It is abundantly clear from the administrative record that EPA did not consider alternatives to its 2015 standards. And only a single alternative is now offered in Option 3 of this proposed rule (a somewhat less prescriptive version of the 2015 final rule). Thus, the lack of serious consideration of alternatives and regulatory options in the wood heater rule is indicative of a seriously deficient administrative process and a result that does not conform to the statute or past practice.
      Other NSPS, such as those cited above, allow for explicit exemptions, adjust required emission rates based on fuel type(s), exempt sources within a category and explicitly allow for the use of fuels that are prohibited for pellet fuel stoves. This is not to argue that all such flexibilities are required for the NSPS affected by this proposed rule. But it does undermine EPA's assertion that precise correlation between test conditions and subsequent operation of an affected source is a necessary component of this NSPS.
      The Administrative Record for the 2015 Rule and this Proposed Rule Does Not Support Options 1 or 3
      EPA's supporting rationale for Options 1 or 3 is either dated or irrelevant to its determination that pellet fuel requirements and liability for pellet stove operators are part of BSER for affected sources. For example, EPA's Remand of the Record memorandum cites several articles that predate this rulemaking by eight years. At best, these articles provide anecdotal information concerning the desirability of good quality pellets. But they do not support a determination that cementing pellet fuel requirements into place in the C.F.R. until such time as EPA deems changes should be made -- or perhaps until such time as the Agency has sufficient manpower to investigate and make changes to pellet fuel standards -- is the BSER for pellet fuel stoves.
      To be clear, PFI does not disagree with the need for pellet fuel quality; it has been the leading organization both promoting and developing such standards. And, as EPA cites, PFI also attempted to work with the Agency as it developed its current standards. But there is fundamental and intractable difference between industry standards and government regulation. On one hand, industry standards promote best practices and retain an incentive for the private sector to innovate and improve upon current standards and testing protocols when needed, drawing on deep expertise concerning the product they are producing. On the other hand, placing specific standards into the C.F.R. effectively puts a government agency in charge of what has been, to date, the responsibility of private industry. And placing an agency in charge of private sector standards contains no guarantee that the agency will be able to acquire or maintain sufficient technical expertise in order to promulgate new standards or have any incentive to allow for innovation.
One commenter (0042 p.1 and public hearing testimony 0142 p.52) similarly asserts that  -

      EPAs proposed rule squarely seeks comment on whether the Agency has legal authority to establish pellet fuel requirements pursuant to Clean Air Act section 111. Here, the answer is no.

For example, EPA states that under Clean Air Act section 111(b)(5), the Agency cannot prescribe a specific technology that must be used to comply with a standard or performance. Yet this is exactly what EPAs pellet fuel requirements do. They are part of a prohibited system of continuous emission control. ...

      As a matter of law and a matter of regulatory policy, EPA should reject any supposed need for highly prescriptive regulatory standards for pellet fuel. This is even more so given that vibrant industry standards exist and, in fact, were in place before EPA decided to impose regulations. In brief, the errors that EPA committed in the 2015 rule must be corrected, both as a matter of law and common sense.

Likewise, during the public hearing, a commenter (public testimony 0142 pp.49-51) testified:
      Perhaps equally troubling from an industry standpoint is that EPA's detailed requirements lock current technology in stone. Manufacturers cannot vary from federal specifications or their fuel will be strictly prohibited from being used in certified pellet stoves. Presumably, if new investments were made and new pellet fuels were developed, the certified pellet stove market would be forever closed off unless EPA decided to act through a lengthy and uncertain regulatory process. This frankly destroys any industry's incentive to innovate.
Response:
We disagree with the commenter that we are prescribing a specific technology for compliance, but we appreciate the commenters' concern regarding codified pellet specifications precluding innovation. As explained in EPA's November 2016 Supplemental Response to Pellet Fuels Institute's Comments For Remand of the Record Based on Existing Docket for Residential Wood Heaters New Source Performance Standards, the EPA has the authority to impose minimum pellet requirements. As such, the Agency has decided to retain the list of prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 60.5474(f), which applies not only to pellets, but to all wood fuels burned in residential wood heating devices subject to this rule. The EPA has decided to remove the minimum requirements in subsections 1 through 7 listed under 40 CFR 60.532(e) under subpart AAA, and in 40 CFR 60.5474(e) under subpart QQQQ. We are retaining the prohibition that was stated in the eighth pellet fuel minimum requirement that pellet fuel must not contain any of the prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 40 CFR 60.5474(f). See response to comment 6.1.1.

7.1.3 Comment: EPA's differential regulation of pellet fuel versus other wood fuels in the same source category is not permitted by the CAA
One commenter (0069, pp.1, 17-18) contended that it is inconsistent, arbitrary and capricious of EPA to claim that allowing variation between testing and operation of pellet fuel heaters would unravel the rule, while EPA has not claimed the same for other heater and fuel types (cord wood, chip wood) -
      Even if EPA had authority to regulate pellet fuel under CAA §111, the 2015 standards are unreasonable and defy common sense:
      o Under the NSPS, pellet sizes are regulated down to a thousandth of an inch. If pellets vary from size standards, they cannot be used in certified stoves.
      o EPA's current regulations define 34 different requirements for pellet fuel, compared with just 7 requirements for chip wood and no specifications at all for cord wood, the largest fuel source in the NSPS category. EPA illogically applies the most onerous regulations to the cleanest fuel....
      EPA Imposes Vastly Different Regulatory Regimes for Pellet Fuel versus Wood Chip or Cord Wood Stoves
      EPA's claims that allowing any variation in pellet fuel would "unravel the basic structure of this rule, in that the operation of the heater by the homeowner would not be comparable to how the stove was operated during certification testing." As an initial matter, most NSPS require initial certification testing and actual operating conditions will invariably differ from the conditions present during certification testing. For example, the ambient temperatures at a coal-fired power plant will vary greatly over a year as well as the specific content of coal that is burned at the facility. The same is true for many other NSPS. Thus, EPA's assertion does not provide any additional legal support for its standard; if EPA's statement were valid, most all other NSPS that the Agency has promulgated over the last 40 years would be subject to similar "unraveling."
      Second, EPA's justification of pellet fuel comments is both perplexing and directly opposite its treatment of other sources regulated under the 2015 NSPS. Specifically:
       Pellet fuel appliances represent a minority of all wood stoves regulated by the NSPS. Shipments of pellet stoves in 2013 were 54,055 units as compared with 206,409 for cordwood stoves and 784,633 for gas stoves, including 322,600 gas log stoves. This means that pellet stoves represented about 5% of home heating stove shipments in 2013 and roughly a third of wood-fueled stoves.
       EPA's 2015 regulations, however, allow for certification testing for cord wood stoves using "crib wood" which no one uses in actual operation of appliances regulated under subpart AAA and hydronic heaters under subpart QQQ. As EPA explains "crib wood is a specified configuration and quality of dimensional lumber and spacers that improves the repeatability of the test method." It is entirely distinct and different from "cord wood" that is what a typical homeowner would use when operating a stove. But in the final 2015 rule, EPA allowed for continued crib wood testing based on the concern that many manufactures do not have experience with cord wood testing. Use of cord wood testing is voluntary.
       Therefore it is wholly inconsistent and arbitrary and capricious for EPA to claim  -  with respect to pellet fuel  -  that allowing even a miniscule variance between testing and actual operation of a stove would "unravel the basic structure of the rule" while accepting  -  for the majority of stoves subject to the 2015 NSPS  -  that large variances in size, density and other parameters of the fuel used in the "real world" versus the testing lab does not undermine the NSPS.
       As promulgated in 2015 and as proposed under Options 1 and 3, it would be legal for someone to gather irregular size wood of different types and quality and fuel a cord wood heater as long as it was done "consistent with the owner's manual" But it is illegal for anyone to fuel a pellet fuel heater with pellets that have not been: (a) graded under a licensing agreement with an approved organization; (b) that meet specific size and content parameters, and that do not contain any amount of prohibited fuels within the pellet.
      With respect to chip wood, EPA imposes vastly less onerous regulatory requirements. Chip wood is subject to six different standards. 40 C.F.R. §§60.532(d); 60.5474(d). Moreover, for chip wood, EPA does not include a prohibition on containing "none" of the prohibited fuels in §60.532(f) and 60.5474(f) as it does for pellet fuel. Id. §§60,532(e)(8), 60.5474(e)(8).
      Rather than explore if there were other regulatory options for pellet fuel in this rulemaking to address variability in real world stove operation, EPA instead balked. There is nothing in the record that shows EPA explored any alternative other than its preferred result of excessive regulation. Thus, simply on the basis of differential treatment as between sources regulated in the same NSPS source category, the 2015 pellet fuel requirements should be repealed.

Another commenter (0040 p.1) similarly questioned why EPA was so strictly regulating the cleanest of wood fuels  -

      With low emissions and very little ash, wood pellet fuel is already one of the cleanest ways to heat your home with the warmth that wood heating provides. Pellet fuel is cleaner and has lower emissions than cord wood and chips. However, EPA NSPS ruling defined 34 different requirements for pellet fuel. As for the competition, cord wood has no specifications & wood chips have only 7. Why isn't EPA promoting the cleaner option instead of making it more expensive with requiring expensive certification programs?

Likewise, another commenter (public testimony 0142 pp.49-51) opined that  -
      [D]espite 30 years of PFI's efforts in this area, EPA's NSPS regulations unfairly treat pellet fuel as though it were the dirtiest wood fuel available, imposing exponentially more regulation on this fuel than any other. Let me give you a few examples of this regulatory overkill: Under the NSPS, pellet sizes are regulated down to a thousandth of an inch. If pellets vary from size standards, they cannot be used in certified stoves. EPA's current regulations define 34 different requirements for pellet fuel, compared with just seven requirements for chip wood and no specifications at all for cord wood, by far the largest fuel source in the NSPS category. EPA illogically applies the most onerous regulations to the cleanest fuel. ... EPA's 2015 analysis shows particulate matter and volatile organic baseline emissions from pellet stoves to be far below the 2020 Step 2 controlled emissions for almost all other categories. This seriously undermines EPA's entire rationale for the standards.
Response:
We point out that pellet fuel is a manufactured product, while cord wood is not. The reasons for imposing minimum pellet requirements, which EPA has the authority to impose, are detailed in EPA's November 2016 Supplemental Response to Pellet Fuels Institute's Comments For Remand of the Record Based on Existing Docket for Residential Wood Heaters New Source Performance Standards. Pellet fuel heaters generally emit less PM because they are automatically-fed systems; pellets are delivered to the pellet fuel heater at a uniform speed. However, pellet fuels are more susceptible to unintended additives such as wood that may have been treated with oils, paint, varnish, etc. that can harm public health when these pellets are burned in pellet fuel heaters. The Agency has decided to retain the list of prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 60.5474(f), which applies not only to pellets, but to all wood fuels burned in residential wood heating devices subject to this rule. The EPA has decided to remove the minimum requirements in subsections 1 through 7 listed under 40 CFR 60.532(e) under subpart AAA, and in 40 CFR 60.5474(e) under subpart QQQQ. We are retaining the prohibition that was stated in the eighth pellet fuel minimum requirement that pellet fuel must not contain any of the prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 40 CFR 60.5474(f). See response to comment 6.1.1.

7.1.4 Comment: The pellet fuel requirements cannot be justified on the basis of cost effectiveness
One commenter (0069, pp.2, 18-20) asserted that the low emissions of pellet fuel heaters relative to other types of wood heaters makes the cost per ton of emissions reduction unjustified  -

      EPA's 2015 analysis shows particulate matter and volatile organic baseline emissions from pellet stoves to be far below the 2020, Step 2 controlled emissions for almost all other categories. This seriously undermines EPA's entire rationale for the standards. ...
      EPA's Standards for Pellet Fuel Are Disproportionate and Unjustified
      As demonstrated above [in comment 0069], EPA imposes vastly more regulations on pellet fuel that other fuel types utilized to address the NSPS. EPA takes this regulatory approach despite the fact that pellet stoves are the best performing stoves from an emissions standpoint, according to EPA's own estimates. As shown below, fine particulate matter ("PM2.5") emissions for pellet-fueled wood stoves show that such stove are the cleanest burning wood heater appliance, often by several orders of magnitude. For example, compare the 0.0021 tons/appliance/year emission level for PM2.5 for a pellet-fired woodstove versus the same emissions from a free standing woodstove catalytic (0.0101 tons/appliance/year) or outdoor hydronic heaters (0.1383 tons/appliance/year).
      Overall, based on information in EPA's 2015 Regulatory Impact Analysis ("RIA") pellet stoves are anywhere from 2 to 65 times cleaner than other wood stoves/furnaces for PM 2.5 pollutant. Baseline emissions for pellet fuel wood stoves were also much lower than all other categories that EPA examined. Compare the emissions (tons) estimate for pellet-fired wood stoves with all other stove categories that EPA examined in the 2014-2015 rulemaking (Table 4-2, below). [Commenter includes Table 4-2. entitled "PM2.5 Tons per Appliance Estimate (Baseline)" from EPA's January 2014 RIA.]
      It is therefore hard to rationalize imposing the most inflexible regulation on pellet stoves/fuel than other wood burning appliances within the regulated source category that have much higher emissions on per stove basis. EPA's 2015 rule, the 2015 RIA and this proposed rule offer no analysis on what should be a central point of the rulemaking.
      EPA's cost analysis also offers nothing to support its regulatory approach. Pellet stoves represent the only category of regulated appliances with the possibility of zero or near-zero net benefits. EPA has projected that pellet stoves will incur $1.52 million in additional regulatory costs (which do not include any costs related to fuel) and that such this expense may not be offset by projected monetized benefits of $2 to $5 million. In addition, the projected monetized net benefits of regulating pellet fuel stoves, even if net positive are miniscule when compared with other source categories. At most, EPA projected $3 million in net benefits for pellet stoves as compared with up to $3.7 billion in net benefits for forced-air furnaces. [Commenter includes Table 1 from the Final Rule's preamble, entitled "Summary of Compliance Costs, Monetized Benefits, and Monetized Net Benefits (2013 Dollars) by Type of Heater in the 2015-2020 Time Frame for the Final Rule"]
      The disparity in regulatory treatment of different stove types in the same NSPS and EPA's overall approach to regulating pellet fuels is glaring. Yet it is not discussed or addressed by EPA in this rulemaking, given its insistence that it is under no legal obligation to consider costs when promulgating BSER and that the Agency can remain "unaware" of the same.
Another commenter who asserted that the Agency has no legal authority to establish pellet fuel requirements under CAA section 111 (0042 p.1 and public hearing testimony 0142 p.52), as summarized above in section 7.1.2, also contended that  -

      Even if EPAs standards could pass legal muster, the standards cannot be justified on the basis of cost. EPAs analysis shows that VOC reductions anticipated from pellet requirements would cost $112,894 per ton as compared with a cost of $334 per ton from other wood stoves. Such an extreme imbalance is, on its face, arbitrary and capricious.

Response:
We agree that pellet fuel heaters (on average) tend to already be lower emitting than cord wood heating devices (on average) and therefore many pellet fuel heater manufacturers, in order to attain the stepped limits, did not need to invest as much in R&D as manufacturers of cord wood heating devices did. For the reasons that we discuss in the final rule preamble and in response to the above comments, the EPA has decided to (A) retain the list of prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 60.5474(f), which applies not only to pellets, but to all wood fuels burned in residential wood heating devices subject to this rule, and (B) remove the minimum requirements that were stated in 40 CFR 60.532(e)(1)-(7) under subpart AAA, and in 40 CFR 60.5474(e)(1)-(7) under subpart QQQQ, although the Agency is retaining the prohibition that was stated in the eighth pellet fuel minimum requirement that pellet fuel must not contain any of the prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 40 CFR 60.5474(f).

7.1.5 Comment: The pellet fuel requirements are unenforceable
One commenter (0069, pp.2, 20-21) asserted that EPA's pellet fuel standards are unenforceable because the end users are homeowners  -

Homeowners and even casual operators of pellet fuels are potentially subject to fines of $37,500 per day if they use non-compliant pellet fuel. Under EPA's regulations, consumer "misfuelling" of a pellet stove is a violation of CAA. ...
      EPA has explained that pellet fuel standards not only regulate the type of pellet fuel that can be used in new wood heaters, but that the rule affects "end users" of pellet stoves. The rule "applies to both [manufacturers and distributors] as well as end users . . . It is a violation under the NSPS for the end user to operate the stove improperly  -  that is, not according to the NSPS and not according to owner's manuals."
      EPA staff have stated that enforcement of end user violations is "problematic." Perhaps in recognition of this, EPA staff further theorized that it may need help when it comes to taking enforcement actions against homeowners. As EPA noted "[o]ne suggestion the agency considered was an EPA hotline so that neighbors can report end-use violations and then EPA could follow up." But EPA staff indicated that since "EPA is a national organization, getting out to every local area will stretch EPA resource pretty thin"
      While EPA has expressed "hope" that states, locals and tribes might assist in enforcement efforts, the Agency has not explained how enforcement actions might proceed in non-delegated states, nor precisely how end user violations  -  e.g., a homeowner or causal operator's failure to use certified pellet fuels when fueling a heater in a private residence  -  would be established by the Agency. Practical questions (as well as privacy concerns) regarding how EPA or any other state or regulatory agency would determine what pellets were used by a homeowner (barring voluntary admission by the homeowner/operator of this practice) abound. But EPA provides no ready answers in any of the information placed in the docket.
      Given that violations of the 2015 standards extend to any "operators" of pellet wood heaters, EPA did not explore how it would support issuing a Notice of Violation to violators who may be casual or intermittent. Similar to EPA's duty to investigate cost, energy requirements and other factors in promulgating an NSPS, EPA cannot simply ignore such questions during notice and comment rulemaking. If a standard is practicably unenforceable, EPA has a duty to consider alternative, including not taking its "preferred" regulatory approach.

The above sentiment was also summarized during the public hearing (public testimony 0142 pp.49-51).

Response:
The EPA disagrees that the pellet fuel requirements are unenforceable. First, the EPA can focus our enforcement efforts with respect to pellet fuel on reviewing and approving third-party organizations, and ensuring these organizations are effectively safeguarding the quality of the pellets available for sale for residential wood heating. These third-party organizations are responsible for certifying that the pellet fuel does not contain any of the prohibited fuels listed in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 60.5474(f), as assured through a quality assurance program licensed by this EPA-approved third-party organization. Licensed quality assurance programs will ensure all pellet producers are producing pellets free of prohibited materials, and that also meet the pellet specifications required by the EPA-approved third-party organization.

Second, with regard to overall implementation and enforcement of the Wood Heater Rule, EPA will continue to coordinate with State, local, and tribal agencies to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA may delegate to these agencies certain enforcement authorities of the Rule including the enforcement of prohibitions on the installation and operation of wood heaters in a manner inconsistent with the installation and owner's manual. Furthermore, agencies may adopt or enforce their own wood heater requirements that are more stringent than the federal requirements. Consistent with the principle of cooperative federalism, EPA works with our state, local, and tribal partners to more efficiently and effectively protect human health and the environment.

7.1.6 Comment: EPA provides no basis of information for either retaining or revising the existing pellet fuel standards
One commenter (0069, pp.15-16) asserted that the Agency lacks the information required to either retain or revise the pellet fuel standards/requirements  -
      EPA Lacks Information that Supports 34 Separate Standards for Pellet Fuel
      EPA has made no effort in this rulemaking to update information that either supports retention of the existing standards or promulgation of the revised standards in the proposed rule. The administrative record heavily relies on a 2016 memorandum developed, after the fact, to support litigation regarding its 2015 standards. And this memorandum itself cites and relies on information which is outdated, irrelevant or misinterpreted.
      In this regard, EPA has abundantly made clear that the 2015 rule regulated pellet stoves and pellet fuel for the first time. While initially working with PFI, EPA then makes clear that it "decided to promulgate its own list of standard minimum pellet requirements so that these requirements could not change without EPA action." EPA sent out CAA §114 information collection request letters  to pellet stove manufacturers but not to pellet fuel producers.
      A large part of the information that EPA relied on for the 2015 pellet fuel standards is also either not in the public record due to CBI claims or it is heavily redacted. For example, EPA cites and relies on 2010 information from unidentified "Pellet Stove Manufacturers." But even here the question EPA asked of manufacturers was not whether pellet fuel should be regulated but whether there were characteristics that were critical for pellet fuels to be used in products they manufactured. No questions  -  as far as can be determined  -  were asked as to whether pellet stoves might be better designed to use different types of pellet fuel, to be more resistant to corrosion or other adverse effects of some fuel types, or whether the stove manufacturers favored federal regulation of their customers. And while the stove manufacturers apparently supported some standards for fuel dimension, ash content, and fines, and other parameters some of the comments submitted to EPA were stated in highly qualitative terms such as "keep as low as possible" rather than advocating specific, static limits. Thus, these comments do not support the specific list of standards promulgated by EPA in 2015 and which the Agency has proposed to be kept in regulation in Option 1 of this proposed rule.
      Ironically, EPA also cites comments from two organizations (Maine Pellet Fuels Association and Vermont Golden Harvest Biofuels) as supporting EPA's action to promulgate immutable regulations for pellet fuel. But the Maine Pellet Fuels Association comments  did no such thing. This organization supported using testing in Maine versus testing for certification using PFI or other equivalent organization standards. Poignantly, and yet omitted by EPA when referencing their comments, the Maine association also stated that "[p]ellet quality is not at issue, at least certainly not in Northern New England, with regard to air quality." The bottom line of the Maine association comments was that the association did not "want to be required by EPA to participate in PFI's unworkable certification program" and not that the association supported EPA's promulgation of detailed standards. Likewise, EPA cites the Vermont Golden Harvest Biofuels comment as supporting EPA regulation when: (a) the actual comments are not available in the docket; and (b) it is represented that their comment opposed delegating legislative power to a private entity, not that it supported transferring full regulatory power to EPA.
      EPA further attempts to buttress the rationale for its 2015 standards and its proposal to retain or modify such standards in 2019 by citing 2010 publications that are also unavailable in the public record due to copyright issues. This publicly unavailable information includes:
       March 2010 Hearth & Home article  where contents of the article are not available in the docket yet EPA extensively quotes from the article to support its standards.
       Two April 2010 Home & Hearth articles  similarly unavailable in the public docket, yet quoted from by EPA.
       A September 2011 Hearth & Home article  also unavailable in the public docket, but reportedly recounting a meeting between EPA and industry representatives.
      Other information that is available in the docket hardly supports EPA's pellet fuel requirements as promulgated in 2015. For example, EPA cites a letter from a pellet fuel manufacturer that cites support for government involvement to "move the standards process forward." But this letter was sent four years before EPA proposed standards so it cannot be viewed as supporting EPA's 2015 final rule. Moreover, the letter indicates that EPA's position at the time was that "if the industry does not come up with standards then the EPA will." In point in fact, industry including PFI did come up with standards making the second half of the equation inoperative.
      At bottom, much of the information EPA relies on was not submitted in response to the 2014 proposed rule, is anecdotal and does not examine what alternatives may be available to federal regulation of the pellet fuel sector.

Response:
We disagree with the commenter's rendering of the record supporting the pellet requirements and in particular of EPA's November 2016 Supplemental Response to Pellet Fuels Institute's Comments For Remand of the Record Based on Existing Docket for Residential Wood Heaters New Source Performance Standards. As explained in detail in that supplemental response for remand of the record, the EPA worked with PFI for many years and relied heavily on PFI's list of pellet specifications for the 2015 NSPS requirements, but they were previously inadequate to protect public health because they did not include requirements for metals. After the 2015 pellet fuel minimum requirements were promulgated, PFI added requirements for metals in the November 9, 2018 version of PFI's Standard Specifications for Residential /Commercial Densified Fuel.

As stated in response to other comments, the EPA has the authority to impose minimum pellet requirements. As such, the Agency has decided to retain the list of prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 60.5474(f), which applies not only to pellets, but to all wood fuels burned in residential wood heating devices subject to this rule. The EPA has decided to remove the minimum requirements in subsections 1 through 7 listed under 40 CFR 60.532(e) under subpart AAA, and in 40 CFR 60.5474(e) under subpart QQQQ. We are retaining the prohibition that was stated in the eighth pellet fuel minimum requirement that pellet fuel must not contain any of the prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 40 CFR 60.5474(f). See response to comment 6.1.1.

Regarding CBI material, the Agency takes its responsibility to protect confidential business information seriously and cannot disclose such information publicly. Regarding copyrighted journal articles, it is against the law to reproduce them in the docket, but they are available for review in the EPA's Reading Room as well as available online, in libraries and in other locations.

7.2	The EPA Should Merely Reference the Pellet Fuel Institute's Standards
Section 7.2 includes comments that argue the Agency should merely reference PFI's standards, thereby allowing PFI to change the standards as innovative progress occurs, rather than require a lengthy and infrequent rulemaking to allow such changes.

7.2.1 Comment: Referencing PFI's standards in lieu of static requirements allows innovation
One commenter (0042 p.1) asserted that  -

      The PFI Standards Program includes requirements for all of the parameters listed in the EPAs NSPS. In some cases, though the EPA requirements contradict the PFI Standards and in some cases, they are not accurately stated. PFI understands that the end goal is for appliances to achieve an emission rate specified by the EPA, and that it be done using standardized fuel. In the future new technology may be discovered that allows materials outside of today's grades to become useable, however if these parameters are listed in the regulation it will prevent innovative thinking that would allow for new ways to make use of these potential fuels of the future. The EPA should reference the PFI standard to determine the criteria for the fuel grades and that the EPA requirement indicates that by listing specific limits within the regulation it negates the possibility that creative engineering could find ways to cleanly burn materials that don't meet the published limits. The EPA should not list specific compliance requirements for the individual grades, but allow PFIs acceptable limits within its standard.

Another commenter (0040, p.1) agreed and further contended that the market tends to weed out poor quality pellet producers  -

      The Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI) set standards for pellet fuel many years ago that has served our industry well. The standard requires good feedstock to be used in order to meet the standards on sodium and ash content. So, there is no need for additional requirements from the EPA...Some worry about manufactures putting out bad pellet fuel and not meeting the current PFI standards. Over the years, we have seen the marketplace get rid of businesses that do not produce good pellet fuel by not giving them repeat sales. The market is not that big and the word gets out fast. Consumers and retailers do not continue to buy from producers that make bad pellet fuel.

Response:
We appreciate the commenters' concerns and have taken action in this final rule to rely on EPA-approved third-party organizations, like PFI, to maintain the list of pellet requirements / specifications and ensure pellet producers meet these specifications and not contain any of the prohibited fuels listed in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 60.5474(f). Specifically, the EPA has decided to remove the minimum requirements in subsections 1 through 7 listed under 40 CFR 60.532(e) under subpart AAA, and in 40 CFR 60.5474(e) under subpart QQQQ, but we are retaining the prohibition that was stated in the eighth pellet fuel minimum requirement that pellet fuel must not contain any of the prohibited fuels in 40 CFR 60.532(f) and 40 CFR 60.5474(f). See response to comment 6.1.1.

We agree that enforcing a list of pellet requirements in a federal rule serves to codify a static list of requirements, until an updated rule is promulgated. Innovations may occur in the interim regarding pellet fuel heater technology, which may require an update to the list of pellet specifications, prior to when a revised rule is promulgated. Third-party organizations can update the list of pellet requirements in step with developments in pellet fuel heater technology, so as to not delay or preclude innovation that may improve pellet fuel heater operation and decrease emissions. The EPA is therefore removing the part of this codified list that is already specified by third-party organizations and/or specified by the list of prohibited fuels and maintaining approval authority over third-party organizations. This final action will allow for pellet specifications that, while protective, do not unnecessarily preclude, inhibit or delay technological innovation. It should be noted, however, that nothing in this final rule precludes the EPA from proposing and promulgating appropriate additional pellet fuel requirements in the future, if the Agency determines that federally imposed requirements are needed.
 Other & Miscellaneous Comments
Section 8 presents comment excerpts and summaries regarding suggested types of relief in lieu of the sell-through, requests for extending the comment period and/or additional public hearings, and other miscellaneous comments (including those not specific to this proposed rulemaking).

8.1	Other Types of Relief in Lieu of Sell-Through
Section 8.1 provides comments suggesting other types of relief in lieu of the proposed sell-through for hydronic heaters and for wood heaters regulated under subpart AAA. No comments were submitted suggesting other forms of relief in lieu of the sell-through specific to forced-air furnaces.

8.1.1 Comment: Other types of relief in lieu of sell-through for hydronic heaters
Multiple commenters suggested relaxing of the Step 2 limit for hydronic heaters and some even suggested making the Step 1 limit voluntary. For example, in a form letter campaign, numerous commenters (0097, 0115, 0135, 0143, 0144, 0145, 0147, 0149, 0151, 0152, 0153, 0154, 0155, 0158, 0159, 0161, 0163, 0165, 0166, 0170, 0171, 0172, 0173, 0175, 0176, 0177, 0181, 0183, 0184, 0188, 0189, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0194, 0196, 0197, 0199) supported the Hawken Proposal for hydronic heaters which contended  -

      [T]hose ridiculously high Step 2 standards should be abandoned for hydronic heaters. PART 2 - The "Hawken Proposal" for hydronic heaters takes the additional step of further recommending that Step 1 standards be made VOLUNTARY. By doing so, the EPA allows states and municipalities to adopt the "Step 1 Standards" in their jurisdictions as they see fit. Prior to the adoption of NSPS, this system worked fine - municipalities in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan where citizens live in the woods were able to continue to burn wood as they deemed appropriate, while other states such as New York and even some local municipalities adopted regulations virtually identical to Step 1 standards in NSPS. I SUPPORT allowing states and local municipalities the freedom to choose how to govern at a local level, rather than passing such far-reaching federal rules on how I heat my home with my hydronic wood heater. I currently heat my home with a hydronic heater, and if it wears out, I want to be able to replace it with another hydronic heater, without government interference.

Likewise, one manufacturer (0067 p.2) commented that current Step 2 emissions levels are too strict for a healthy industry to continue and 2 more years of development time would be beneficial to all stakeholders in the industry.

Another manufacturer (0132 p.1) supported moving the adoption of a stricter particulate limit from 2020 to 2023, because the limit EPA is proposing is difficult to meet for cord wood fueled equipment.

Response:
The suggestion that EPA relax the Step 2 standard for hydronic heaters and move the adoption of a stricter particulate limit from 2020 to 2023 is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Agency is not considering or taking any final action with respect to the timing and stringency of the Step 2 standards as part of this rulemaking.

8.1.2 Comment: Other types of relief in lieu of sell-through for AAA wood heaters
A retailer (0022 p.1) requested more testing time and time to comply with current standards in the form of a five-year delay for retailers and manufacturers, to allow sale of heaters that were produced prior to (and that don't meet) the 2020 laws. They cited several reasons for requesting this longer sell-through period, including  -

      We would like to see the proposed 2020 NSPS standards delayed until at least 2025 because:
      a. the delay effect on pollution would be negligible
      b. manufacturers are still trying to recoup costs for the 2015 rule changes
      c. sales have dropped significantly, since consumers are not purchasing current approved products and want the 2020 approved products.

      Enable Dealers to sell beyond the May 2020 date (or new date), because:
      a. dealers are not purchasing stock
      b. distribution has come to a standstill.

This same commenter (0022 pp.1-2) also suggested an exemption for small manufacturers  -

      a. there is already an exemption for sauna and cookstoves because of low volume
      b. in the beer industry, craft beers are not subject to the extent as high-volume beers
      c. this enables new products, research, and encourages the potential market.

      Response:

The request for a five-year delay for retailers and manufacturers to allow the sale of non-compliant wood heating devices and the suggestion of an exemption for small businesses are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Agency is not considering or taking any final action with respect to the requested delay or suggested exemption.

8.2	Request for Extending the Comment Period and/or Additional Public Hearings
Section 8.2 provides comments requesting an extension of the comment period as well as comments requesting additional public hearings.

8.2.1 Comment: Request for or opposition to an extended comment period
Several commenters (0018, 0020, 0023, 0024, 0068, 0142, 0197, 0198) requested an extension to the 45-day NPRM comment period to be extended for a total of a 90-day comment period. Some of these commenters (0018, 0023, 0024, 0142) also requested an extension to the 75-day ANPRM period to be extended for a minimum total of 120-days.

Environmental organizations (0075, p.6) noted  -

      The Clean Air Act requires that EPA provide an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed actions for thirty days after a public hearing is held on the action. 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(5). The requirement provides "an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary information." Id. EPA held a public hearing on this proposed rule on December 17, 2018. See 83 Fed. Reg. at 61,574. Because the comment period for this proposed action is closing less than thirty days later, EPA is in violation of Act's procedural requirements for this rulemaking. Although, for the reasons given above, EPA must not finalize this unlawful effort to weaken critical air pollution standards in any event, the agency must cure this procedural defect before taking any further action to advance the proposed rule.

Furthermore, the Western Governors' Association (0197 p.1) pointed out that  -

      On December 14, 2018, the Western State Air Resources Council (WESTAR) requested that EPA extend the comment periods for the NPRM and ANPRM for an additional 45 days to provide sufficient time for state regulators to fully evaluate these proposals. ... EPA summarily denied these requests, hampering the cooperative federalism that this Administration has made a priority.

On the other hand, one commenter (0061 pp.1-2) strongly objected to an extension of the comment period, due to delays in the Agency's original rulemaking timeline and increasing harm to industry as the 2020 deadline approaches.

Response:
We appreciate the requests for an extension the comment period and regret that we were unable to extend the NPRM comment period to the requested 90 days, given the timely nature of the retail sell-through proposal as the 2020 compliance date approached. However, we note that the public comment period originally ended on January 14, 2019 for this proposed amendment but was re-opened on February 7, 2019 for an additional 5 days until February 12, 2019, because the original comment period did not allow a full 30 days after the public hearing.

8.2.2 Comment: Request for or opposition to an additional public hearing
Several commenters (0018, 0020, 0023, 0024, 0142, 0197) requested that the EPA convene a second public hearing with proper advance notice so that state and local agencies could participate. For example, the Western Governors' Association (0197 p.1) noted that  -

      WESTAR also requested that EPA hold a second public hearing in the West, as the only hearing on these proposals was held in Washington, D.C., with a minimal two-week notice. EPA summarily denied these requests, hampering the cooperative federalism that this Administration has made a priority.

Likewise, another commenter (0023, 0142) requested a second public hearing to be held in the western United States. A third commenter (0024 p.1) echoed this but specified the Pacific Northwest.

Response:
We appreciate the request for an additional public hearing in the West and regret that we were unable to meet that request, due to limited Agency funding, which precluded a second public hearing.

8.3 	Miscellaneous Comments
Section 8.3 provides miscellaneous comments that are not necessarily directly relevant to the proposed rulemaking, but that EPA has nonetheless reviewed for consideration. These comments include that EPA should focus resources on test methods, that EPA should focus resources on compliance and enforcement, that wood heating should be regulated locally instead of nationally, that wood is a renewable resource and not a pressing problem, and that wood heating should not be banned.

8.3.1 Comment: EPA should focus resources on test methods
Several commenters (0025, 0059, 0067) suggested that EPA should focus its limited resources on improving test methods.

A state regulatory agency (0059 p.2) asserted that  -

      With the adoption of the first wood heater standard in 1988, the structure of the NSPS intentionally imposes compliance responsibility on retailers to ensure that clean devices are offered uniformly in the marketplace. Retailers are acting now to plan their inventory for sale in 2020 to be in compliance with federal regulations. Retailers will complete their purchasing by the time EPA is able to formally revise the standards, meaning that rather than completing this action, EPA should redirect its very limited resources to develop the cordwood test methods and/or protocols. Completing the cordwood test methods will ensure that EPA and manufacturers have accurate and reliable test methods and can be conducted by testing companies as efficiently as possible.

Likewise, another commenter (0025 p.1) suggested that  -

      Let's work together on this as partners. .. [D]eveloping and finalizing realistic testing methods for the next 20+ years should be a higher priority at this point than lowering the allowable emissions to the Step 2 level. It's seems like we are chasing a moving target.

A manufacturer (0067 p.2) indicated confusion over testing for certification, stating  -

      Some of the uncertainty has been specific to our own products. Our G and GS Series heaters have been recognized in the group of best technology available and the end results of our testing in 2013 show that some of the models tested should pass Step 2 having 0.07lb/mmBTU tested with crib wood. However, we have been left unclear whether they do or not because of some technicalities in the 2015 test method that do not have to do with the end results of the test (1st hour filter pull). It would be helpful to have clarification about this matter as soon as possible.

Response:
We appreciate commenters' support for improving test methods. The Agency has begun work in this regard and plans to allocate more resources to this effort in the future.

8.3.2 Comment: EPA should focus resources on compliance and enforcement
Several commenters (0047, 0126, 0132, 0142) suggested that EPA should focus more resources on compliance and enforcement.

Commenters (0047, 0126) stated that the solution is not to place further restrictions on emissions of EPA-approved wood heating devices, but rather to remove non-EPA approved devices from operation.

One commenter testified at the public hearing (0142 pp.37-38) that  -
      I think EPA needs to focus its resources on compliance and existing litigation. We have thousands and thousands of illegal, newly manufactured uncertified new outdoor wood boilers and furnaces still out there that are openly sold around the country. There is a company in Missouri, Acme Furnace Company, claiming it offers the highest quality outdoor furnace available on the market, even though the manufacturer has no certified units and openly sells non-Step 1 units. The manufacturer said that EPA's laws and regulations may not apply in Missouri, and that the regulations may have already been overturned. So, where does all this leave us? It's emboldening people. It is also disconcerting that the parent company has 81 retailers in 21 states, including New York, and has no indication anywhere on their website that wood furnaces and boilers need certification. Even more concerning is that EPA's compliance office indicated that the Agency has no record of the manufacturer's existence or continued operation. We need EPA to craft a regulatory framework that supports efforts to modernize the sector and then stick to it. Do not approve this proposal.
Likewise, another commenter (0132 p.4) stated that  -
      I live in a suburban area of Minneapolis, MN. I rarely if ever smell wood smoke in the winter. When I do it is from a fireplace (recreational burning  -  interesting name) during the holidays. And my windows are usually closed. However, I constantly smell smoke during the summer from neighbor's back yard "fire pits." And my windows are open. In my opinion this is as much of an issue as further restricting EPA certified rural heating equipment.
      Some manufacturers of wood heating equipment are stating that their units are listed to burn coal. However, "wink, wink they can also burn wood." This is a way for them to get around the latest EPA emission regulations and continue to manufacture older, dirtier non-compliant models. As a result emissions from these units now include mercury, sulfur and lead...none of which are found in wood emissions. Tightening the Regulation will only push less ethical manufactures to do the same. Coal is cheap. Compliance is not.
      ENFORCEMENT In the past year we have seen an increase in small rural wood boiler manufactures (usually small rural welding shops). When asked if their equipment is certified, the answer is always no.... "it doesn't matter because the EPA is not enforcing the limits." But their equipment is cheap (no R & D, no testing, or certification costs, etc.). Thus the compliant manufacturer loses a sale.
      Why produce regulations when there is no enforcement? Don't go after the companies and dealers who are trying to comply, go after people who have no intention of complying. If not, the whole exercise is a waste of time and money. Adding additional regulations will not change the enforcement issue.

Response:
The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) manages and oversees a national wood heater compliance program. To ensure compliance with the applicable wood heater emission standards and other requirements of the Wood Heater Rule, manufacturers must have their applicable residential wood heaters undergo certification testing at an EPA accredited laboratory to verify their heaters meet the required emission standards and complete the certification process laid out in the federal regulations. The regulations require manufacturers to obtain an EPA Certificate of Compliance for each wood heater before they manufacture, offer for sale, advertise, or import a wood heater into the United States. EPA recently developed and made publicly available a fully searchable Certified Wood Heater Database to enable consumers to quickly obtain information on all certified wood heaters including information on emissions rates and fuel type used.
In addition to the above, OECA provides compliance assistance by answering questions regarding the applicability of the wood heater regulations to help industry understand and comply with the Rule requirements. To ensure compliance, OECA also conducts inspections of wood heater manufacturers and retailers. All noncompliance is addressed, as appropriate. EPA investigates all citizen tips and complaints that are received. When the Agency has determined noncompliance with the wood heater regulations, the EPA follows up with phone calls, emails, on-site visits, information request letters, and other communications that regularly result in corrective measures that bring a manufacturer or retailer into compliance. Finally, the Agency actively monitors online selling and advertisement of uncertified heaters by reviewing websites and taking appropriate actions to ensure compliance with the regulations.

If a citizen has information of a possible violation of the Wood Heater Rule (e.g., selling or advertising uncertified residential wood heaters), such information can be reported to EPA's Report an Environmental Violation website.

8.3.3 Comment: Wood heating should be regulated locally not nationally
Some commenters (0097, 0115, 0135, 0143, 0144, 0145, 0147, 0149, 0151, 0152, 0153, 0154, 0155, 0158, 0159, 0161, 0163, 0165, 0166, 0170, 0171, 0172, 0173, 0175, 0176, 0177, 0181, 0183, 0184, 0188, 0189, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0194, 0196, 0197, 0199) argued that wood heating should be regulated locally or at the state level, not nationally. For example, one commenter (0172 p.1) asserted that  -

      I have a wood burning furnace that heats my home and shop. It does a good job, wood is a renewable resource and I don't have to worry about the availability or price of propane. If it wears out, I want to be able to replace it with another wood burning heater, without government interference. I also feel that regulations regarding this type of issue are best made locally, not with a one-size-fits-all mandate that applies to the entire country.

Likewise, another commenter (0174 p.1) stated that  -

      I totally support allowing state and local authorities to regulate hydronic heat furnaces rather than the federal government. The United States is so big and has vastly different conditions that banning new hydronic heat furnaces everywhere does not make sense.

A form letter campaign (0081, 0092, 0097, 0115, 0135, 0143, 0144, 0145, 0147, 0149, 0151, 0152, 0153, 0154, 0155, 0158, 0159, 0161, 0163, 0164, 0165, 0166, 0168, 0170, 0171, 0172, 0173, 0175, 0176, 0177, 0181, 0183, 0184, 0188, 0189, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0194, 0196, 0197, 0199) asserted that the Step 2 limits for hydronic heaters should be abandoned and that the Step 1 limits should be made voluntary, to be adopted (or not) by states and municipalities  -
      Accordingly, those ridiculously high Step 2 standards should be abandoned for hydronic heaters. PART 2 - The "Hawken Proposal" for hydronic heaters takes the additional step of further recommending that Step 1 standards be made VOLUNTARY. By doing so, the EPA allows states and municipalities to adopt the "Step 1 Standards" in their jurisdictions as they see fit. Prior to the adoption of NSPS, this system worked fine - municipalities in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan where citizens live in the woods were able to continue to burn wood as they deemed appropriate, while other states such as New York and even some local municipalities adopted regulations virtually identical to Step 1 standards in NSPS. I SUPPORT allowing states and local municipalities the freedom to choose how to govern at a local level, rather than passing such far-reaching federal rules on how I heat my home with my hydronic wood heater. I currently heat my home with a hydronic heater, and if it wears out, I want to be able to replace it with another hydronic heater, without government interference.
Response:
The Agency appreciates the comments regarding support for regulating wood heating at the local level instead of the national level. As noted in the Response to Comment document for the 2015 NSPS, the principal authority for this rulemaking is CAA section 111. CAA section 111 requires national standards for listed source categories. The category "residential wood heaters" was listed on February 16, 1987, and the original rule was issued on February 26, 1988. The EPA has a good history of working with states. Much of the 1988 NSPS has its roots in the first efforts by the State of Oregon. Also, the State of Washington moved the industry forward by establishing tighter standards in 1995 for heaters sold in Washington that have since been met by most wood heating device manufacturers. In 2007, the EPA developed a voluntary program for hydronic heaters and provided financial and technical support for the northeast states to develop a model rule that 10 states have already used as the starting point for adopting state regulations. We note that we have worked with many tribes, states and local jurisdictions to encourage efforts tailored towards the areas with the greatest needs. We note that numerous state and air agencies and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies have requested that we issue a strong federal rule as soon as possible to help them with the many wood smoke pollution problems across the nation. We also note that this rule does not restrict tribes, states or local jurisdictions from establishing more restrictive standards. Finally, the wood heater regulations allow the EPA to approve state requests for delegation of enforcement authority for the rules, e.g., ensuring permanent labels are on new heaters in retail stores. To that end, we work with our state partners, and coordinate/collaborate with them on any enforcement issues.

8.3.4 Comment: Wood is a renewable resource and there are more pressing problems than wood heating
Several commenters (0136, 0145, 0164, 0167, 0172, 0178, 0179) expressed support for wood heating as a renewable resource and further contended that there are more pressing environmental problems than wood heating, in their opinion.

One commenter (0136 p.1) asserted that  -

      I'm not an expert on determining the amount of pollution put into the air by wood stoves but if you look at the California wild fires, I'm sure they put billions more pollutants in the air than all the wood stoves in the US. So start by stopping the wild fire!!! Next wood is a renewable resource, used for many applications, including heating homes. I will continue heating with wood until I can no longer harvest the fire wood! Maybe California needs to heat with wood, #clean the forest!!

Another commenter (0145 p.1) stated that -

      I support burning wood for home heat and I support hydronic wood boilers. Much better than foreign oil! I would like to preserve my right to burn firewood!

Another commenter (0178 p.1) argued that  -

      We have heated with wood for thirty five years. In that time no money has been spent on additional fuel as we have harvested the fallen limbs and trees from our timber. It seems ill conceived that burning fallen wood and timber would contribute to the earth warming problem. Please do not consider doing any more to hamper the wood heating industry.

Another commenter (0167 p.1) requested  -

      Please allow us to keep our right to burn wood, [w]hen factories burn a lot more harmful thing than wood!

Response:
We acknowledge the commenters' support for wood burning as a renewable heating source for homes. The EPA is not taking away anyone's rights regarding burning wood. The Agency also acknowledges that there are many sources of air pollution, in addition to wood heating, that EPA is likewise concerned about and regulating to protect human health and the environment.

Residential wood heating in the U.S. produces over five times more direct fine particulate (PM2.5) emissions than all U.S petroleum refineries, cement manufacturing plants, and pulp and paper plants combined. Wood smoke contains a mixture of harmful substances that penetrate deep into the lungs. PM2.5 from wood smoke not only affect air quality in entire regions, but also significantly impact air quality and public health at the local level including communities and neighborhoods located in valleys where wood smoke accumulates. In fact, a single wood-burning device can emit enough pollutants to place an entire neighborhood at risk.

8.3.5 Comment: Banning wood heating
Some commenters (0160, 0161, 0172, 0177, 0178) expressed concern that EPA intended to ban wood heating and that some might freeze to death. For example, one commenter (0160 p.1) contended that  -

      I DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR PLAN TO BAN WOOD BURNERS, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN AFFORD TO HEAT OUR HOUSE.

Likewise, another commenter (0161 p.1) argued that  -

      We should have the right to choose how we heat our homes. Every day you have camp grounds full of campers having camp fires. And for a few months of the year to be able to have heat in our homes to keep from freezing we should be able to have an outdoor wood furnace. Which is safer than indoor wood stoves. Please remove the ban on outdoor boilers.

On the other hand, one commenter (0156 p.1) expressed the views of private citizens who would like to see outdoor boilers banned  -

      I would like these awful wood furnaces to be outlawed completely. They are a polluting device that parades as a renewable energy source when they are actually more polluting than electricity generating plants. We live across the street from one. We are "lucky" because our neighbor limits her burning from November to April. When the furnace is operating, we cannot open our windows because our house quickly fills with smoke on the days when the wind is blowing in our direction. We cannot leave our doors open as we unload groceries from the car because our house fills with smoke. When we go out to our cars in the morning, they smell like smoke. We do not do yard work in the cold months if the smoke is blowing in our direction because we can be chased from our yard by the smoke. This week, our neighbor was burning a particularly noxious batch of wood that was filled with creosote. Sometimes she uses her furnace to burn her trash. I do not understand why our neighbor has the right to have such a great impact on the quality of our lives. Why does her wish to save money by burning wood supersede her neighbors' rights to breathe clean air? Why don't we move, you might ask? We have lived in our home for 33 years and we really like it. We have created a wonderful home here with great neighbors--yes, even our wood furnace neighbor is an otherwise good neighbor. Our taxes are low. We have extensive gardens that have developed over 3 decades. We love where we live. And, we could move to another house only to have a new neighbor move in and install one of these furnaces as happened in our current neighborhood. I feel very badly for the family who live next to the furnace. They have two small children. I know that they do not realize that their children are inhaling a witch's brew of toxic chemicals. We are lucky. Our children were grown and gone when our neighbor installed her furnace. Please, please make these illegal. I miss the cool nights when we slept with our windows open. I miss the sound of the owls as they hunted in our neighborhood. I miss the genuinely sweet air. Most of all, I miss being able to make my own decisions about my health. Thank you for creating a forum for comment on this topic.

Response:
We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding banning wood heating devices. Neither the current regulations nor this final action bans any devices, including outdoor wood boilers / hydronic heaters. In this final action, EPA is not considering or taking any final action with respect to the request to ban wood heating devices.

Appendix A: Complete List of Commenters

                 List of Commenters on Sell-Through Amendment
                             EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0195
                                  Document ID
                                 Date Received
Name and Affiliation
                                     0018
                                  12/03/2018
Miles Keogh, National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACA)
                                     0019
                                  12/05/2018
Scott W. Nichols, Tarm Biomass
                                     0020
                                  12/07/2018
Arthur N. Marin, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
                                     0021
                                  12/10/2018
Nancy Alderman, President, Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI)
                                     0022
                                  12/12/2018
Niels Wittus President, Wittus-Fire by Design
                                     0023
                                  12/14/2018
Nancy Vehr, President, Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR)
                                     0024
                                  12/18/2018
Richard Whitman, Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
                                     0025
                                  12/19/2018
Eldon Yoder, Yoder Outdoor Furnaces LLC
                                     0026
                                  01/10/2019
Anonymous public comment
                                     0027
                                  01/10/2019
Anonymous public comment
                                     0028
                                  01/10/2019
G. Matthews
                                     0029
                                  01/11/2019
Anonymous public comment
                                     0030
                                  01/03/2019
Anonymous public comment
                                     0031
                                  01/03/2019
D. Aerts
                                     0032
                                  01/04/2019
Paul LaPorte, CEO, MF Fire, Inc.
                                     0033
                                  01/08/2019
Steve Goldstein, President, The Spa Doctor Spa & Stove Center, Hot Tubs & Hearth, Inc.
                                     0034
                                  01/08/2019
Gail E. Good, Director, Air Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
                                     0035
                                  01/10/2019
Lee VanHouten, Double L Tack, Inc.
                                     0036
                                  01/10/2019
J. Ventzke
                                     0037
                                  01/10/2019
Stanton Brown, Vice President, Northeast Distribution LTD
                                     0038
                                  01/10/2019
Craig Klavon, Central Boiler, Inc. and Klavon Mechanical, LLC
                                     0039
                                  01/11/2019
Stephen Bradley, Owner, Pondside Kitchens and Hearth
                                     0040
                                  01/11/2019
Lori Hamer, President, Hamer Pellet Fuel
                                     0041
                                  01/11/2019
Jae P. Douglas, Environmental Health Services Director, Multnomah County Health Department
                                     0042
                                  01/11/2019
Bruce Lisle, President and Founder, Energex
                                     0043
                                  01/11/2019
Anonymous public comment
                                     0044
                                  01/11/2019
George R. Breiwa II, President, Chimney Specialists, Inc.
                                     0045
                                  01/13/2019
Mary Uhl, Executive Director, Western States Air Resources (WESTAR) Council
                                     0046
                                  01/13/2019
Bob Suchon, Owner, ALL In One Outdoor Furnace
                                     0047
                                  01/14/2019
Wolf Steel USA Ltd
                                     0048
                                  01/14/2019
Kevin Schmitz, K & J Construction and Design LLC.
                                     0049
                                  01/14/2019
Dave Lal, Research and Product Development Engineer, Fireplace Products International Ltd. (FPI)
                                     0050
                                  01/14/2019
VP Berger, President, Hearth & Home Technologies LLC
                                     0051
                                  01/14/2019
Tamra Spielvogel, Senior Program Manager, Environment Policy, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
                                     0052
                                  01/14/2019
Alice Edwards, Director, Division of Air Quality, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
                                     0053
                                  01/14/2019
Madison Condon and Bethany Davis Noll, Institute for Policy Integrity
                                     0054
                                  01/14/2019
Paul J. Miller, Executive Director, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Note: This comment contains copyright-protected pages and is therefore accessible only via the Public Reading Room; see EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0195-0200 for the non-copyright version of this comment, which is accessible on-line.
                                     0055
                                  01/14/2019
Brent J. McClendon, President and CEO, National Wooden Pallet & Container Association (NWPCA)
                                     0056
                                  01/14/2019
Martin Suuberg, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
                                     0057
                                  01/14/2019
Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board (CARB)
                                     0058
                                  01/14/2019
Joseph O'Brien, President, Industrial Pallet, LLC
                                     0059
                                  01/14/2019
Mary Jean Fenske, Supervisor, Air Policy Unit, Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, St. Paul Office, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
                                     0060
                                  01/14/2019
T. Menz
                                     0061
                                  12/21/2018
Ryan Carroll, Vice President, Government Affairs
Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA)
                                     0062
                                  01/03/2018
Anonymous public comment
                                     0063
                                  01/14/2019
Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA)
                                     0064
                                  01/14/2019
Tracy R. Babbidge, Chief, Bureau of Air Management, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)
                                     0065
                                  01/14/2019
George S. (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Maryland and Lynn A. Liddington, Knoxville, Tennessee, Co-Chair, Criteria Pollutants Committee, National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
                                     0066
                                  01/14/2019
Nicholas C. Buttino, Assistant Attorneys General of New York et al. and Puget Sound Air Quality Agency
                                     0067
                                  01/14/2019
Ryan Friesen, Outdoor Furnaces, Heatmaster TM Steeltech Inc.
                                     0068
                                  01/14/2019
J. Jared Snyder, Deputy Commissioner, Air Resources, Climate Change and Energy, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
                                     0069
                                  01/14/2019
Tim Portz, Executive Director, Pellet Fuel Institute (PFI)
                                     0070
                                  01/14/2019
United States Stove Company (USSC)
                                     0071
                                  01/14/2019
Harold P. Wimmer, National President and CEO, American Lung Association (ALA)
                                     0072
                                  01/14/2019
William Hoskins, Easy Heat Wood Pellets
                                     0073
                                  01/14/2019
Mary Rice, Chair, Environment Health Policy Committee, American Thoracic Society (ATS)
                                     0074
                                  01/14/2019
Richard Whitman, Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
                                     0075
                                  01/14/2019
Kathryn L. Urbanowicz, Staff Attorney, Clean Air Council et al.
                                     0076
                                  01/30/2019
Bobby Wiegmann and Teresa Wiegmann, Co-Owner, Wiegmann Woodworking & Fireplaces, Inc.
                                     0077
                                  01/11/2019
Dan Clark, Orley's Stove and Spa Center
                                     0078
                                  01/10/2019
Ed & Marianne McGinty, Redmond Spa, Stove & Sauna
                                     0079
                                  01/14/2019
Michael Homan, Jr., Richmond Builders Supply
                                     0080
                                  01/14/2019
Rob Woroniak, V. P. Operations, Salter's Fireplace & Stove, Inc.
                                     0081
                                  02/04/2019
S. Carter
                                     0082
                                  01/14/2019
George W. Conner Jr., President, Tall Pines Farm Inc.
                                     0083
                                  01/14/2019
Sally Marr, Town & Country
                                     0084
                                  01/11/2019
Joseph R. Pirini, Warm Solutions
                                     0085
                                  01/14/2019
Chris Wolfe, Owner, Wood Heat Center, LLC
                                     0086
                                  01/14/2019
Todd Ackerman, Owner, Wood Heat LLC
                                     0087
                                  01/14/2019
Lynn Gades, BBBB of South Dakota, Inc.
                                     0088
                                  01/11/2019
Kevin Obee, General Manger, Benson Stone Company, Inc.
                                     0089
                                  01/14/2019
B. Scott Marlowe, Owner, Carolina Hearth & Patio, Inc.
                                     0090
                                  01/11/2019
Corey Dormitzer, Manager, Chelmsford Fireplace Center LLC
                                     0091
                                  01/14/2019
Alan Edghill, Edghill Motors Inc.
                                     0092
                                  01/11/2019
Joseph Robinson, Estimator-Project Manager, Fessler-Bowman, Inc.
                                     0094
                                  01/10/2019
Bret M. Watson, President/CEO  -  Jotul North America
                                     0095
                                  01/11/2019
G. Brown
                                     0096
                                  01/11/2019
E. J. Carroll
                                     0097
                                  01/12/2019
Tim Boals, Ferguson's Fireplace and Stove Center
                                     0098
                                  01/14/2019
Richard E. Hoffman, Master Hearth Professional,
Firelight Hearth & Patio
                                     0099
                                  01/14/2019
Mark Wrench, Fireplace and Grill Shoppe
                                     0100
                                  01/14/2019
Pablo Fleischmann, Owner, Green Energy Options
                                     0101
                                  01/14/2019
Ronald Higgins, Higgins Energy Alternatives, Inc.
                                     0102
                                  01/14/2019
Cindy Lencioni, Owner, Icon Hearth & Home
                                     0103
                                  01/14/2019
Joseph Biber, President, J & E Farms, Inc.
                                     0104
                                  01/14/2019
Tom Kerns, Kerns Fireplace and Spa
                                     0105
                                  02/01/2019
Parrish Stanton, Sierra Home Alternatives
                                     0106
                                  01/15/2019
Martin Shofner, Hearth Specialist, Hearth Doctor
                                     0107
                                  01/31/2019
A Fireplace Store
                                     0108
                                  01/30/2019
Greg Brown, A Fire's Place
                                     0109
                                  01/30/2019
Lawrence R. Parlee, President, Acme Stove Company of Harrisburg, Inc.
                                     0110
                                  02/01/2019
Harley C Foster, Hometown Store Inc.
                                     0111
                                  01/30/2019
Sam L. Halsey, President, Yankee Doodle Inc.
                                     0112
                                  01/30/2019
Joseph Biber, President, J & E Farms, Inc.
                                     0113
                                  01/11/2019
Toby Alderink, Hearth Products Manager, Monsma Marketing Corporation
                                     0114
                                  01/30/2019
Orley's Stove and Spa Center
                                     0115
                                  02/04/2019
Matthew Waterstradt, President, The Energy Shop, Inc.
                                     0116
                                  02/01/2019
James B. Grinna, President, Vick's Heating, Plumbing & Vent., Inc. Nordic Hearth Showroom
                                     0117
                                  02/01/2019
Barry Charbonneau, Owner, Woodstove Fireplace and Patio Shop
                                     0118
                                  01/30/2019
Michael Woods, Vice President, Woody's Fireplace
                                     0119
                                  01/10/2019
Chuck Lynch, Owner, Downeast Boiler
                                     0120
                                  01/10/2019
David Lewis, Owner, North Georgia Outdoor Wood Furnaces
                                     0121
                                  01/10/2019
Tim Reed, Retail Sales Manager, Fireside Home Solutions
                                     0122
                                  01/10/2019
Chris Neufeld, Vice President, Blaze King Industries, Inc.
                                     0123
                                  02/01/2019
Dustin Bowman, Manager, Bowman's Stove & Patio
                                     0124
                                  02/01/2019
Guy Fasanaro, Owner, California Comfort Inc.
                                     0125
                                  02/04/2019
Buzz Wheeler, Owner, Coastal Farm & Home Supply, LLC
                                     0126
                                  01/30/2019
Carl C. Gibbs, Gibbs True Value Hardware
                                     0127
                                  01/31/2019
Dan Hechler, Hechler's Hearth & Home
                                     0128
                                  12/17/2018
John Ackerly, President, Alliance for Green Heat
                                     0129
                                  02/12/2019
Charlene Albee, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Washoe County Health District (AQMD)
                                     0130
                                  02/12/2019
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
                                     0132
                                  02/11/2019
Martin Lunde, Founder/Owner, Dectra Corporation
                                     0133
                                  02/12/2019
Paul J. Miller, Executive Director, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
                                     0134
                                  02/12/2019
Major L. Clark III, Acting Chief Counsel for Advocacy and David Rostker, Assistant Chief Counsel Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy
                                     0135
                                  02/14/2019
A. R. Jones
                                     0136
                                  01/08/2019
B. Taylor
                                     0137
                                  02/11/2019
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, State of Illinois
                                     0143
                                  01/11/2019
A. Rogers
                                     0144
                                  01/08/2019
Anonymous public comment
                                     0145
                                  01/08/2019
B. Cox
                                     0146
                                  01/13/2019
C. Biko
                                     0147
                                  01/13/2019
C. Wyatt
                                     0148
                                  01/14/2019
Charles Turner, Cricket on the Hearth Inc.
                                     0149
                                  01/08/2019
D. Ferguson
                                     0150
                                  01/14/2019
Larry James, High Country Stoves & Fireplaces
                                     0151
                                  01/10/2019
J. Henry
                                     0152
                                  01/09/2019
J. & G. Morton-Moncrieff
                                     0153
                                  01/09/2019
K. Carter
                                     0154
                                  01/13/2019
L. Nowicki
                                     0155
                                  01/14/2018
A. Breed
                                     0156
                                  01/13/2019
L. Tankel
                                     0157
                                  01/02/2019
Scot Linkletter, Maine Woods Pellet Company
                                     0158
                                  01/09/2019
M. and S. Thornton
                                     0159
                                  01/09/2019
S. Hendon
                                     0160
                                  01/08/2019
S. Durian
                                     0161
                                  01/09/2019
Shirley A.
                                     0162
                                  01/14/2019
T. and L. Gerencer
                                     0163
                                  01/08/2019
T. Bauters
                                     0164
                                  01/09/2019
T. Olseski
                                     0165
                                  01/09/2019
W.W. Walborn
                                     0166
                                  01/09/2019
J. Talbot
                                     0167
                                  01/13/2019
J. Daley
                                     0168
                                  01/13/2019
J. Ferrick
                                     0169
                                  01/15/2019
John Ivancicts, Southwest Fireplace
                                     0170
                                  01/08/2019
J.H. Zitting
                                     0171
                                  01/08/2019
M. Traver
                                     0172
                                  01/08/2019
M. Weber
                                     0173
                                  01/09/2019
M. DuMond
                                     0174
                                  01/10/2019
M. Davis
                                     0175
                                  01/09/2019
M. Newholm
                                     0176
                                  01/08/2019
Q.J. Lewis
                                     0177
                                  01/09/2019
R. Eding
                                     0178
                                  01/08/2019
R.L. Maske
                                     0179
                                  01/08/2019
R. McCarthy
                                     0180
                                  01/14/2019
Brian Moench, Doctors and Scientists Against Wood Smoke Pollution (DSAWSP)
                                     0181
                                  01/12/2019
E.L. Murray, Jr.
                                     0182
                                  01/09/2019
Jessica Holmestad, GreenTech Manufacturing, Inc.
                                     0183
                                  01/09/2019
Keith Horne, GreenTech Manufacturing, Inc.
                                     0184
                                  01/09/2019
Rob Brown, GreenTech Manufacturing, Inc.
                                     0185
                                  01/09/2019
Ryan Home, President, GreenTech Manufacturing, Inc.
                                     0186
                                  01/09/2019
Richard Todd, President, Anderson's Masonry Supply Corporation
                                     0187
                                  01/10/2019
Steve Dumais, President, Energysavers Inc.
                                     0188
                                  01/10/2019
Mike Sundberg, Owner, Bend Fireside Inc.
                                     0189
                                  01/10/2019
Mike Evanick, E&E Chimney Sweeps
                                     0190
                                  02/15/2019
Sean M. Rosser, CEO, Hearthside Fireplace & Patio
                                     0191
                                  01/09/2019
Alexis Rettinger, Rettinger Fireplace Systems, Inc.
                                     0192
                                  01/10/2019
Angelique Rusch, Rettinger Fireplace Systems, Inc.
                                     0193
                                  01/10/2019
Phil Lariviere, Seacoast Fireplace and Stove Shop
                                     0194
                                  01/10/2019
Larry Carbonneau, Stove Place II
                                     0195
                                  01/09/2019
Eric Wallace, Wallace's Stove & Fireplace
                                     0196
                                  01/09/2019
Glenn Snyder, Warner Oil Company
                                     0197
                                  01/31/2019
David Ige, Governor of Hawaii, Chair, and Doug Burgum, Governor of North Dakota, Vice Chair, Western Governors Association (WGA)
                                     0198
                                  02/07/2019
Cecilia Diedrich, Law Clerk for Oceana, et al.
                                     0199
                                  01/08/2019
Mark & Susan Potter (this is the sample letter for 186 duplicate mass mail submissions)
                                     0200
                                  01/14/2019
Paul J. Miller, Executive Director, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Note: This is the non-copyright version of NESCAUM's comment #0054.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54765-54766]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14253-000]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund IV; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On August 10, 2011, the Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund IV filed an
application for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed USACE LD
17 Project No. 14253, to be located at the existing Mississippi River
Lock and Dam No. 17 on the Mississippi River, near the City of New
Boston, in Mercer County, Illinois. The Mississippi River Lock and Dam
No. 17 is owned by the United States government and operated by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) Three new 109-foot-wide
by 40-foot-high steel lock frame modules each containing ten 650-
kilowatt hydropower turbines having a total combined generating
capacity of 19.5 megawatts; (2) one new 109-foot-wide and one new 220-
foot-wide tailrace extending 75-150 feet downstream; (3) a new 25-foot
by 50-foot switchyard; (4) a new intake structure of undetermined size;
(5) a new 6-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated annual
generation of 119,655 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne F. Krouse, 5090 Richmond Avenue,
390, Houston, TX 77056;<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 709.
    FERC Contact: Tyrone A. Williams,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your

name and contact information at the end of your comments.
    For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14253) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 29, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22515 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14812]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-2269]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0163; FRL-9261-3]
RIN-2060-AQ30

Additional Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 110(k)(6) Correction
and Technical Correction Related to Prior Designation, and Decisions
Related to the 1997 Air Quality Designations and Classifications for
the Annual Fine Particles National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Correction

    In rule document 2011-2269 appearing on pages 6056-6066 in the
issue of Thursday, February 3, 2011, make the following corrections:

Sec.  81.303  [Table Corrected]

0
1. On page 6064, in the table for Arizona, in the last row, in the last
column labeled ``Type'', ``Unclassifiable/Attainment'' should read
``................''.
0
2. On page 6065, in the table for Arizona, in the first row, in the
last column labeled ``Type'', ``Unclassifiable/Attainment'' should read
``................''.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-2269 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D