6560-50-P
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                40 CFR Part 60
                     [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734; FRL-        ]
                               RIN 2060-AP93
Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to amend the Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters and to add two new subparts: Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces and Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry Heaters. This proposal is aimed at achieving several objectives for new residential wood heaters and other wood-burning appliances, including applying updated emission limits that reflect the current best systems of emission reduction; eliminating exemptions over a broad suite of residential wood combustion devices; strengthening test methods as appropriate; and streamlining the certification process. This proposal does not include any requirements for heaters solely fired by gas, oil or coal. In addition, it does not include any requirements associated with wood heaters or other wood-burning appliances that are already in use.
 			Particulate pollution from wood heaters is a significant national air pollution problem and human health issue. Health benefits associated with these proposed regulations are valued to be over 200 times greater than the cost to manufacture cleaner, lower emitting appliances. These proposed regulations would also significantly reduce emissions of many other pollutants from these appliances, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
      Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule if requested. Requests for a hearing must be made by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Contact Mr. David Cole via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> to request a public hearing. If a hearing is requested, the EPA will announce the details, including specific dates, times, addresses and contact information for the hearing in a separate Federal Register notice. Note that there is no extra weight placed on the comments presented at a public hearing versus comments submitted via the process discussed in the "ADDRESSES" section below. Potential speakers should still submit a written copy of their comments to best ensure that they have full effect. Also, note that the EPA does not normally make a presentation at the hearings and only asks clarifying questions. If you are interested in attending a public hearing, contact Mr. David Cole (see above for contact information) to verify whether a hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734, by one of the following methods:
* www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
* Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
* Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
* Mail: United States (U.S.) Postal Service, send comments to EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 735 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503.
* Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
      Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov website is an "anonymous access" system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I.D.2 of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
      Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
      Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be announced in a separate Federal Register notice that provides details, including specific dates, times, addresses and contact information for the hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed action, contact Mr. Gil Wood, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Outreach and Information Division, Community and Tribal Programs Group (C304-03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A.	Executive Summary
   B.	Does this action apply to me?
C.	Where can I get a copy of this document?
D.	What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II.	Background
A.	What is the NSPS program?
B.	Why was the original residential wood heaters NSPS developed?
C.	What are the requirements of the current 1988 NSPS?
D.	What are the major developments since the original NSPS was published?
E.	Why is residential wood smoke a concern?
F.	What are the major issues that drove the review process?
III.	Summary of Proposed Residential Wood Heater Appliance Amendments
A.	Room Heaters
B.	Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
C. 	Masonry Heaters
IV.	Summary of Environmental, Cost, Economic, and Non-Air Health and Energy Impacts
A.	What are the air quality impacts?
B.	What are the benefits?
C.	What are the cost impacts?
D.	What are the economic impacts?
E.	What are the non-air quality health and energy impacts?
V.	Rationale for Proposed Amendments
A.	Why are we proposing to expand the scope of appliances subject to the NSPS?
B.	How did we determine BSER and the proposed emission standards?
C.	How did we establish the proposed compliance timelines?
D.	How are we proposing to streamline the requirements for certification, quality assurance and laboratory accreditation?
E.	What changes and additions to the allowed test methods are we proposing?
F.	What other changes and additions to the administrative requirements are we proposing?
VI.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A.	Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B.	Paperwork Reduction Act
C.	Regulatory Flexibility Act
D.	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E.	Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F.	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
G.	Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H.	Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I.	National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J.	Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

      I. General Information
      A. Executive Summary
      1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
      The purpose of this action is to propose amendments to the Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) and to add two new subparts: Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces and Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry Heaters (40 CFR part 60, subparts QQQQ and RRRR). This proposal was developed following a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(b)(1)(B) periodic review of the current residential wood heater new source performance standards (NSPS). We concur with numerous stakeholders that the current body of evidence justifies revision of the current residential wood heaters NSPS to capture the improvements in performance of such units and to expand the applicability of this NSPS to include additional wood-burning residential heating devices that are in the market. The proposed changes are aimed at achieving several objectives, including applying updated emission limits that reflect the current best systems of emission reduction (BSER); eliminating exemptions over a broad suite of residential wood combustion devices; strengthening test methods as appropriate; and streamlining the certification process.
      These revisions will also reduce the health impacts of fine particle pollution, of which wood smoke is a contributing factor in many areas. Residential wood smoke contains fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), toxic air pollutants (e.g., benzene and formaldehyde), and climate gases (e.g., methane and black carbon). Residential wood smoke can increase PM2.5 to levels that cause significant health concerns (e.g., asthma attacks, heart attacks, premature death). Populations that are at greater risk for experiencing health effects related to fine particle exposures include older adults, children and individuals with pre-existing heart or lung disease. Each year, smoke from wood heaters contributes hundreds of thousands of tons of fine particles throughout the country  -  mostly during the winter months. Nationally, residential wood combustion accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions, nearly 25 percent of all area source air toxics cancer risks and 15 percent of noncancer respiratory effects. Residential wood smoke causes many counties in the U.S. to either exceed the EPA's health-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles or places them on the cusp of exceeding those standards. The concerns are heightened because wood stoves, hydronic heaters, and other heaters are often used around the clock in many residential areas.
      This action is conducted under the authority of section 111 of the CAA, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources," under which the EPA establishes federal standards of performance for new sources within source categories that cause or contribute significantly to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Consistent with section 111(h), if it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, the Administrator may instead promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that reflects the best system of continuous emission reduction, which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality, health, and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.
      2. Summary of the Major Provisions of this Proposed Regulatory Action
      In response to the results of the NSPS review, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. The current regulation applies to affected appliances manufactured after 1988. Except as discussed in this proposal, the current requirements would remain in effect for the heaters and model lines manufactured before this proposal. We propose to broaden the applicability of the regulation beyond adjustable burn rate wood heaters (the focus of the original regulation), to specifically include all single burn rate wood heaters/stoves and pellet heaters/stoves. (Some pellet heaters/stoves were not affected by the 1988 regulation.) Note that this preamble uses the following terms interchangeably: heaters, stoves, and heaters/stoves. Heaters/stoves and model lines manufactured after the effective date of the rule would be required to meet particulate matter (PM) standards.
      As with the 1988 regulation, the source category covered by this NSPS is fundamentally different from the typical NSPS source category in several ways. For example, typically these heaters are installed and operated in residences, not industrial or commercial facilities. Also, residential wood heaters, hydronic heaters, forced-air furnaces, and most masonry heaters are mass-produced consumer items, rather than industrial processes typically regulated by NSPS. As with the 1988 regulation, because heaters are mass-produced residential consumer items, a compliance approach requiring each heater to be tested would be very costly. The cost of a test series is several times the cost of a typical wood heater. Over 95 percent of the manufacturers are small businesses. Therefore, as in 1988, we are proposing to permit that manufacturers avoid testing every heater by allowing a certification program whereby representative heaters are tested. If the representative heater meets the applicable emission limits, the entire model line could be certified. Individual heaters within the model line would still be subject to all other requirements, including labeling and operational requirements. Manufacturers would be required to have quality assurance programs to ensure that all heaters within the model line conform to the certified design and meet the applicable emission limits. The EPA would also have the authority to conduct audits to ensure compliance. We ask for comments on all aspects of this approach, especially whether more than one representative heater should be tested prior to certification of the model line.
      To also address some of the specific characteristics of this source category, as in the 1988 regulation, we are proposing a two-step compliance approach that would provide a reasonable, phased implementation of emission limits for manufacturers (again, over 95 percent are small businesses) that need lead time to develop, test, field evaluate, and certify current technologies across their consumer product lines. Also, as in 1988, there could be "logjam" concerns about the capacity of accredited laboratories to conduct certifications tests and for the EPA to review the tests and to adequately assure compliance if all the NSPS requirements were to be immediate. Thus, upon the effective date of this rule (which we expect will occur in 2014), new heaters/stoves would be required to meet a PM limit of 4.5 grams per hour (g/hr) as proposed in Step 1. Five years later, new heaters/stoves would be required to meet a PM limit of 1.3 g/hr as proposed in Step 2.
      Each unit would be equipped with a permanent NSPS label. Additional requirements would apply to entities other than the manufacturer. The wood heater test laboratory would be subject to quality assurance requirements. We would continue to require the proper burn practices that currently apply to the owner or operator of a wood heating appliance. In addition, new pellet heater/stove owners and operators would be required to use only the grade of licensed pellet fuels that are included in the heater/stove certification tests, or better. We are proposing to streamline the current enforcement and audit provisions of the current subpart to reflect changes in industry practices and development of new tools and procedures. We are proposing improvements to the previous test methods as well as new test methods.
      We are also proposing new subpart QQQQ, which would apply to new wood-fired residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces, and new subpart RRRR, which would apply to new residential masonry heaters. These new subparts are being proposed to address the EPA's findings that additional heater appliance types should be regulated under the NSPS program. Again, because of the specific aspects of these consumer product heaters/furnaces versus typical industrial processes, both subparts are designed using principles similar to those in subpart AAA, i.e., certification testing of a representative unit in a model line, label requirements, associated quality assurance requirements, and phased implementation. Subpart RRRR has some additional features to address very small volume manufacturers, including a proposed compliance extension and ability to use a software certification approach rather than a laboratory emission test.
      In addition, because of the specific characteristics of these source categories, the proposed PM standards for subparts QQQQ and RRRR would be implemented in two steps. For subpart QQQQ, upon the effective date of the rule, hydronic heaters would be required to meet a PM limit of 0.32 pound per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) output and forced-air furnaces would be required to meet a PM limit of 0.93 lb/MMBtu heat output. Five years later, both hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces would be required to meet a PM limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu heat output. For subpart RRRR (masonry heaters), upon the effective date of the rule, large manufacturers (defined as manufacturers constructing greater than or equal to 15 masonry heaters per year) would be required to meet a PM limit of 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output. Five years later, small volume masonry heater manufacturers (defined as manufacturers constructing less than 15 masonry heaters per year) would be required to meet the 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output PM limit.
      3. Costs and Benefits
      Consistent with the recently issued Executive Order 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," we have estimated the cost and benefits of the proposed rule. The estimated net benefits of our proposed rule at a 3 percent discount rate are $1.8 billion to $4.2 billion or $1.7 billion to $3.7 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. Table 1 is a summary of the results of the analysis. We have provided estimates reflecting average annual impacts for the 2014 to 2022 timeframe, which are the years in which the options considered in this proposal are implemented.
Table 1. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Annualized Social Costs and Net Benefits for the Proposed Rule (Millions of 2010$)[a][,b,c]

                               3% Discount Rate
                               7% Discount Rate
Total Monetized Benefits[b]
                               $1,800 to $4,200
                               $1,700 to $3,700
Total Annualized Social Costs[c]
                                     $16
                                      $16
Net Benefits
                               $1,800 to $4,100
                               $1,700 to $3,700
Non-monetized Benefits
33,000 tons of carbon monoxide reductions

3,200 tons of volatile organic compounds reductions

Reduced exposure to hazardous air pollutants, including formaldehyde, benzene, and polycyclic organic matter

Reduced climate effects due to reduced black carbon emissions

Reduced ecosystem effects

Reduced visibility impairments
[a]All estimates are for the 2014-2022 timeframe and are rounded to two significant figures. These results include units anticipated to come to the market and the lowest cost disposal assumption.
[b] The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Krewski et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type.
[c] The compliance costs of the proposal serve as a proxy for the social costs. The compliance costs are estimated using a 7 percent interest rate.
      B. Does this action apply to me?
      The potentially regulated sources that are the subject of this proposal are listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this proposed action. This standard, and any changes considered in this rulemaking, would be directly applicable to sources as a federal program. Thus, federal, state, local and tribal government entities are not affected by this proposed action.
Table 2. Potentially Regulated Entities
Category
NAICS[a] Code
Examples of Regulated Entities
Residential Wood Heating
333414 - Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing
Manufacturers, owners and operators of wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves, hydronic heaters, masonry heaters

333415 - Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing
Manufacturers, owners and operators of forced-air furnaces

238140 - Masonry Contractors

Manufacturers, owners, operators and testers of masonry heaters
Testing Laboratories
541380 - Testing laboratories (except medical, veterinary)
Testers of wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves, hydronic heaters and masonry heaters
aNorth American Industry Classification System
      C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
      In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
      D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
      1. Submitting CBI
      Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Instead, clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI and send or deliver only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that you claim as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a disk or CD-ROM that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
      2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

      When submitting comments, remember to:

* Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
* Follow directions. Respond to specific questions and organize comments by a section number.
* Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
* Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
* If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced.
* Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
* Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats or character assassination.
* Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline.
      II. Background
      A. What is the NSPS program?
      Under section 111 of the CAA, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources," the EPA lists categories of sources that, in EPA's judgment, cause or contribute significantly to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(A), and then promulgates federal standards of performance for new sources within such category under section 111(b)(1)(B). At the time the EPA proposes and establishes standards for certain pollutants for a source category, the EPA prepares an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the NSPS, which includes the benefits from reductions in pollutants for which the standards do not set limits. For example, emission reductions associated with the requirements of this proposed rule will generate health benefits by reducing emissions of PM2.5, other criteria pollutants, such as CO, and non-criteria hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Consistent with section 111(h), if it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, the Administrator may instead promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, which reflects the best system of continuous emission reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality, health, and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. The NSPS do not establish standards of performance for existing sources.  However, numerous states have acted independent of this rule to address new and existing sources as part of state implementation plan (SIP) measures necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Several examples are discussed in II.E.
      The level of control prescribed by section 111 historically has been referred to as "Best Demonstrated Technology" or BDT. To better reflect that section 111 was amended in 1990 to clarify that "best systems" may or may not be "technology," the EPA is now using the term "best systems of emission reduction" or BSER. As was done previously in analyzing BDT, the EPA uses available information and considers the emissions reductions and incremental costs for different systems available at reasonable cost. The residential wood heaters source category is different from most NSPS source categories in that it is for mass-produced residential consumer products. Thus, important elements in determining that BSER has been "adequately demonstrated" include the significant costs and environmental impacts of delaying production while models with those systems are being designed, tested, field evaluated, and certified. As noted earlier and discussed more fully later in this preamble, the 2-step approach that the EPA is proposing considers these factors. That is, for this rulemaking, the EPA has determined the appropriate emission limits and compliance deadlines that together are representative of BSER. After the emission limits are established, in general, the source may use any system that meets the emission limits.
      Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to periodically (every 8 years) review an NSPS unless it determines "that such review is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy of such standard." If needed, the EPA must revise the standards of performance to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions, including consideration of what emissions limitation is achieved in practice. Numerous stakeholders have suggested that the current body of evidence justifies the revision of the current residential wood heaters NSPS to capture the improvements in performance of such units and to expand the applicability of this NSPS to include additional residential wood-burning heating devices that are available today. Some stakeholders have suggested that the EPA develop additional NSPS to regulate other residential heating devices and those that burn fuels other than or in addition to wood, e.g., coal, corn or grass.
      B. Why was the original residential wood heaters NSPS developed?
      The development of the residential wood heater regulations began in the mid-1980s in response to the growing concern that wood smoke contributes to ambient air quality-related health problems. Several state and local governments developed their own regulations for wood heaters. Then, in response to a lawsuit filed by New York State and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the EPA agreed to initiate a residential wood heaters NSPS rulemaking, with a schedule calling for final action by January 31, 1988. The original standard was developed using a regulatory negotiation process with the key stakeholders (the wood heating industry, state governments, and environmental and consumer groups) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
      Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA listed the residential wood heater source category based on its determination that wood heaters cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (52 FR 5065, February 18, 1987). The EPA also proposed regulations for residential wood heaters (52 FR 4994, February 18, 1987). The final standards were published on February 26, 1988 (53 FR 5860). At the time the original NSPS was proposed, the EPA estimated that a typical pre-NSPS conventional wood heater emits about 60 to 70 g/hr of PM and that a wood heater complying with the NSPS would emit 75 to 86 percent less than conventional wood heaters.
      C. What are the requirements of the current 1988 NSPS?
      The current subpart AAA defines a wood heater as an enclosed, wood-burning appliance capable of and intended for space heating or domestic water heating that meets all of the following criteria:
1. An air-to-fuel ratio (ratio of the mass of combustion air introduced into the firebox to the mass of dry fuel consumed) in the combustion chamber averaging less than 35-to-1 as determined by the test procedure prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534 performed at an accredited laboratory;
2. A usable firebox volume of less than 0.57 cubic meters (20 cubic feet);
3. A minimum burn rate (weight of dry test fuel consumed per hour) of less than 5 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (11 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) as determined by the test procedure prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534 performed at an accredited laboratory; and
4. A maximum weight of 800 kg (1,760 lb), excluding fixtures and devices that are normally sold separately, such as flue pipe, chimney, and masonry components that are not an integral part of the appliance or heat distribution ducting.
      In the 1988 rulemaking, the EPA identified several types of residential wood combustion appliances that are not subject to the current 1988 NSPS:
* Open masonry fireplaces constructed on site
* Boilers/Heaters
* Furnaces
* Cookstoves
      In addition, the current 1988 NSPS exempts the following from the emission limits:
* Wood heaters used solely for research and development (R&D) purposes
* Wood heaters manufactured for export
* Coal-only heaters
      As noted earlier, because of the specific characteristics of this source category (e.g., it applies to mass-produced residential consumer items), the residential wood heaters NSPS (also sometimes informally referred to as the wood stove NSPS) allows compliance for model lines to be certified "pre-sale" by the manufacturers. A typical NSPS source category approach that imposes emission standards and then requires a unit-specific compliance demonstration would have been very costly and impractical. Therefore, this NSPS was designed to allow manufacturers of wood heaters to avoid having each unit tested by allowing, as an alternative, a certification program that is used to test representative wood heaters on a model line basis. Once a model line is certified, all of the individual units within the model line are subject to labeling, operational and other requirements. Manufacturers are then required to conduct a quality assurance program to ensure that appliances produced within a model line conform to the certified design and meet the applicable emission limits. There are also provisions for the EPA to conduct audits to ensure compliance.
      As discussed in the 1988 rulemaking, the standards limiting PM emissions from wood heaters in the current NSPS were phased in for this source category because of the need to consider the costs of delayed production while new models were being developed and certified. Advanced technology heaters/stoves including both catalytic and noncatalytic systems were considered to be BDT (now called BSER), because the net emissions of both systems over time were estimated to be similar (even though the initial certification test results were lower for catalytic models) due to possible degradation and lack of catalyst replacement. The EPA considered requiring catalyst replacement on a regular schedule but determined that enforcement of such a requirement would be difficult or impractical. The EPA did require manufacturers to provide 2-year unconditional warranties on the catalysts and prohibited the operation of catalytic heaters/stoves without a catalyst. Principally because of these concerns, the EPA wanted to ensure that both catalytic and noncatalytic technology would continue to be options for manufacturers to use and further develop. The Phase I standards were very similar to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality standards that had been in existence for a few years. The Phase II standards, which are still in effect, are more stringent and had to be met within 2 years of publication of the final rule, i.e., by 1990. Models equipped with a catalytic combustor cannot emit more than a weighted average of 4.1 g/hr (of PM). Models that are not equipped with a catalytic combustor cannot emit more than a weighted average of 7.5 g/hr of PM. The lower initial emission limit for the catalytic combustor-equipped models incorporates an expected deterioration rate for the catalysts such that after 5 years the emissions from those models were expected to be similar to the emissions from noncatalytic models.
      D. What are the major developments since the original NSPS was published?
      New systems for residential wood heating devices are commercially available in the U.S. that perform at significantly lower g/hr emission rates than required under the current 1988 NSPS. Furthermore, even greater performance potentially can be achieved by greater deployment of the best U.S. systems and the typical systems already widely employed in Europe, especially for outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters. The EPA has conducted a research project "Environmental Characterization of Outdoor Wood-fired Hydronic Heaters" through a cooperative Research and Development (R&D) agreement with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) that evaluated four types of technology ranging from a common outdoor wood boiler/heater to a state-of-the-art, high-efficiency pellet boiler/heater from Austria. The study showed considerable emission reduction due to a 2-stage combustion technology that includes gasification of the fuel and more complete combustion.
      Stakeholders have expressed concern to the EPA about a broad range of residential wood heating appliances that are not addressed by the current 1988 NSPS. These include single burn rate wood heaters; pellet heaters/stoves that are not subject to the current standard via the NSPS air-to-fuel ratio; wood "boilers" (hydronic heaters); forced-air furnaces; and masonry heaters. Some stakeholders have also expressed an interest in regulating non-"heater" devices, such as fireplaces, cookstoves, and pizza ovens.
      One category of wood heating appliances that has undergone significant growth is wood heaters/boilers or "hydronic heaters." (Note that these units are technically called heaters rather than boilers because many are not pressurized and do not boil the liquid.) Hydronic heaters are typically located outside the buildings they heat in small sheds with short smokestacks. These appliances burn wood to heat a liquid (water or a water-antifreeze mixture) that is piped to provide heat and hot water to occupied buildings, such as homes. Often, in addition to supplying heat for homes, the same unit is used to provide heat for barns and greenhouses and to provide warm water for swimming pools. Hydronic heaters may also be located indoors and may use other biomass (such as corn or wood pellets) or coal or a combination for fuel.
      Studies have shown that PM2.5 concentrations in proximity to a typical outdoor hydronic heater (aka outdoor wood boiler) can exceed the 24-hour NAAQS. Thus, the EPA developed a hydronic heater voluntary partnership program in order to encourage manufacturers to reduce impacts on air quality through developing and distributing cleaner, more efficient hydronic heaters. We developed the voluntary partnership program with the goal of bringing cleaner models to market faster than the traditional federal regulatory process. Phase 1 emission level (0.60 lb/MMBtu heat input) qualifying units are approximately 70 percent cleaner than typical unqualified units. After March 31, 2010, units that only meet the Phase 1 emission level are no longer considered "qualified models" under the voluntary partnership program. Phase 2 emission level (0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output) qualifying units are estimated to be approximately 90 percent cleaner than typical unqualified units. Typically, qualified models have improved insulation, secondary combustion, separation of the firebox from the water jacket, and the addition of improved heat exchangers.
      In addition to the voluntary partnership program, the EPA provided technical and financial support for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop a model rule that several states have adopted to regulate hydronic heaters. The model rule is a starting point for local regulatory authorities to consider, and additional actions may be needed due to site-specific concerns, e.g., local terrain, meteorology, proximity of neighbors and other exposed individuals. Thus, some regulatory authorities have instituted additional requirements and some have banned hydronic heaters in some areas.
      The EPA also developed a similar voluntary partnership program for low mass fireplaces (engineered, pre-fabricated fireplaces) and site-built masonry fireplaces. The program began in February 2009, and pertained only to low mass fireplaces at that time. In July 2009, the program was expanded to masonry fireplaces. Under this program, cleaner burning fireplaces are ones that qualify for the Phase 1 emissions level of 7.3 grams of particles emitted per kilogram (g/kg) of fuel burned (approximately 57 percent cleaner than unqualified models) or the Phase 2 emissions level of 5.1 g/kg (approximately 70 percent cleaner than unqualified models). So far, 36 models have qualified under this voluntary partnership program at the Phase 2 level. Typically, qualified models have improved insulation and added secondary combustion and/or a catalyst to reduce emissions. Some manufacturers have added doors to reduce the excess air and thus improve combustion. The Phase 2 emission level in the voluntary fireplace program has been considered as a starting point for some local regulatory authorities, and additional actions have also been considered due to site-specific concerns, e.g., local terrain, meteorology, proximity of neighbors and other exposed individuals, and magnitude of other emissions in the airshed. Thus, some regulatory authorities have instituted additional requirements (e.g., no burn days) and some have banned new wood-burning fireplaces in some areas.
      The current NSPS in subpart AAA have been in effect for over 24 years and manufacturers and test laboratories have gained considerable experience in complying with the requirements of the program. As a result, manufacturers and test laboratories have suggested changes to the certification process to better implement the program, such as developing an electronic system for submittals and approval. Manufacturers and test laboratories have also questioned the effectiveness of some of the current audit procedures. In addition, they have participated in the development of new test methods and test method improvements as part of the efforts of ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society of Testing and Materials). While the NSPS left a placeholder for development of an efficiency standard for use in subpart AAA, one has not been developed by the EPA. However, on June 1, 2007, the EPA approved the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) stack loss method in B415 as an alternative for wood heater efficiency testing in subpart AAA provided that the tests use the same burn rate categories specified in the EPA Reference Method 28. We are proposing that the current version of this method be used for efficiency testing (CSA B415.1-10). We are also proposing EPA Method 28 WHH (wood-fired hydronic heaters) that has been used for qualification testing of hydronic heaters in the EPA voluntary partnership program and numerous state regulations. Other issues that have been identified over the years regarding test methods and emissions calculations include emissions averaging, burn rate weightings, hot start versus cold start, emission caps per burn rate, and catalyst degradation. Another issue is whether to change current requirements to conduct certification tests with "crib" wood instead to "cord" wood. ("Crib wood" is a specified configuration and quality of dimensional lumber and spacers, which was intended to improve the repeatability of the test method in 1988. "Cord wood" is a different specified configuration and quality of wood that is intended to more closely resemble what a typical homeowner would use.) We address these issues as part of this proposal.
      E. Why is residential wood smoke a concern?
      There is increasing recognition of the health impacts of particle pollution, to which wood smoke is a contributing factor in many areas. Wood smoke contains a mixture of gases and fine particles that can cause immediate effects, including burning eyes, runny nose and bronchitis. Exposure to fine particles has been associated with a range of health effects, including aggravation of heart or respiratory problems (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, as well as premature death. Populations at greater risk for experiencing health effects related to fine particle exposures include older adults, children and individuals with pre-existing heart or lung disease. Residential wood smoke contains fine particles and toxic air pollutants (e.g., benzene and formaldehyde). Each year, smoke from wood heaters contributes hundreds of thousands of tons of fine particles throughout the country  -  mostly during the winter months. Nationally, residential wood combustion accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile POM emissions, nearly 25 percent of all area source air toxics cancer risks, and 15 percent of noncancer respiratory effects.
      In a number of communities, residential wood smoke can increase particle pollution to levels that cause significant health concerns (e.g., asthma attacks, heart attacks, premature death). Several areas with wood smoke problems either exceed the EPA's health-based NAAQS for fine particles or are on the cusp of exceeding those standards. For example, in places such as Keene, New Hampshire; Sacramento, California; Tacoma, Washington; and Fairbanks, Alaska; wood combustion can contribute over 50 percent of daily wintertime fine particle emissions.
      In December 2012, the EPA issued revised NAAQS for PM to provide increased protection of public health and welfare. The 2012 NAAQS for PM strengthens the annual NAAQS for fine particles to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m[3]) and retains the existing 24-hour fine particle standard of 35 ug/m3 issued in 2006. The 2012 NAAQS for PM also retains the current 24-hour PM10 standards for health and environmental effects at a level of 150 ug/m[3] to continue to provide protection against effects associated with exposure to thoracic coarse particles. Areas that do not meet the standards must take steps to reduce PM emissions. Some state organizations have argued that more stringent standards for new wood heating devices would provide a much needed tool for states and local communities to use in addressing the growth of pollution from these sources.,  Recent health studies considered in the review of the PM NAAQS confirm the impacts on public health. The latest information on the PM NAAQS reviews is at http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.
      There is also concern about the health effects of other pollutants found in wood smoke. In addition to PM, wood smoke contains harmful chemical substances such as CO, formaldehyde and other organic gases, and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
      Health effects from CO include:
* Interference with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the brain, which impairs thinking and reflexes
* Heart pain
* Lower birth weights and increased deaths in newborns
* Death
      Health effects from formaldehyde and other organic gases include:
* Irritation of eyes, nose, and throat
* Inflammation of mucous membranes, irritation of the throat and sinuses
* Interference with lung function
* Allergic reactions
* Nose and throat cancer in animals, and cancer in humans
      Nitrogen oxide can irritate the eyes and respiratory system, may damage the immune system by impairing the body's ability to fight respiratory infection and can affect lung function.
      Residential wood combustion emissions contain potentially carcinogenic compounds including formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, and dioxin, which are toxic air pollutants; but their effects on human health via exposure to wood smoke have not been studied as extensively.
      We realize that many areas of the country are struggling with reducing PM emissions due to residential wood smoke from existing wood-burning appliances that will not be affected by this rule. In addition, due to the long life span of wood-burning appliances and slow turnover, it may be many years before the full impacts of these regulations on new appliances can be felt. However, there are strategies to reduce wood smoke that states, counties and townships can take independent of this rule. Some states have direct legislative authority, and all states have authority to address new and existing sources as SIP measures necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. For examples, the State of Oregon, Washoe County (NV), and Township of Mammoth Lakes (CA) have required that existing wood heaters that have not been certified to meet the NSPS be removed and destroyed and not resold when a home is sold. As additional SIP strategies, some states and local authorities have banned wood burning during certain high PM events, restricted the amount of burning, and regulated the type of materials being burned. Non-regulatory programs, such as education programs to teach the public how to use their wood-burning appliances in ways that minimize emissions, have also been successful. The EPA has also implemented programs that encourage good burning practices, which have a significant impact on emissions. The EPA, some state and local agencies, and other stakeholders, including the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA), have been active in promoting wood heater/stove changeout programs to replace older, dirtier heaters/stoves with lower-emitting EPA-certified heaters/stoves, pellet heaters/stoves, or other cleaner burning appliances.
      F. What are the major issues that drove the review process?
      We received several requests to conduct a review of the residential wood heaters NSPS, including a joint letter from the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) and NESCAUM that urged us to update and develop regulations relating to a variety of wood combustion devices. The authors cited concerns that many communities are measuring ambient conditions above or very close to the PM2.5 NAAQS and that, in many instances, emissions from wood smoke are a large contributor to those high PM2.5 levels. Other states, environmental groups, and HPBA have also recommended several changes to the NSPS. The HPBA Outdoor Wood-fired Hydronic Heater (OWHH) Manufacturers Caucus wrote the EPA to express their unanimous support for the EPA to develop a federal regulation for OWHH.
      Specific requests from stakeholders include:
* Tightening emission standards based on current performance data
* Addressing other pollutants of concern
* Reviewing the format of the standards, including adding requirements to document the tested efficiency of the unit
* Reevaluating exemptions, such as those based on air-to-fuel ratios and size and weight
* Adding other wood heating devices such as pellet heaters/stoves, hydronic heaters, and masonry heaters to the NSPS
* Regulating fireplaces and other "non-heater" devices (e.g., cookstoves)
* Regulating heating devices that burn fuel other than wood (e.g., other solid biomass and coal)
* Updating test methods
* Streamlining the certification process to use electronic data submittals/reviews
* Considering use of International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-accredited labs and ISO-accredited certifying bodies
* Improving compliance assurance/enforceability and quality assurance/quality control
* Making the rule more consumer friendly by making more information readily available on-line
      III. Summary of Proposed Residential Wood Heater Appliance Amendments
      We are proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. We are also proposing two new subparts to address additional types of wood heating appliances. Specifically, we are proposing subpart QQQQ, Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and subpart RRRR, Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry Heaters. The following sections describe the major provisions of each subpart. This proposal does not include any requirements that would apply to heaters that are fueled solely by gas, oil or coal.
      A. Room Heaters
      The current regulation (subpart AAA) applies to affected appliances manufactured since 1988. Except as discussed in this proposed action, the current requirements would remain in effect for the heaters manufactured before this proposal. For units manufactured after the compliance dates, we propose to broaden the applicability of the wood heaters regulation beyond adjustable burn rate wood heaters (the focus of the original regulation) to specifically include single burn rate wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves, and any other affected appliance as defined in subpart AAA as a "room heater." The proposed subpart AAA does not apply to new residential hydronic heaters, new residential forced-air furnaces, and new residential masonry heaters because they would be subject to their own subparts. Like the current subpart AAA, the proposed subpart AAA does not apply to fireplaces. This proposal tightens the definition for "cookstoves" and adds definitions for "camp stoves" and "traditional Native American bake ovens" to clarify that they would not be subject to the standard other than appropriate labeling for cookstoves and camp stoves. Finally, the proposed subpart AAA clarifies that the emission limits would only apply to wood-burning devices (i.e., not to devices that only burn fuels other than wood, e.g., gas, oil or coal).
      As discussed in section II, NSPS determinations of BSER must consider costs. The fact that this source category is for consumer products manufactured for residential sale results in cost considerations that are different from most NSPS source categories that typically are industrial processes. Specifically, if production and sales were to be suspended while designing, testing, field evaluating, and certifying cleaner models, the cost of potential lost revenues would be significant, which necessitates reasonable lead times for compliance with proposed emission limitations. This was true in 1988, and is still true today. Thus, we propose to allow a transition period so that heaters/stoves with EPA certification currently in effect can continue to be manufactured until the current certification expires (5 years from date of certification) or is revoked by the Administrator, whichever date is earlier. We would not allow renewal of these certifications. That is, in the near term, we are proposing to retain the current Phase II PM emission limits (issued in the current 1988 standards for compliance in 1990) for adjustable burn rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/stoves with a current EPA certification issued prior to the effective date of the proposed emission limits, and we intend to promulgate them in 2014. (For simplicity of discussions in this preamble, we are using "2014" as shorthand for the expected effective date of the final rule. If the expected effective date of the final rule changes from 2014, we will adjust the compliance date.) While our top priorities are to ensure that emission reductions occur in a timely manner and that there is no backsliding from the improvements that many manufacturers have already made, we have also sought to avoid unreasonable economic impacts on those manufacturers (mostly small businesses) who need additional time to develop a full range of cleaner models and to avoid potential "logjams" at laboratories conducting certification testing. We ask for specific comments on the length of this proposed transition and the degree to which there would be any critical economic impacts on manufacturers who have heaters with current certifications if we were to not allow up to the full 5-year certification period for units manufactured after the effective date of the final rule. We also ask for specific comments on allowing grandfathering of models that are tested in good faith according to the proposed test methods and the proposed emission limits, even though the final test methods may differ from this proposal.
      We are proposing a two-step compliance approach (referred to herein as the "Proposed Approach") that would apply to all new adjustable burn rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/stoves. Under this Proposed Approach, the Proposed Step 1 emission limits for these sources would apply to each source manufactured on or after the effective date of the final rule or sold at retail on or after the date 6 months from the effective date of the final rule. Proposed Step 2 emission limits for these sources would apply to each adjustable rate wood heater, single burn rate wood heater and pellet heater/stove manufactured or sold on or after the date 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. We ask for specific comments on the Proposed Approach and the degree to which these dates could be sooner.
      We are also asking for comments on a three-step compliance approach (referred to herein as the "Alternative Approach") for all adjustable rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/stoves. Under this Alternative Approach, the Alternative Step 1 emission limits would apply to each source manufactured on or after the effective date of the final rule or sold at retail on or after the date 6 months from the effective date of the final rule. (Thus, Step 1 under the Alternative Approach is the same as Step 1 under the Proposed Approach.) The Alternative Step 2 emission limits would apply to each source manufactured or sold on or after the date 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The Alternative Step 3 emission limits would apply to each source manufactured or sold on or after the date 8 years following the effective date of the final rule (thus providing 5 years between the Alternative Step 2 and Alternative Step 3). We ask for specific comments on this Alternative Approach, including data and potential environmental and economic impacts on this alternative, and the degree to which the Alternative Approach emission levels and dates could be considered BSER. Our current preference is the Proposed Approach, but we intend to finalize a single compliance approach after fully considering the comments received during the public comment period on this proposed rulemaking.
      Table 3 summarizes the PM emissions standards that would apply to each wood heater appliance under this Proposed Approach at each step. Table 4 summarizes the PM emissions standards that would apply to each wood heater appliance under each step of the Alternative Approach.
Table 3. Proposed Approach Subpart AAA PM Emissions Limits
Appliance
Phases/Steps
PM
Emissions Limit
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/Stoves with current EPA certification issued prior to the effective date of the Final Rule
Transition period from 1988 rule through the later of the effective date of the final revised rule or expiration of current certification (maximum of 5 years certification and no renewal)
4.1 g/hr for catalytic heaters/stoves and 7.5 g/hr for noncatalytic heaters/stoves
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters, Single Burn Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/Stoves (includes currently certified heaters after the certification expires, catalytic and noncatalytic)
Step 1: "2014" (upon the effective date of final rule)

Step 2: "2019"          (5 years after the effective date of the final rule)
4.5 g/hr

1.3 g/hr

Table 4. Alternative Approach Subpart AAA PM Emissions Limits
Appliance
Phases/Steps
PM
Emissions Limit
Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/Stoves with Current EPA Certification Issued Prior to the effective date of Final Rule
Transition period from 1988 rule through the later of the effective date of the final revised rule or expiration of current certification (maximum of 5 years certification and no renewal)
4.1 g/hr for catalytic heaters/stoves and 7.5 g/hr for noncatalytic heaters/stoves
All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters, Single Burn Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/Stoves (includes currently certified heaters after the certification expires, catalytic and noncatalytic)
Step 1: "2014" (upon the effective date of final rule)

Step 2: "2017"          (3 years after the effective date of the final rule)

Step 3: "2022"          (8 years after the effective date of the final rule)
4.5 g/hr

2.5 g/hr

1.3 g/hr

      Although the 1988 promulgated subpart AAA (53 FR 5860, February 26, 1988) included an additional 1-year compliance extension for low-volume manufacturers, i.e., companies that manufacture (or export to the U.S.) fewer than 2,000 heaters per year, this proposal does not include a similar compliance extension. We are not proposing a delay for adjustable burn rate wood heaters or pellet heaters/stoves because the majority of these appliances already comply with the proposed Step 1 emission levels. See section V.C. of this preamble for more discussion of this topic. However, we are requesting comments on the possible need for such a compliance extension for single burn rate wood heaters, which are not subject to the current subpart AAA requirements.
      We are proposing to make a single determination of BSER for both catalytic and noncatalytic heater systems. The EPA considered requiring catalyst replacement on a regular schedule but determined that enforcement of such a requirement would be difficult. As in the current 1988 rule, we are proposing to require manufacturers to provide warranties on the catalysts and prohibit the operation of catalytic heaters/stoves without a catalyst. In addition, we are proposing to require warranties for noncatalytic heaters/stoves. Though we are not proposing efficiency standards at this time, we are proposing to require testing and reporting of these data; however, we are requesting specific comment on the need to propose efficiency standards and any data to support the basis for these standards.
      We are also proposing to require emission testing and reporting based on both crib wood and cord wood for the proposed Step 1 compliance, while allowing manufacturers to choose whether to certify with crib wood or cord wood for the proposed Step 1. For the proposed Step 2 compliance, we are requiring certifying with cord wood only. As discussed earlier in this preamble, "crib wood" is a specified configuration and quality of dimensional lumber and spacers that was intended to improve the repeatability of the test method in 1988. "Cord wood" is a different specified configuration and quality of wood that is intended today to more closely resemble what a typical homeowner would use.
      Although we lack sufficient data to propose a separate CO emissions standard at this time, we propose to require that the manufacturer determine CO emissions during the compliance test and report those results to the EPA. We specifically request emission and cost data for systems that reduce CO emissions. If those systems warrant inclusion in the final rule, we would consider doing so. In addition, we ask for specific comments on whether the final rule should explicitly require indoor CO monitors as a critical safety component for heaters installed in occupied buildings or other buildings or enclosures in which the operator would enter to add fuel to the heater or conduct other normal operation and maintenance of the heater. Numerous stakeholders have indicated that an explicit requirement is needed.
      Like the current subpart, the EPA is using its authority under section 114 of the CAA to require each manufacturer to submit certifications of compliance with this rule for all models and all units. As in the 1988 rule, provided that the certifications are timely, complete, and accurate, the EPA is proposing to allow certification to be determined based on testing of a representative unit within the model line. As in 1988, the cost of testing each unit would be an order of magnitude greater than the cost of a wood heater/stove and would be economically prohibitive. In addition, as in 1988, the testing of each unit could create a "logjam" that would stymie the certification of cleaner model lines. However, as discussed earlier, we are asking for specific comments on whether we should require testing of more than one representative unit prior to certification of a model line. The proposed subpart expands the definition of "Accredited Test Laboratory," from only EPA-accredited laboratories to allow laboratories accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body to perform testing for each of the test methods specified in this NSPS under ISO-IEC Standard 17025, to conduct the certification testing. The laboratories would have to register their credentials with the EPA and be approved by the EPA prior to conducting any certification testing or related work used as a basis for compliance with this rule. Also, they would be required to report any changes in their accreditation and any deficiencies found under ISO 17025, and the EPA may revoke the approval if appropriate.
      Our intent is to require the new certification process for certifications that occur after the effective date of the final rule. However, we request specific comments on whether we should allow a transition period; that is, whether we should retain the current "Administrator Approval Process" to review the certification application, including test results, for the first year following the effective date of the final rule. Note that models certified prior to the effective date of the final rule would not have to be re-tested until the certification expires. Our proposal is to require a "Certifying-Body-Based Certification Process," upon the effective date of the final rule. Under this process, after testing is complete, a certification of conformity with the PM emissions standards must be issued by a certifying body with whom the manufacturer has entered into contract for certification services. The certification body would have to be accredited under ISO-IEC Standard 17065 and register their credentials with the EPA and receive EPA approval prior to conducting any certifications or related work used as a basis for compliance with this rule and report any changes in their accreditation and any deficiencies found under ISO 17065. The EPA would oversee the certification body's work and retain the right to revoke the approval if appropriate. Upon review of the test report and quality control plan submitted by the manufacturer, the certifying body may certify compliance and submit the required documentation to the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for review, approval and listing of the certified appliance.
      As in the current 1988 NSPS, each affected unit would be required to have an applicable permanent label and have an owner's manual that contains specified information. We are proposing that permanent labels would be required for each affected unit on the effective date of the final rule. We propose to clarify that the permanent label must be installed so that it is readily visible both before and after the unit is installed. This clarification is needed to document the use of complying heaters that may be required by state and local rules and/or to determine the unit's applicability to any future changeout programs. We also request specific comments on how to best assure that manufacturers and retailers and online marketers of wood heaters only use valid certification test data and not exaggerated claims.
      In the current (1988) NSPS, temporary labels were required for wood heaters that are subject to the standards and also for ones that are not (e.g., coal heaters/stoves). These temporary labels were intended primarily to contain information useful to consumers and prospective wood heater purchasers to be able to compare different appliance models and to inform the consumer about the importance of proper operation and maintenance. These temporary labels included the wood heater's compliance status, comparative emission and efficiency performance data, and heat output rates and explicitly stated that the appliance will achieve low smoke output and high efficiency only if properly operated and maintained. The EPA no longer believes these temporary labels are necessary for all heaters because we have developed and are continuing to improve our education and outreach program for consumers on selecting the cleanest appliances and wood fuel with appropriate moisture content and on the effective use and operation of these appliances. See http://www.epa.gov/burnwise. Consequently, we are proposing to remove the requirement for temporary labels. We request comment on the potential impact that deleting this requirement might have on a consumer's ability to select wood heaters that meet the proposed standards and are the cleanest and whether we should consider developing a voluntary labeling program for the cleanest of the clean. As discussed elsewhere, we also ask for specific comments on language that we should require manufacturers and retailers to provide to consumers to help explain the relative merits of high-performing heaters versus lower-performing heaters.
       In addition to the PM emissions standards, we are proposing to continue to require the proper burn practices that already apply to the owner or operator of a wood heating appliance. That is, the current 1988 standards already include the requirement that the owner or operator must operate the heater consistent with the owner's manual and not burn improper fuels. Numerous states have expressed their support for the continuation of these requirements. Some states and local jurisdictions have enforced similar requirements, and this proposal would allow potential delegation of enforcement authority of these NSPS requirements upon the EPA approval of state requests.
       The proposed revision clarifies that the current requirement to operate according to the owner's manual continues to include a list of prohibited fuel types that create poor or even hazardous combustion conditions and includes operation of pellet fuel appliances only with the grades of pellet fuels that are included in the certification tests, or better. We propose that pellets for the certification tests be only those that have been produced under a licensing agreement with the Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI), or equivalent (after request and subsequent approval by the EPA), to meet certain minimum requirements and procedures for a quality assurance process. Details of the PFI program are available at http://pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/pfi-standards-program/. We believe that these provisions are necessary to ensure that the appliances operate properly such that emissions are reduced as intended. We ask for specific comments on whether we should include other requirements of best burn practices or adjustments to help ensure proper operation, e.g., chimney height and draft specifications, moisture content of wood and limits on visible emissions.
      The proposed subpart still contains the crucial quality assurance provisions in the current 1988 NSPS. A comprehensive discussion of the rationale is included in the 1988 preamble. For example, a model line must be recertified whenever any change is made in the original design that could affect the emissions rate for that model line or when any of several specified tolerances of key components are changed. The current requirements for manufacturer quality assurance programs would be superseded by a Certifying-Body-Based Quality Assurance program. (As noted earlier, we would not require retesting for models that are certified prior to the effective date of the final rule until the certification expires or is revoked.) The Certifying Body would conduct regular, unannounced audits to ensure that the manufacturer's quality control plan is being implemented properly.
      The EPA audit testing programs of the current 1988 NSPS will be maintained under the proposed changes, although they will be streamlined and simplified to better ensure compliance and to clarify that audits can be based on any information the EPA has available and do not have to be statistically random. Also, we clarify that the EPA and states are allowed to be present during the audits and that states (and other entities, including the public) may provide the EPA with information that may ultimately be used in the EPA enforcement and compliance assurance efforts.
      As discussed earlier, the EPA developed Method 28 in 1987 and 1988 as part of our efforts on the current 1988 NSPS. We received input at that time from manufacturers, laboratories, and some states. Oregon Method 7 was the starting point for Method 28 and, thus, Method 28 has many aspects similar to Oregon Method 7. The details on the history and development of Method 28 are contained in the February 18, 1987, proposal in the Federal Register (52 FR 5003) and the February 26, 1988, final rule in the Federal Register (53 FR 5866).
      	The manufacturers, laboratories, states and the EPA have now had more than 25 years of experience with Method 28, and it has been very useful for certifying hundreds of model lines of wood heaters/stoves. We asked the manufacturers, EPA-accredited laboratories and states for their insights on Method 28. Many stakeholders agree that changes should be made to improve the reproducibility and repeatability of the test procedures and to address concerns about how to best ensure protection across the entire U.S. when various operating scenarios are used and various wood species and densities are used. For example, to address some of these concerns, ASTM has used a "consensus-based" process to develop E2515-10 "Standard Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions in a Dilution Tunnel." The EPA is proposing that this sampling and analysis method be used for all of the appliances in this rulemaking. As with all test methods, there are opportunities for continual improvement, and the EPA requests specific comments and supporting data for additional potential improvements to E2515-10.
      A number of states have expressed concern about ASTM's Intellectual Property Policy which requires all participants to give their intellectual property rights to ASTM so that, in turn, ASTM can control distribution of the drafts and final test methods and sell the final test methods to potential users. Attorneys General for several states have indicated that state employees in their states cannot give to ASTM the property rights for property that their states paid for via the employee salaries and other expenditures and thus cannot participate in ASTM's "consensus-based" process. For this rulemaking, ASTM is allowing public review, for no charge, of the ASTM test methods and draft work products relevant to this proposed rule at www.astm.org/epa. The EPA requests specific comments and supporting data on the substance of all of the test methods relevant to this rulemaking and specific comments on the ASTM process and ways to ameliorate the process concerns.
      The ASTM methods E2779-10 "Standard Test Method for Determining Particulate Emissions from Pellet Heaters" and E2780-10 "Standard Test Method for Determining Particulate Emissions from Wood Heaters" are being considered for potentially replacing the wood heater fueling and operation requirements in Method 28 for pellet heaters and wood heaters, respectively. Note that ASTM intends to use the same E2515-10 for the sampling and analysis portion for all the appliances and then separate methods per appliance types for the fueling and operation portions of these methods. The EPA believes that E2779-10 is a sound method for measuring emissions from pellet heaters/stoves and includes reasonable measures to reduce testing costs for continuously-fed appliances, and we are proposing its use. However, because, as noted earlier, some states were not able to participate in the ASTM method development process, we specifically request comments and supporting data of all aspects of not only this test method but also all the proposed methods as part of the comments on this proposed rule.
      Similarly, the EPA believes that ASTM Method E2780-10 includes improvements for testing adjustable and single burn rate wood heaters, and we are proposing many of the improvements today. For example, we are proposing the use of the E2780-10 appendix for testing single burn rate appliances. However, we, and some states, do not agree with all the changes that ASTM has made for adjustable burn rate wood heaters, and some provisions are not as protective as we, and some states, now believe they need to be. As noted above, several states are concerned about how to best ensure that the methods are protective for the entire U.S., considering differences in wood species, density, and homeowner operation. The EPA and the states are particularly concerned about scenarios in which heaters/stoves will have higher emissions in homes than the emissions measured in the laboratories. For example, the states and the EPA are concerned about the ASTM changes on burn rate categories, i.e., easing or eliminating the lowest burn rates that often occur in home operations and are typically the dirtiest and least efficient. The EPA is asking for specific comments on these issues and recommendations and supporting data for other changes. The following paragraphs discuss some of the key test method provisions we are proposing and not proposing. Additional information on the methods is at www.epa.gov/burnwise, and at www.astm.org/epa.
 1. We do not agree with the ASTM changes to the burn rate categories, low burn rate requirement, and weightings in Method 28. Several states are very concerned that easing these items would create the potential for backsliding. Also, we are aware of several design changes being considered by a number of manufacturers that are relatively inexpensive and will reduce the emissions during periods when operated at low burn rates. We instead propose that the original provisions in Method 28 be retained for the burn rate categories and low burn rate requirement. We considered the weightings and believe that if weightings are to be used, they should be the same as the original requirements in Method 28. We are also proposing that the burn rates not be weighted at all for the "2019" standards but rather that the emission limits be separate for Burn Rate Category 1 (lowest burn rate category) and Burn Rate Category 4 (maximum burn rate category) and that compliance for each be shown separately.
 2. We propose to not allow 5 minutes for startup before closing the doors because startup is often the dirtiest part of the wood heater operation, and manufacturers need to ensure that startup emissions are also reduced. Again, relatively inexpensive means exist to reduce these emissions.
 3. We are not proposing to use the new ASTM equation for converting the emission test values between the EPA Reference Method 5G "Determination of Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a Dilution Tunnel Sampling Location" and the EPA Reference Method 5H "Determination of Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a Stack Location" currently allowed in the NSPS. Rather, we are proposing that 5G(3) test values be reported as tested for heaters that have valid certifications prior to the effective date of this rule and ASTM E2515-10 for all other heaters and that 5H not be used for testing for certifications after the effective date of this rule. We request data to help inform our decision for the final rulemaking.
 4. We are not proposing to allow manufacturers to specify a smaller volume of the firebox for testing because of our concerns about how to ensure that homeowners do not circumvent such specification during operation, thereby increasing emissions beyond the levels that are measured during testing.
 5. We are proposing several tighter specifications on the test fuel moisture content, fuel load and coal bed depth in order to improve the reproducibility and repeatability of the certification tests. This part of the proposal is based on recommendations from one of the original EPA-accredited laboratories. We specifically request comments and supporting data regarding the following proposed tighter specifications for the laboratory test: (a) tightening fuel load dry-basis moisture content tightened from the Method 28-allowed 6 percentage-point range from 19 percent to 25 percent to a reduced range of 22.5 percent +/-1 percent; (b) tightening the Method 28-allowed range for fuel load weight from 7.0 lb/ft[3]+/-10 percent of the fuel load weight (or 7 lb/ ft[3] +/-0.7 lb/ft[3]) to 7 lb/ft[3] +/-1 percent (or 7 lb +/-0.07 lb) of the fuel load weight, calculated in accordance with Method 28; and (c) tightening the Method-28-allowed range for the test-initiation coal-bed weight from 20 percent to 25 percent of the fuel load weight to 22 percent +/-1 percent of the fuel load weight.
 6. We propose to require efficiency testing according to CSA B415.1-10 using the stack loss method. That is, during each test run, data must be obtained and presented for the purpose of calculation of overall efficiency as specified in CSA B415.1-10. This would include CO and carbon dioxide (CO2), flue gas temperature and appliance mass. CSA B415.1-10 was developed by a "consensus" process, but no states were part of the process. Thus, we specifically request comments on our proposal to require use of this method.
 7. We propose that electronic test report submittals include the locked spreadsheets so the formulas used and relevant calculations can be evaluated in detail. We request comments on this specific proposal.
 8. We propose that the test report include a narrative detailing specifics about test conditions and operations, such as how the test was run, operating conditions, issues and special procedures.
 9. We propose that each individual moisture content reading must be in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry basis and the average moisture content of each piece of test fuel must be in the range of 19 to 25 percent. Also, we propose the following procedure for the moisture measurements: "Using a fuel moisture meter as specified, determine the fuel moisture for each test fuel piece used for the test fuel load by averaging at least five fuel moisture meter readings, one from each of three sides, measured parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of the moisture meter insulated electrodes shall be (1/4) (one-fourth) the thickness of the fuel piece or 19 millimeters (mm) (3/4 in.), whichever is less, for 3 of the measurements made at approximately 3 inches from each end and the center. Two additional measurements at approximately one-third the thickness shall be made centered between the other three locations."
 10. We also propose this alternate procedure developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory: "Select three pieces of cord wood from the same batch of wood as the test fuel and the same weight as the average weight of the pieces in the test load +- 1.0 lb. From each of these three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice shall be (1/2)" to (3/4)" thick. One slice shall be cut across the center of the length of the piece. The other two slices shall be cut half way between the center and the end. Immediately measure the mass of each piece in pounds. Dry each slice in an oven at 220°F for 24 hours or until no further weight change occurs. The slices shall be arranged in the oven so as to provide separation between faces. Remove from the oven and measure the mass of each piece again as soon as practical in pounds. The moisture content of each slice, on a dry basis, shall be calculated as:
MCslice = 100 ∙ (WSliceWet  -  WSliceDry) / WSliceDry
Where: WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds; WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds; [and] MCSlice = moisture content of the slice in % dry basis."
 11. We propose to require two Step 1 tests, one using crib wood and one using cord wood and reasonable additional non-binding tests with a range of fuels for which the appliance is designed for warranted and/or advertized operation. These tests are needed to show how emissions and efficiency vary according to test methods, operating scenarios, wood species and density and other variables such as cord wood versus crib wood. We believe that such testing would help assure consumers, neighbors and other stakeholders that the appliances perform as well on all manufacturer-listed fuels and operating scenarios as they do for the EPA laboratory test scenarios. Proposed Step 2 tests will use cord wood and not crib wood. The EPA, industry and states believe that moving to cord wood testing will help address concerns about actual emissions from heaters/stoves in homes versus test laboratories. We are working with states and industry on a cord wood test method and evaluating potential revisions to the current version of the ASTM E2780-10 cord wood test method. Industry is conducting tests now using the cord wood test method, and we will consider the results of that testing when it becomes available, possibly as part of this rulemaking if these results become available in time to do so.
      B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
      The proposed subpart QQQQ would apply to new wood-fired residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces and any other affected appliance as defined in subpart QQQQ as a "central heater." We believe this new "central heater" categorization will better ensure that all appliances potentially affected under new proposed subpart QQQQ are included in this proposed action. The provisions of subpart QQQQ would apply to each affected unit that is manufactured or sold on or after [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. This proposal does not include any requirements for heaters that are fueled solely by gas, oil or coal.
      As discussed earlier in this preamble, subpart QQQQ affects a source category of mass-produced residential consumer products rather than typical industrial processes. Thus, this proposed NSPS has many aspects that are similar to those in Subpart AAA, e.g., certification of model lines and phased implementation. This Proposed Approach would apply to all new residential hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces. Under the Proposed Approach, the Proposed Step 1 emission limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply upon the effective date of the final rule, which we expect will be in 2014. The Proposed Step 2 emission limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. We ask for specific comments on the Proposed Approach and the degree to which these dates could be sooner.
      We also considered an alternative three-step approach (Alternative Approach) for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters. Under this Alternative Approach, as in the Proposed Approach, the Alternative Step 1 emission limits for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply upon the effective date of the final rule. The Alternative Step 2 emission limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The Alternative Step 3 emission limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply 8 years after the effective date of the final rule (thus providing 5 years between the Alternative Step 2 and the Alternative Step 3). We ask for specific comments on this Alternative Approach and the degree to which these dates could be sooner.
      Table 5 summarizes the proposed PM emissions standards that would apply under this Proposed Approach at each step. Table 6 summarizes the PM emissions standards that would apply under each step of the Alternative Approach. Similar to the proposed requirements for subpart AAA, we are not proposing a standard for CO or efficiency, but we are proposing to require manufacturers to collect and report CO emissions and efficiency data during certification tests.
Table 5. Proposed Approach Subpart QQQQ  PM Emissions Standards
Appliance
Steps
Particulate Matter Emissions Limits
Residential  Hydronic Heater

Step 1: 2014 (upon the effective date of the final rule)
Step 2: 2019      (5 years after the effective date of final rule)
0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output and a cap of 7.5 g/hr for individual test runs

0.06 lb/MMBtu
Forced-Air Furnace
Step 1: 2014 (upon the effective date of the final rule)

Step 2: 2019      (5 years after the effective date of final rule)
0.93 lb/MMBtu

0.06 lb/MMBtu

Table 6. Alternative Approach Subpart QQQQ PM Emissions Standards
Appliance
Steps
Particulate Matter Emissions Limits
Residential  Hydronic Heater

Step 1: 2014 (upon the effective date of the final rule)

Step 2: 2017      (3 years after the effective date of final rule)

Step 3: 2022      (8 years after the effective date of the final rule)
0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output and a cap of 7.5 g/hr for individual test runs

0.15 lb/MMBtu

0.06 lb/MMBtu
Forced-Air Furnace
Step 1: 2014 (upon the effective date of the final rule)

Step 2: 2017      (3 years after the effective date of final rule)

Step 3: 2022      (8 years after the effective date of final rule)
0.93 lb/MMBtu

0.15 lb/MMBtu

0.06 lb/MMBtu

      Unlike the current subpart AAA requirements, the subpart QQQQ requirements would not provide an additional time period for the sale of unsold units manufactured before the compliance date. The subpart QQQQ requirements would not include a small volume manufacturer compliance extension. See section V.C. of this preamble for more discussion of this topic. We ask for comments on the timing for implementation.
      As in the current subpart AAA for wood heaters/stoves, we are proposing a list of prohibited fuels because their use would cause poor combustion or even hazardous conditions. We request comment on these requirements and data to support additional requirements, if warranted. Also, as in the current subpart AAA for wood heaters/stoves, we are proposing that the owner or operator must not operate the hydronic heater or forced-air furnace in a manner that is inconsistent with the owner's manual. For pellet-fueled appliances, this proposal makes it clear that operation according to the owner's manual includes operation only with pellet fuels that have been used in the certification test and have been graded and marked under a licensing agreement with the PFI, or equivalent (after request and subsequent approval by the EPA), to meet certain minimum requirements and procedures for a quality assurance process. Details of the PFI program are available at http://pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/pfi-standards-program/. We believe that these provisions are necessary to ensure that the appliances operate properly such that emissions are reduced as intended. We ask for specific comments on the use of the PFI program and the PFI specifications, especially the degree to which the PFI program will adequately ensure the absence of construction and demolition waste (and associated toxic contaminants) in the pellets.
      The proposed labeling requirements and owner's manual requirements are similar to the guidelines in the EPA's current voluntary hydronic heater program with some improvements. We request specific comments on ways to improve the delivery of information on the permanent label and in the owner's manual and whether different information might be useful to the consumer and to the regulatory authorities.
      The structure of the rest of the proposed subpart QQQQ is similar to the proposed subpart AAA certification and quality assurance process. We request specific comments on changes or improvements to that process that might be needed to address any special concerns related to the certification of hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces.
      As discussed earlier, the EPA developed Method 28 OWHH, in 2006, as part of our efforts for voluntary qualification of cleaner hydronic heaters. We received input at that time from manufacturers, laboratories, and some states in order to quickly develop a mostly consensus-based method that we incorporated into the program partnership agreements. We used Method 28 for wood heaters/stoves as the foundation. Thus, Method 28 OWHH has many aspects similar to Method 28. Three significant differences are: (1) Method 28 OWHH uses larger cribs because hydronic heater fireboxes are typically much larger than wood heater fireboxes; (2) Method 28 OWHH uses red oak instead of Douglas fir because red oak is the more common fuel in the U.S.; and (3) Method 28 OWHH includes procedures for determining 8-hour heat output and efficiency. The manufacturers, laboratories, states and the EPA have now had over 7 years of experience with Method 28 OWHH and its successor Method 28 WHH (improved and expanded to include indoor heaters, not just outdoor heaters).
      All the stakeholders that have provided input on the test methods agree that the methods should be thoroughly vetted and changed as necessary to improve the method's accuracy and precision and to address concerns about how to best ensure protection across the entire U.S. when various operating scenarios and wood species and densities are used. ASTM has developed E2618-09 to address some of these concerns, and the EPA believes that E2618-09 does include some improvements. However, as with the wood heater/stove methods, we and some states do not agree with all the changes that ASTM has made. For example, the states of Washington and Oregon are very concerned that Method 28 WHH and ASTM E2618-09 do not specify fueling with Douglas Fir, which is used in EPA Method 28 for wood heaters/stoves and which these states require in their regulations for residential wood heaters, including hydronic heaters. They are concerned that hydronic heaters tested with Red Oak will have higher emissions when fueled with Douglas Fir and other less dense species typical in their states. Also, a number of states and the EPA are concerned about the ASTM changes to the burn rate categories, i.e., easing or eliminating testing at the lowest burn rates, which often occur in home operations and are typically the dirtiest and least efficient. For several years, we have been communicating with European certification laboratories to learn how they conduct their tests under EN 303-5 and to consider if incorporating some of their testing procedures might improve our test methods.
      More recently, because of initial concerns about some surprisingly high laboratory test efficiencies for a couple of the EPA voluntary partnership program Phase 2 qualified partial heat storage models, the EPA, the Northeast states that regulate hydronic heaters, laboratories (including EPA-accredited laboratories and Brookhaven National Laboratory) and manufacturers have conducted an exhaustive review of voluntary partnership program qualifying test reports. All of the stakeholders that provided input on the test methods agree that we need a change in the test method for testing of non-integral partial heat storage models (i.e., models that have separate heat storage but the storage does not have the capacity to safely handle all the heat generated by a full load of fuel). ASTM has been leading an effort to develop an Appendix X2 to the test method for such models but has not completed that effort as of this proposal. Brookhaven National Laboratory has recommended a method to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and NYSDEC has proposed that method be used for certification of such models in their states. We are proposing that method be used for certification of the NSPS for hydronic heaters equipped with a partial heat storage unit.
      Further, we are proposing revisions to Method 28 WHH that would require that all affected non-pellet hydronic heaters, subject to new subpart QQQQ, conduct certification compliance testing using both crib wood and cord wood for the 2014 emission limits and solely cord wood for the 2019 emission limits.
      Thus, we are asking for specific comments on whether the EPA should use: (1) one or more of the draft versions of Appendix X2 being considered as part of ASTM work product WK26581; (2) the European Union test method EN303-05 as the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has recently approved for certification of hydronic heaters in their state as equivalent to the EPA Method 28 WHH; (3) the use of the proposed new partial thermal storage test method (developed by Brookhaven National Laboratory); and/or (4) some other test method. For use of any of the test methods, the EPA would require that the amount of heat storage for the actual sale and installation of the hydronic heaters be no less than the amount used for the certification tests. Because EN303-05 does not currently use heat storage during the certification test, if the EPA were to use EN303-05 test results, the EPA would require the installed heater to have heat storage that can safely handle at least 60 percent of the maximum heat output of the heater or a greater level if the manufacturer specifies a greater level. The EPA is asking for specific comments on the appropriateness of this heat storage level or other levels. The EPA will consider any or all of these options as the preferred reference test methods or as acceptable emission testing alternatives. (ASTM previously developed an Appendix X1 for testing of models that have "full" heat storage that can safely accept the heat from the full load of fuel.) We request comments on all aspects of heater testing and are especially interested in emission test data that compare the results for testing by these different methods.
      Also, the exhaustive review discussed above found a number of areas in the methods to improve the quality of the data and reduce anomalies. In June 2011, the voluntary partnership program stakeholders agreed to a number of changes to Method 28 OWHH, and we are proposing the revised method as EPA Reference Method 28 WHH. The EPA is asking for specific comments on this method and recommendations and supporting data for other changes or acceptable alternatives. The following paragraphs discuss some of the key changes we are proposing for comment. Additional information on the EPA methods is available at www.epa.gov/burnwise. The ASTM methods and draft work products are available at www.astm.org/epa.
      1.	Heater (aka Boiler) temperature range
      We propose that for all tests, the return water temperature to the heater must be 120°F or greater. We additionally propose that if the manufacturer specifies a thermal control valve or other arrangement to be installed and set to control the return temperature at 120°F or higher, the valve must be installed and set per the manufacturer's written instructions.
      2.	Efficiency calculations
      We propose to require the use of thermopiles to measure the temperature change "delta T" and verify accuracy of the load side flow meter. The accuracy of the flow meter is determined separately by direct weighing of timed water collection. Thermocouples must measure water temperature at the inlet and outlet of the load side heat exchanger. We propose to delete the requirement for supply side flow measurements and require one load side reading with thermopiles (using a commercial system or a homemade system). Efficiency would be measured on the output (load) side of the heat exchanger. The flow meter would be calibrated before and after each test run within the flow range used for the test.
      3.	Time period for recording temperatures
	We propose that all water temperatures, differential water temperatures and water flow rates must be recorded at time intervals of 1 minute or less. This data file must be submitted with the test report. For determination of heat output, the data for these parameters must be measured in equal time intervals no greater than 10 minutes or at a frequency that results in a minimum of 50 equal intervals per test run, whichever is greater.
      4.	Test fuel moisture content
	We propose that each individual test fuel moisture content reading must be in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry basis and the average moisture content of each piece of test fuel must be in the range of 19 to 25 percent.
	We also propose the following moisture measurement procedure: Using a fuel moisture meter as specified in the test method, determine the fuel moisture for each test fuel piece used for the test fuel load by averaging at least five fuel moisture meter readings, one from each of three sides, measured parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of the moisture meter insulated electrodes must be one-fourth the thickness of the fuel piece or 19 mm (3/4 in.), whichever is less for three of the measurements made at approximately 3 inches from each end and the center. Two additional measurements at approximately one-third the thickness shall be made centered between the other three locations. We request specific comments on the moisture content limits and the procedures for determining the moisture content and the typical variances due to the measurement procedures.
	We also request specific comments on the following approach for determining moisture content. "Select three pieces of cord wood from the same batch of wood as the test fuel and the same weight as the average weight of the pieces in the test load +- 1.0 lb. From each of these three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice shall be (1/2)" to (3/4)" thick. One slice shall be cut across the center of the length of the piece. The other two slices shall be cut half way between the center and the end. Immediately measure the mass of each piece in pounds. Dry each slice in an oven at 220°F for 24 hours or until no further weight change occurs. The slices shall be arranged in the oven so as to provide separation between faces. Remove from the oven and measure the mass of each piece again as soon as practical in pounds. The moisture content of each slice, on a dry basis shall be calculated as:
MCslice = 100 ∙ (WSliceWet  -  WSliceDry) / WSliceDry
Where: WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds; WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds; [and] MCSlice = moisture content of the slice in % dry basis."
	Also, we propose that moisture must not be added to previously dried fuel pieces except by storage under high humidity conditions and temperature up to 100ºF. Fuel moisture must be measured no more than 4 hours before using the fuel for a test. The test report must describe the source and storage history of the test fuel.
      5.	Water density
      a.	We propose that the measured volumetric flow from the flow meter be converted to mass basis by using the water density based on water temperature. The same method must be used on both the load and supply side if the optional supply side meter is used.
      b.	We propose that the water density be calculated using the water temperature measured at the flow meter.
      6.	Calculations
      a. We propose that the electronic test reports submittals include all data within the locked spreadsheets so the formulas used and relevant calculations can be reviewed in detail.
      b.	To ensure common application, we propose to require averages to be calculated on each 10-minute reading rather than averaging over the entire test run.
      7.	Overall efficiency (CSA B415.1-10 Stack Loss Method)
	We propose that during each test run, data must be obtained and presented for the purpose of calculation of overall efficiency as specified in the stack loss method in CSA B415.1-10. This includes CO and CO2, flue gas temperature, and appliance mass (remaining fuel weight). Overall efficiency for each run must be determined as per CSA B415.1-10 and reported. Whenever the CSA B415.1-10 overall efficiency is found to be lower than the overall efficiency based on the load side measurements, as determined by this method, the report must include a discussion of the reasons for this result.
      8.	Wood loading
      Test fuel loads would be determined by multiplying the firebox volume by 4.54 kg (10 lb) of wood (as used, wet weight) per cubic foot, or a higher load density as recommended by the manufacturer's operating instructions. As discussed earlier, the EPA will require separate tests in the proposed Step 1 using cribs and using cord wood. In the proposed Step 2, the tests would all be using cord wood. There are ongoing discussions on how to improve both types of tests. We are working with states and industry on a cord wood test method and evaluating making revisions to the current version of the ASTM cord wood test method and states' ideas on cord wood testing. Also, we are reviewing European experiences with cord wood testing.
      9.	Drawing of test apparatus
	The test report would be required to contain a drawing of the test apparatus, including thermocouples, piping arrangements including any recirculation loops, the thermopile and flow meter(s).
      10.	Aquastat settings
      Aquastat or other heater output control device settings that are adjustable would be set using manufacturer specifications, either as factory set or in accordance with the owner's manual, and must remain the same for all burn categories.
      11.	Narrative
      The test report would be required to include a statement that the test was conducted according to the method specified. If there are any deviations from the test procedure requirements, the test report would need to include a section identifying those deviations, the reasons for those deviations, and an evaluation of the data quality implications, if any, of such deviations on the test results.
      12.	The test report would include a standard summary page as a quick check for the reviewer that results are within method specifications.
      13. 	We propose to require testing with a range of all fuels for which the appliance is designed, per the manufacturer's warranty and owner's manual, to show how emissions and efficiency vary according to species and density and cord wood versus crib wood.
      The EPA is proposing to rely on the test method that has been developed by the CSA for forced-air furnaces. All CSA standards are developed through a consensus development process approved by the Standards Council of Canada. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus and develop a standard. CSA worked for years on development of this test method that has its roots in earlier U.S. efforts on wood heaters/stoves. The current version of CSA B415.1-10 was published in March 2010, and it includes not only the forced-air furnace test method but also new Canadian emission performance specifications for indoor and outdoor central heating appliances.
      Although the CSA B415.1-10 technical committee included 32 individuals, including numerous U.S. manufacturers and laboratories, it did not include any states or environmental groups, and the EPA participation was minimal. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that this CSA method warrants proposal for this rulemaking. We request specific comments and supporting data. We ask for specific comments on the appropriateness of using the CSA test method in its entirety, including the use of cord wood instead of crib wood that are used in current versions of Method 28 and Method 28 WHH. To review the CSA test method, please go to www.csa.ca.
      C. Masonry Heaters
      The proposed subpart RRRR would apply to new residential masonry heaters. The provisions apply to each affected unit that is manufactured on or after [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. We are proposing that, as of the effective date of the final rule, no person would manufacture or sell a residential masonry heater that does not meet the proposed emission limit of 0.32 lb of PM per MMBtu heat output. We are also proposing a 5-year small volume manufacturer compliance extension that would apply to companies that construct fewer than 15 masonry heaters per year. See section V.C. of this preamble for more discussion of compliance date related issues. We request specific comments on the degree to which these dates can be sooner. As in the case of the other proposed standards, we are proposing requirements that would apply to the operator of the masonry heater, including a provision to operate the unit in compliance with the owner's manual; a prohibition on use of certain fuels; and a requirement to use licensed wood pellets or equivalent, if applicable. We are not proposing efficiency or CO standards for new residential masonry heaters at this time because data are not yet available to support the basis for such standards.
      The EPA is proposing to rely on ASTM method E2817-11 for masonry heaters. The laboratories, some states and the masonry heater industry worked for years on drafts of this method that has its roots in earlier regulatory efforts in Colorado. The EPA has participated in the discussions from time to time over the years and has provided comments and suggestions. There have been a number of variations of similar methods over the years. The current ASTM methods are ASTM E2817-11 "Standard Test Method for Test Fueling Masonry Heaters" and the draft work product ASTM WK26558 "Specification for Calculation Method for Custom Designed, Site-built Masonry Heaters." (http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK26558.htm.) We are encouraged by the progress shown by development of the ASTM method and the current draft work product and propose that they be used for this rulemaking. We request specific comments on these methods and any changes that should be considered and supporting data for those changes. We request specific comments and supporting emission test data on the use of "Annex A1. Cordwood Fuel" and "Annex A2. Cribwood Fueling." ASTM is allowing public review, for no charge, of the ASTM test methods and draft work products relevant to this rule at www.astm.org/epa.
      As an alternative to testing, we are proposing that manufacturers of masonry heaters may choose to submit a computer model simulation program, such as ASTM WK 26558 noted above, for the EPA's review and approval.
      The structure of the rest of the proposed new subpart RRRR is similar to the proposed subpart AAA certification and quality assurance process and contains similar requirements for labels, owner's manual, etc. One difference, however, is that for small custom unit manufacturers, we are requiring less stringent quality control (QC) procedures. Specifically, we are proposing that the initial certification for these custom units is sufficient and that no further QC is necessary since each unit is a unique model and subject to certification. We request comment on changes or improvements that might be needed to address special concerns related to certification of masonry heaters.
      IV. Summary of Environmental, Cost, Economic, and Non-Air Health and Energy Impacts
 The EPA estimates the proposed NSPS's total annualized average nationwide costs would be $15.7 million ($2010) over the 2014 through 2022 period. The economic impacts for industries affected by this proposed rule over this same period range from 4.3 percent for manufacture of wood heater/stove models to as much as an 6.4 percent compliance cost-to-sales estimate for manufacture of single burn rate wood heater models. These impacts do not presume any pass-through of impacts to consumers. With pass-through to consumers, these impact estimates to manufacturers will decline proportionate to the degree of pass-through.
      A. What are the air quality impacts?
      To determine the air quality impacts, we developed emission factors for each appliance type and then applied those emission factors to shipment data for each of the appliance types subject to the proposed NSPS. We developed the emission factors using the EPA Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) emission estimation tool, which is a Microsoft Access database that compiles nationwide RWC emissions using county-level, process-specific data and calculations. The compilation of such data is a large, important, continually improving effort by the EPA and the states to ensure that we and the states have access to the best information available. We summed the estimated nationwide number of appliances and the estimated total tons of wood burned for each of the relevant product categories in the inventory and then made some adjustments/assumptions to the baseline RWC inventory to reflect emission characteristics specific to new units.
      We used the resulting subset of the RWC database to calculate an average emission rate per appliance for each category, as follows. First, we multiplied the total tons of wood burned by devices within the category by the category emission factor to calculate the total tons of emissions for each of the pollutants PM2.5, volatile organic compound (VOC), and CO emissions for that category. Then we divided these values by the number of appliances in the category to calculate the average emissions of PM2.5, VOC and CO per individual appliance. We then developed adjusted emission factors to reflect the NSPS options and then used the adjusted factors to calculate average tons of emissions of each of these three pollutants per appliance for each category.
      We used data in the Frost & Sullivan Market (F&S) report on 2008 shipments by product category and F&S revenue forecasts, which incorporated the weak economy in years 2009 and 2010, to calculate the reduced number of shipments in years 2009 and 2010. We adjusted these data to include appliances not covered in the F&S report (e.g., forced-air furnaces). For years 2011 through 2038, we estimated shipments based on a forecasted revenue growth rate of 2.0 percent, in keeping with the average annual growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) predicted by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. There is not a perfect correlation between shipments and revenue (for example, because of their higher unit cost, pellet heaters/stoves generate more absolute revenue than wood heaters/stoves), but we think the overall trend in the projection is reasonable in the absence of specific shipment projections.
      The next step was to calculate the total emissions per appliance category. First, we multiplied the emission factor for each category by the inventory value of total tons of wood burned by all appliances within that category, and then divided by the number of appliances in the inventory population. The appliance value was then multiplied by the number of units shipped to calculate total emissions from each category per year using the baseline conditions emission factors (i.e., in the absence of a revised NSPS). Using the same procedure, category emissions were then calculated using the emission factors for the proposed NSPS.
      Table 7 is a summary of the average emissions reductions over years 2014 through 2022 resulting from implementing the proposed NSPS compared to baseline conditions. Note that we do not have emission impacts from masonry heaters because they are not included in the RWC emission estimation tool. However, we believe that nationwide emissions from masonry heaters are relatively low, given the low number of sales. Thus, we also believe that the emission reductions from these sources will be relatively low.

Table 7. Estimated Annual Average (2014-2022) Air Quality Impacts

Appliance Type
                                 PM2.5 (tons)
                                  VOC (tons)
                                   CO (tons)

Baseline
Revised NSPS
Emission Reduction
Baseline
Revised NSPS
Emission Reduction
Baseline
Revised NSPS
Emission Reduction
Wood Heaters
                                                                            548
                                                                            385
                                                                            163
                                                                            781
                                                                            551
                                                                            230
                                                                          7,857
                                                                          5,448
                                                                          2,409
Single Burn Rate Heaters
                                                                            932
                                                                            178
                                                                            754
                                                                          1,614
                                                                            244
                                                                          1,370
                                                                          7,029
                                                                          2,860
                                                                          4,169
Pellet Heaters/Stoves
                                                                            199
                                                                            150
                                                                             49
                                                                              3
                                                                              2
                                                                              1
                                                                          1,035
                                                                            778
                                                                            257
Furnace: Indoor, Cord wood
                                                                          3,044
                                                                            434
                                                                          2,610
                                                                          1,290
                                                                            184
                                                                          1,106
                                                                         20,294
                                                                          2,896
                                                                         17,398
Hydronic Heating Systems
                                                                          1,332
                                                                             84
                                                                          1,249
                                                                            565
                                                                             35
                                                                            530
                                                                          8,883
                                                                            557
                                                                          8,326
Total
                                                                          6,055
                                                                          1,230
                                                                          4,825
                                                                          4,253
                                                                          1,016
                                                                          3,237
                                                                         45,098
                                                                         12,538
                                                                         32,559

Note: This table does not include the emissions that continue for the duration of the lifetime of the appliance's use, typically greater than 20 years.
      B. What are the benefits?
      Emission reductions associated with the requirements of this rule will generate health benefits by reducing emissions of PM2.5, HAP, as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, including CO and VOC. VOC are precursors to PM2.5 and ozone. For this rule, we were only able to quantify the health co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 from directly emitted PM2.5. Our benefits reflect the average of annual PM2.5 emission reductions occurring between 2014 and 2022 (inclusive). We estimate the monetized PM2.5 -related health benefits of the proposed residential wood heaters NSPS in the 2014-2022 timeframe to be $1,800 million to $4,100 million (2010 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and $1,700 million to $3,700 million (2010 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates. A summary of the emission reduction and monetized benefits estimates for this rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 8 of this preamble.
Table 8. Summary of Monetized PM2.5-related Health Benefits for Proposed Residential Wood Heaters NSPS in 2014-2022 Timeframe (millions of 2010 dollars)[a, b]
Pollutant
Estimated Emission Reductions
(tpy)
Total Monetized Benefits
(3% Discount Rate)
Total Monetized Benefits
(7% Discount Rate)
Directly emitted PM2.5
                                     4,825
                               $1,800 to $4,200
                               $1,700 to $3,700
PM2.5Precursors
VOC
                                     3,250
                                      --
                                      --
a All estimates are for the 2014-2022 timeframe (inclusive) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as NOX, and directly emitted PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to NO2, exposure to ozone, VOC, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment.
[b] PM benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type.

      These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from emission limits established to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a "benefit-per-ton" approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the benefit-per-ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert emissions of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that change in air quality, which are then divided by the emissions in specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann et al. (2012), but they have since been updated to reflect these studies and population data in the 2012 PM NAAQS RIA. Specifically, we multiplied the benefit-per-ton estimates from the "Residential Wood Heaters" category by the corresponding emission reductions. All national-average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission reductions in this rulemaking, and thus they may not reflect the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for any specific location. More information regarding the derivation of the benefit-per-ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support document, which is available in the docket.
      These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, which drive population exposure.
      It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study and the extended Six Cities cohort study. In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule, which is available in the docket, we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments (Roman et al, 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5-mortality relationship.