Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 22 February 3, 2014 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New 

Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces, and New 

Residential Masonry Heaters; Proposed Rule 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734; FRL–9904–05– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AP93 

Standards of Performance for New 

Residential Wood Heaters, New 

Residential Hydronic Heaters and 

Forced-Air Furnaces, and New 

Residential Masonry Heaters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

amend the Standards of Performance for 

New Residential Wood Heaters and to 

add two new subparts: Standards of 

Performance for New Residential 

Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air 

Furnaces and Standards of Performance 

for New Residential Masonry Heaters. 

This proposal is aimed at achieving 

several objectives for new residential 

wood heaters and other wood-burning 

appliances, including applying updated 

emission limits that reflect the current 

best systems of emission reduction; 

eliminating exemptions over a broad 

suite of residential wood combustion 

devices; strengthening test methods as 

appropriate; and streamlining the 

certification process. This proposal does 

not include any requirements for heaters 

solely fired by gas, oil or coal. In 

addition, it does not include any 

requirements associated with appliances 

that are already in use. The EPA 

continues to encourage state, local, 

tribal, and consumer efforts to 

changeout (replace) older heaters with 

newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, 

but that is not part of this federal 

rulemaking. 

Particulate pollution from wood 

heaters is a significant national air 

pollution problem and human health 

issue. Health benefits associated with 

these proposed regulations are valued to 

be much greater than the cost to 

manufacture cleaner, lower emitting 

appliances. These proposed regulations 

would significantly reduce particulate 

matter (PM) emissions and many other 

pollutants from these appliances, 

including carbon monoxide (CO), 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), and 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). 

Emissions from wood stoves occur near 

ground level in residential communities 

across the country, and setting these 

new requirements for cleaner stoves into 

the future will result in substantial 

reductions in exposure and improved 

public health. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 5, 2014. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before March 5, 2014. 

Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a 

public hearing on this proposed rule on 

February 26, 2014, in Boston, 

Massachusetts. The hearing will be at 

the following location: EPA New 

England Regional Office, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, Leighton Hall, 

Boston, MA. For directions and public 

transportation, visit: http://www.epa.

gov/region1/directions/. Please note that 

5 Post Office Square is a federal 

building, and proper identification is 

required for entry. 

The public hearing will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present data, views or arguments 

concerning the proposed rule. The EPA 

may ask clarifying questions during the 

oral presentations, but will not respond 

to the presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as any oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. Written comments must be 

postmarked by the last day of the 90-day 

comment period. 

If you would like to present oral 

testimony at the hearing, please register 

on-line (preferred method for 

registering) at http://www2.epa.gov/

residential-wood-heaters no later than 

February 19, 2014, to request a general 

time slot for you to speak and any 

special equipment. If this method is not 

available to you, please notify Mr. David 

Cole no later than February 19, 2014, by 

email: cole.david@epa.gov); or by 

telephone: (919) 541–5565. The EPA 

will make every effort to follow the 

schedule as closely as possible on the 

day of the hearing. The public hearing 

will begin each day at 9 a.m. (local time) 

and continue into the evening until 7 

p.m. (local time). The EPA will make 

every effort to accommodate all other 

speakers who arrive and register before 

7 p.m. (local time) on the day of the 

hearing. The EPA is scheduling lunch 

breaks from 12:30 until 2 p.m. (local 

time). 

Testimony will be limited to five (5) 

minutes for each commenter to address 

the proposal. We will not be providing 

equipment for commenters to show 

overhead slides or make computerized 

slide presentations unless we receive 

special requests in advance. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide 

written versions of their oral testimonies 

either electronically on computer disk 

or CD–ROM or in paper copy. 

The hearing schedule, including lists 

of speakers, will be posted on the EPA’s 

Web page for the proposal at: http://

www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters 

prior to the hearing. Verbatim transcript 

of the hearing and written statements 

will be included in the rulemaking 

docket. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0734, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0734. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0734. 

• Mail: United States (U.S.) Postal 

Service, send comments to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West (Air Docket), 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0734, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. Please include a 

total of two copies. In addition, please 

mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 735 

17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0734. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI, or otherwise 

protected, through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6331 

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 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Gil Wood, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Outreach and Information Division, 

Community and Tribal Programs Group 

(C304–03), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–5272; fax number: 

(919) 541–0242; email address: 

wood.gil@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

A. What is the NSPS program? 

B. Why was the original residential wood 

heaters NSPS developed? 

C. What are the requirements of the current 

1988 NSPS? 

D. What are the major developments since 

the original NSPS was published? 

E. Why is residential wood smoke a 

concern? 

F. What are the major issues that drove the 

review process? 

III. Summary of Proposed Residential Wood 

Heater Appliance Amendments 

A. Room Heaters 

B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters and 

Forced-Air Furnaces 

C. Masonry Heaters 

IV. Summary of Environmental, Cost, 

Economic, and Non-Air Health and 

Energy Impacts 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the benefits? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the non-air quality health and 

energy impacts? 

V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments 

A. Why are we proposing to expand the 

scope of appliances subject to the NSPS? 

B. How did we determine BSER and the 

proposed emission standards? 

C. How did we establish the proposed 

compliance timelines? 

D. How are we proposing to streamline the 

requirements for certification, quality 

assurance and laboratory accreditation? 

E. What changes and additions to the 

allowed test methods are we proposing? 

F. What other changes and additions to the 

administrative requirements are we 

proposing? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

The purpose of this action is to 

propose amendments to the Standards 

of Performance for New Residential 

Wood Heaters (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

AAA) and to add two new subparts: 

Standards of Performance for New 

Residential Hydronic Heaters and 

Forced-Air Furnaces and Standards of 

Performance for New Residential 

Masonry Heaters (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts QQQQ and RRRR). This 

proposal was developed following a 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

111(b)(1)(B) periodic review of the 

current residential wood heaters new 

source performance standards (NSPS). 

We concur with numerous stakeholders 

that the current body of evidence 

justifies revision of the current 

residential wood heaters NSPS to 

capture the improvements in 

performance of such units and to 

expand the applicability of this NSPS to 

include additional wood-burning 

residential heating devices that are in 

the market. The proposed changes are 

aimed at achieving several objectives, 

including applying updated emission 

limits that reflect the current best 

systems of emission reduction (BSER); 

eliminating exemptions over a broad 

suite of residential wood combustion 

devices; strengthening test methods as 

appropriate; and streamlining the 

certification process. This proposal does 

not include any requirements for heaters 

solely fired by gas, oil or coal. In 

addition, it does not include any 

requirements associated with wood 

heaters or other wood-burning 

appliances that are already in use. The 

EPA continues to encourage state, local, 

tribal, and consumer efforts to 

changeout (replace) older heaters with 

newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, 

but that is not part of this federal 

rulemaking. 

These revisions will help reduce the 

health impacts of fine particle pollution, 

of which wood smoke is a contributing 

factor in many areas. Residential wood 

smoke contains fine particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

micrometers or less (PM2.5), CO, toxic 

air pollutants (e.g., benzene and 

formaldehyde), and climate-forcing 

emissions (e.g., methane and black 

carbon). Residential wood smoke can 

increase PM2.5 to levels that cause 

significant health concerns. Populations 

that are at greater risk for experiencing 

health effects related to fine particle 

exposures include older adults, children 

and individuals with pre-existing heart 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6332 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood 

Smoke. EPA–456/B–13–001, March 2013. Prepared 

by Outreach and Information Division, Air Quality 

Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. pp. 4– 

5. 

2Air Quality and Emissions Data; Supporting 

Information for the Residential Wood Heater New 

Source Performance Standard, August 14, 2013. 

or lung disease. Each year, smoke from 

wood heaters contributes hundreds of 

thousands of tons of fine particles 

throughout the country—mostly during 

the winter months. Nationally, 

residential wood combustion accounts 

for 44 percent of total stationary and 

mobile polycyclic organic matter (POM) 

emissions, nearly 25 percent of all area 

source air toxics cancer risks and 15 

percent of noncancer respiratory 

effects.1 Residential wood smoke causes 

many counties in the U.S. to either 

exceed the EPA’s health-based national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for fine particles or places them on the 

cusp of exceeding those standards.2 To 

the degree that older, higher emitting, 

less efficient wood heaters are replaced 

by newer heaters that meet the 

requirements of this rule, or better, the 

emissions would be reduced, the 

efficiencies would be increased and 

fewer health impacts should occur. 

This action is conducted under the 

authority of section 111 of the CAA, 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources,’’ under which the 

EPA establishes federal standards of 

performance for new sources within 

source categories that cause or 

contribute significantly to air pollution, 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. 

Consistent with section 111(h), if it is 

not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 

standard of performance, the 

Administrator may instead promulgate a 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard, or combination 

thereof, that reflects the best system of 

continuous emission reduction, which 

(taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, and 

any non-air quality, health, and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. 

2. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Proposed Regulatory Action 

In response to the results of the NSPS 

review, we are proposing to amend 40 

CFR part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of 

Performance for New Residential Wood 

Heaters. The current regulation applies 

to affected appliances manufactured 

after 1988. The current emission limits 

would remain in effect for the heaters 

and model lines manufactured before 

the effective date of this rule until their 

current EPA certification expires 

(maximum of 5 years) or is revoked. 

After the certification expires or is 

revoked, these heaters and other new 

heaters would have to meet updated 

emission standards. We propose to 

broaden the applicability of the 

regulation beyond adjustable burn rate 

wood heaters (the focus of the original 

regulation), to specifically include all 

single burn rate wood heaters/stoves 

and pellet heaters/stoves. (Some pellet 

heaters/stoves were not affected by the 

1988 regulation.) Note that this 

preamble uses the following terms 

interchangeably: heaters, stoves and 

heaters/stoves. Heaters/stoves and 

model lines manufactured after the 

effective date of the rule would be 

required to meet PM standards. 

As with the 1988 regulation, the 

source category covered by this NSPS is 

fundamentally different from the typical 

NSPS source category in several ways. 

For example, most NSPS source 

categories focus on industrial or 

commercial facilities, and typically 

these heaters are installed and operated 

in residences, not industrial or 

commercial facilities. Also, residential 

wood heaters, hydronic heaters, forcedair furnaces, and most masonry heaters 

are mass-produced consumer items, 

rather than industrial processes 

typically regulated by NSPS. Therefore, 

as in 1988, we are proposing that 

manufacturers participate in a 

certification program that tests a 

representative heater per model line 

rather than requiring testing each heater. 

If the representative heater meets the 

applicable emission limits, the entire 

model line may be certified and the 

manufacturer would not be required to 

test every heater. Individual heaters 

within the model line would still be 

subject to all other requirements, 

including labeling and operational 

requirements. Manufacturers would be 

required to have quality assurance 

programs to ensure that all heaters 

within the model line conform to the 

certified design and meet the applicable 

emission limits. The EPA would 

continue to have the authority to 

conduct audits to ensure compliance. 

We ask for comments on all aspects of 

this approach, especially whether more 

than one representative heater should be 

tested prior to certification of the model 

line. 

The 1988 regulation also addressed 

some of the specific characteristics of 

this source category by developing a 

two-step compliance approach that 

provided a reasonable, phased 

implementation of emission limits for 

manufacturers. We believe such an 

approach is prudent this time also to 

allow manufacturers lead time to 

develop, test, field evaluate and certify 

current technologies across their 

consumer product lines. In 1988, there 

were ‘‘logjam’’ concerns about the 

capacity of accredited laboratories to 

conduct certifications tests and time for 

the EPA to review the tests and 

adequately assure compliance if all the 

NSPS requirements were to be 

immediate. Those concerns have been 

expressed this time also. Thus, upon the 

effective date of this rule, new heaters/ 

stoves would be required to meet Step 

1. Five years later, new heaters/stoves 

would be required to meet Step 2. The 

rule also would require that each unit be 

equipped with a permanent NSPS label. 

The two-step approach would apply to 

all the heater types addressed in this 

rulemaking except for masonry heaters. 

For masonry heaters, we are not 

proposing a second more stringent 

emission limit. 

Additional requirements would apply 

to entities other than the manufacturer. 

The wood heater test laboratory would 

be subject to quality assurance 

requirements. The rule would continue 

to require the proper burn practices that 

currently apply to the owner or operator 

of a wood heating appliance. In 

addition, new pellet heater/stove 

owners and operators would be required 

to use only the grade of licensed pellet 

fuels that are included in the heater/

stove certification tests, or better. We are 

proposing to streamline the current 

enforcement and audit provisions of the 

current subpart to reflect changes in 

industry practices and development of 

new tools and procedures. We are 

proposing improvements to the previous 

test methods as well as new test 

methods. 

We are also proposing new subpart 

QQQQ, which would apply to new 

wood-fired residential hydronic heaters 

and forced-air furnaces, and new 

subpart RRRR, which would apply to 

new residential masonry heaters. These 

new subparts are being proposed to 

address the remaining heater appliance 

types in the 1987 residential wood 

heater source category listing that were 

not regulated by the 1988 NSPS. Both 

subparts are designed using principles 

similar to those in subpart AAA, i.e., 

certification testing of a representative 

unit in a model line, label requirements, 

associated quality assurance 

requirements and phased 

implementation. Subpart RRRR has 

some additional features to address very 

small volume manufacturers, including 

a proposed compliance extension and 

the ability to use a software certification 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6333 

approach rather than a laboratory 

emission test. 

The proposed PM standards for 

subparts QQQQ and RRRR would be 

implemented in two steps. For subpart 

QQQQ, upon the effective date of the 

rule, hydronic heaters would be 

required to meet a Step 1 PM limit of 

0.32 pound per million British thermal 

unit (lb/MMBtu) output and forced-air 

furnaces would be required to meet a 

Step 1 PM limit of 0.93 lb/MMBtu heat 

output. Five years after the effective 

date of the rule, both hydronic heaters 

and forced-air furnaces would be 

required to meet a Step 2 PM limit of 

0.06 lb/MMBtu heat output. For subpart 

RRRR (masonry heaters), upon the 

effective date of the rule, large 

manufacturers (defined as 

manufacturers constructing greater than 

or equal to 15 masonry heaters per year) 

would be required to meet a PM limit 

of 0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output. Five 

years after the effective date of the rule, 

small volume masonry heater 

manufacturers (defined as 

manufacturers constructing less than 15 

masonry heaters per year) would be 

required to meet the 0.32 lb/MMBtu 

heat output PM limit. 

3. Costs and Benefits 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ we have estimated 

the cost and benefits of the proposed 

rule. The estimated net benefits of our 

proposed rule at a 3 percent discount 

rate are $1.8 billion to $4.1 billion or 

$1.7 billion to $3.7 billion at a 7 percent 

discount rate. The non-monetized 

benefits include 33,000 tons of CO 

reductions; 3,200 tons of VOC 

reductions; reduced exposure to HAP, 

including formaldehyde, benzene, and 

POM; reduced climate effects due to 

reduced black carbon emissions; 

reduced ecosystem effects; and reduced 

visibility impairments. Table 1 is a 

summary of the results of the analysis 

per type of residential wood heater. We 

have provided estimates reflecting 

average annual impacts for the 2014 to 

2022 timeframe, which are the 

implementation years for the options 

analyzed in the RIA for this proposal. 

Monetized benefits are not currently 

available for masonry heaters. We ask 

for emission and projected sales data 

per model that would help us prepare 

emission reduction estimates and 

corresponding monetized benefits 

estimates for masonry heaters. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS, MONETIZED BENEFITS, AND MONETIZED NET BENEFITS (2010 DOLLARS) BY

TYPE OF HEATER IN THE 2014–2022 TIME FRAME FOR THE PROPOSED RULE

Type of heater 

Total annualized 

costs 

($ millions) 

Monetized benefits 

($ millions) a b

Monetized net 

benefits 

($ millions) 

Wood stoves ................................................................................................ $4.2 $62 to $140 ............... $62 to $140. 

Single burn rate stoves ................................................................................ 0.9 $290 to $650 ............. $290 to $650. 

Pellet stoves ................................................................................................ 3.5 $19 to $43 ................. $19 to $43. 

Forced-air furnaces ...................................................................................... 2.3 $1,000 to $2,200 ....... $1,000 to $2,200. 

Masonry heaters .......................................................................................... 0.3 N/A c .......................... N/A. 

Hydronic heating systems ........................................................................... 4.5 $480 to $1,100 .......... $480 to $1,100. 

aAll estimates are for the time frame from 2014 to 2022 inclusive. These results include units anticipated to come online and the lowest cost 

disposal assumption. Total annualized costs are estimated at a 7 percent interest rate. bTotal monetized benefits are estimated at a 3 percent discount rate. The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM2.5. It is important to note that the monetized benefits include 

many but not all health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Krewski et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. 

(2012). These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality 

because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were 

generated using benefit-per-ton estimates, we do not break down the total monetized benefits into specific components. cThe monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not available because we do not have national estimates of the potential emission 

reductions. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

The potentially regulated sources that 

are the subject of this proposal are listed 

in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by this 

proposed action. This standard, and any 

changes considered in this rulemaking, 

would be directly applicable to sources 

as a federal program. Thus, federal, 

state, local and tribal government 

entities are not affected by this proposed 

action. 

TABLE 2—POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES

Category NAICSa 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, and 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. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6334 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal, following signature by the 

EPA Administrator, will be posted at the 

following address: http://

www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters. 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to the EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Instead, 

clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI 

and send or deliver only to the 

following address: Roberto Morales, 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

you claim as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, 

you must submit a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. If you submit a disk or 

CD–ROM that does not contain CBI, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the 

EPA’s electronic public docket without 

prior notice. Information marked as CBI 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions. Respond to 

specific questions and organize 

comments by a section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats or character 

assassination. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline. 

II. Background 

A. What is the NSPS program? 

Under section 111 of the CAA, 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources,’’ the EPA lists 

categories of sources that, in the EPA’s 

judgment, cause or contribute 

significantly to air pollution, which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare pursuant to 

section 111(b)(1)(A), and then 

promulgates federal standards of 

performance for new sources within 

such categories under section 

111(b)(1)(B). At the time the EPA 

proposes and establishes standards for 

certain pollutants for a source category, 

the EPA prepares an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with the NSPS, which includes the 

benefits from reductions in pollutants 

for which the standards do not set 

limits. For example, emission 

reductions associated with the 

requirements of this proposed rule will 

generate health benefits by reducing 

emissions of PM2.5, other criteria 

pollutants, such as CO, and non-criteria 

HAP. Consistent with section 111(h), if 

it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce 

a standard of performance, the 

Administrator may instead promulgate a 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard, or combination 

thereof, which reflects the best system 

of continuous emission reduction which 

(taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reduction, and 

any non-air quality, health, and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. The NSPS do not 

establish standards of performance for 

existing sources. However, numerous 

states have acted independent of this 

rule to address new and existing sources 

as part of state implementation plan 

(SIP) measures necessary to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Several examples are 

discussed in section II.E of this 

preamble. 

The level of control prescribed by 

section 111 of the CAA historically has 

been referred to as ‘‘Best Demonstrated 

Technology’’ or BDT. To better reflect 

that section 111 was amended in 1990 

to clarify that ‘‘best systems’’ may or 

may not be ‘‘technology,’’ the EPA is 

now using the term ‘‘best systems of 

emission reduction’’ or BSER. As was 

done previously in analyzing BDT, the 

EPA uses available information and 

considers the emissions reductions and 

incremental costs for different systems 

available at reasonable cost. The 

residential wood heaters source category 

is different from most NSPS source 

categories in that it is for mass-produced 

residential consumer products. Thus, 

important elements in determining that 

BSER include the significant costs and 

environmental impacts of delaying 

production while models with those 

systems are being designed, tested, field 

evaluated and certified. As noted earlier 

and discussed more fully later in this 

preamble, the 2-step approach that the 

EPA is proposing considers these 

factors. That is, for this rulemaking, the 

EPA has determined the appropriate 

emission limits and compliance 

deadlines that together are 

representative of BSER. Details of the 

BSER determinations are included in 

section V.B. of this preamble. 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to periodically (every 

8 years) review an NSPS unless it 

determines ‘‘that such review is not 

appropriate in light of readily available 

information on the efficacy of such 

standard.’’ If needed, the EPA must 

revise the standards of performance to 

reflect improvements in methods for 

reducing emissions, including 

consideration of what emissions 

limitation is achieved in practice. 

Numerous stakeholders have suggested 

that the current body of evidence 

justifies the revision of the current 

residential wood heaters NSPS to 

capture the improvements in 

performance of such units and to 

expand the applicability of this NSPS to 

include additional residential woodburning heating devices that are 

available today. The states of New York, 

Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, as 

well as the Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency, have filed in U.S. District Court 

in Washington, DC, to ask the court to 

order the EPA to promptly review, 

propose and adopt necessary updates to 

the NSPS for residential wood heaters. 

Likewise, the American Lung 

Association, the Environmental Defense 

Fund, the Clean Air Council, and 

Environment and Human Health, Inc., 

have filed a similar request. Also, some 

stakeholders have suggested that the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6335 

EPA develop additional NSPS to 

regulate residential heating devices that 

burn fuels other than or in addition to 

wood, e.g., coal, corn or grass. This 

proposal does not include any 

requirements for heaters that solely burn 

fuels other than wood. 

B. Why was the original residential 

wood heaters NSPS developed? 

The development of the residential 

wood heater regulations began in the 

mid-1980s in response to the growing 

concern that wood smoke contributes to 

ambient air quality-related health 

problems. Several state and local 

governments developed their own 

regulations for wood heaters. Then, in 

response to a lawsuit filed by New York 

State and the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), the EPA agreed to 

initiate a residential wood heaters NSPS 

rulemaking, with a schedule calling for 

final action by January 31, 1988. The 

original standard was developed using a 

regulatory negotiation process with the 

key stakeholders (the wood heating 

industry, state governments, and 

environmental and consumer groups) 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA). 

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), 

the EPA listed the residential wood 

heater source category based on its 

determination that residential wood 

heaters cause, or contribute significantly 

to, air pollution which may reasonably 

be anticipated to endanger public health 

or welfare (52 FR 5065, February 18, 

1987). The EPA also proposed 

regulations for residential wood heaters 

(52 FR 4994, February 18, 1987). The 

final standards were published on 

February 26, 1988 (53 FR 5860). At the 

time the original NSPS was proposed, 

the EPA estimated that a typical preNSPS 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, woodburning appliance capable of and 

intended for space heating or domestic 

water heating that meets all of the 

following criteria: 

1. An air-to-fuel ratio (ratio of the 

mass of combustion air introduced into 

the firebox to the mass of dry fuel 

consumed) in the combustion chamber 

averaging less than 35-to-1 as 

determined by the test procedure 

prescribed in 40 CFR 60.534 performed 

at an accredited laboratory; 

2. A usable firebox volume of less 

than 0.57 cubic meters (20 cubic feet); 

3. A minimum burn rate (weight of 

dry test fuel consumed per hour) of less 

than 5 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (11 

pounds per hour (lb/hr)) as determined 

by the test procedure prescribed in 40 

CFR 60.534 performed at an accredited 

laboratory; and 

4. A maximum weight of 800 kg 

(1,760 lb), excluding fixtures and 

devices that are normally sold 

separately, such as flue pipe, chimney, 

and masonry components that are not 

an integral part of the appliance or heat 

distribution ducting. 

In the 1988 rulemaking, the EPA 

identified several types of residential 

wood combustion appliances that are 

not subject to the current 1988 NSPS: 

• Open masonry fireplaces 

constructed on site 

• Boilers/Heaters 

• Furnaces 

• Cook Stoves 

In addition, the current 1988 NSPS 

exempts the following from the 

emission limits: 

• Wood heaters used solely for 

research and development (R&D) 

purposes 

• Wood heaters manufactured for 

export 

• Coal-only heaters 

As noted earlier, because of the 

specific characteristics of this source 

category (e.g., it applies to massproduced residential consumer items), 

the residential wood heaters NSPS (also 

sometimes informally referred to as the 

wood stove NSPS) allows compliance 

for model lines to be certified ‘‘pre-sale’’ 

by the manufacturers. A typical NSPS 

source category approach that imposes 

emission standards and then requires a 

unit-specific compliance demonstration 

would have been very costly and 

impractical. Therefore, the 1988 NSPS 

was designed to allow manufacturers of 

wood heaters to use a certification 

program to test representative wood 

heaters on a model line basis. Once a 

model line is certified, all of the 

individual units within the model line 

are subject to labeling, operational and 

other requirements. Manufacturers are 

then required to conduct a quality 

assurance program to ensure that 

appliances produced within a model 

line conform to the certified design and 

meet the applicable emission limits. 

There are also provisions for the EPA to 

conduct audits to ensure compliance. 

As discussed in the 1988 rulemaking, 

the standards limiting PM emissions 

from wood heaters in the current 1988 

NSPS were phased in for this source 

category because of the need to consider 

the costs of delayed production while 

new models were being developed and 

certified. Advanced technology heaters/ 

stoves including both catalytic and 

noncatalytic systems were considered to 

be BDT (now called BSER), because the 

net emissions of both systems over time 

were estimated to be similar (even 

though the initial certification test 

results were lower for catalytic models) 

due to possible degradation and lack of 

catalyst replacement. The EPA 

considered requiring catalyst 

replacement on a regular schedule but 

determined that enforcement of such a 

requirement would be difficult or 

impractical. The EPA did require 

manufacturers to provide 2-year 

unconditional warranties on the 

catalysts and prohibited the operation of 

catalytic heaters/stoves without a 

catalyst. Principally because of these 

concerns, the EPA wanted to ensure that 

both catalytic and noncatalytic 

technology would continue to be 

options for manufacturers to use and 

further develop. The Subpart AAA 

Phase I standards issued in 1988 were 

very similar to the Oregon Department 

of Environmental Quality standards that 

had been in existence for a few years. 

The Subpart AAA Phase II standards, 

issued in 1988 and which are still in 

effect, are more stringent and had to be 

met within 2 years of publication of the 

final rule, i.e., by 1990. Models 

equipped with a catalytic combustor 

cannot emit more than a weighted 

average of 4.1 g of PM per hour. Models 

that are not equipped with a catalytic 

combustor cannot emit more than a 

weighted average of 7.5 g of PM per 

hour. The lower initial emission limit 

for the catalytic combustor-equipped 

models incorporates an expected 

deterioration rate for the catalysts such 

that after 5 years the emissions from 

those models were expected to be 

similar to the emissions from 

noncatalytic models. 

D. What are the major developments 

since the original NSPS was published? 

New systems for residential wood 

heating devices are commercially 

available in the U.S. that perform at 

significantly lower g/hr emission rates 

than required under the current 1988 

NSPS. Furthermore, even greater 

performance potentially can be achieved 

by greater deployment of the best U.S. 

systems and the typical systems already 

widely employed in Europe, especially 

for outdoor and indoor hydronic 

heaters. The EPA has conducted a 

research project ‘‘Environmental 

Characterization of Outdoor Wood-fired 

Hydronic Heaters’’ through a 

cooperative R&D agreement with the 

New York State Energy Research and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6336 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3Environmental, Energy Market, And Health 

Characterization Of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heater 

Technologies. Prepared by U.S. EPA Office of 

Research and Development, et al., prepared for 

NYSERDA. June 2012. 

4For more information on wood smoke health 

effects, see: ‘‘Smoke Gets in Your Lungs: Outdoor 

Wood Boilers in New York State,’’ prepared by 

Judith Schrieber, Ph.D., et al., for the Office of the 

Attorney General of New York. August 2005. See 

also: ‘‘Assessment of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers,’’ 

prepared by NESCAUM, March 2006 (revised June 

2006). 

5 ‘‘Phase 1’’ and ‘‘Phase 2’’ emission levels refer 

to levels established in EPA voluntary partnership 

programs. The earlier use of the term ‘‘Phase II’’ 

(with a Roman numeral) standard refers to 

standards established in the current subpart AAA 

for residential wood heaters. 

6The terms ‘‘qualified’’ and ‘‘unqualified,’’ or 

other similar terms, refer to models that meet or 

have not been shown to meet the voluntary 

partnership program performance levels. Later use 

of the terms ‘‘certified’’ and ‘‘uncertified,’’ or other 

similar terms, refers to models that are deemed to 

be in compliance or noncompliance with the NSPS 

emission limits. 

Development Authority (NYSERDA) 

that evaluated four types of technology 

ranging from a common outdoor wood 

boiler/heater to a state-of-the-art, highefficiency pellet boiler/heater from 

Austria. The study showed considerable 

emission reduction due to a 2-stage 

combustion technology that includes 

gasification of the fuel and more 

complete combustion.3

Many stakeholders have expressed 

concern to the EPA about a broad range 

of residential wood heating appliances 

that do not have emission standards in 

the current 1988 NSPS. These include 

single burn rate wood heaters; pellet 

heaters/stoves that are not subject to the 

current standard via the NSPS air-tofuel ratio; wood ‘‘boilers’’ (hydronic 

heaters); forced-air furnaces; and 

masonry heaters. Some stakeholders 

have also expressed an interest in 

regulating non-‘‘heater’’ devices, such as 

indoor and outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, 

cook stoves and pizza ovens. 

One category of wood heating 

appliances that has undergone 

significant growth is wood heaters/

boilers or ‘‘hydronic heaters.’’ (Note that 

these units are technically called heaters 

rather than boilers because many are not 

pressurized and do not boil the liquid.) 

Hydronic heaters are typically located 

outside the buildings they heat in small 

sheds with short smokestacks. These 

appliances burn wood to heat a liquid 

(water or a water-antifreeze mixture) 

that is piped to provide heat and hot 

water to occupied buildings, such as 

homes. Often, in addition to supplying 

heat for homes, the same unit is used to 

provide heat for barns and greenhouses 

and to provide warm water for 

swimming pools. Hydronic heaters may 

also be located indoors and may use 

other biomass (such as corn or wood 

pellets) or coal or a combination for 

fuel. 

Studies have shown that PM2.5

concentrations in proximity to a typical 

outdoor hydronic heater (aka outdoor 

wood boiler) can exceed the 24-hour 

NAAQS.4 Thus, the EPA developed a 

hydronic heater voluntary partnership 

program in order to encourage 

manufacturers to reduce impacts on air 

quality and health through developing 

and distributing cleaner hydronic 

heaters for those locations where local 

jurisdictions allow hydronic heaters. We 

developed the voluntary partnership 

program with the goal of bringing 

cleaner models to market faster than the 

traditional federal regulatory process. 

Properly operated Phase 1 5 emission 

level (0.60 lb/MMBtu heat input) 

qualifying 6 units are approximately 70 

percent cleaner than typical unqualified 

units. After March 31, 2010, units that 

only meet the Phase 1 emission level are 

no longer considered ‘‘qualified 

models’’ under the voluntary 

partnership program. Properly operated 

Phase 2 emission level (0.32 lb/MMBtu 

heat output) qualifying units are 

estimated to be approximately 90 

percent cleaner than typical unqualified 

units. Typically, qualified models have 

improved insulation, secondary 

combustion, separation of the firebox 

from the water jacket, and the addition 

of improved heat exchangers. 

In addition to the voluntary 

partnership program, the EPA provided 

technical and financial support for the 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Use Management (NESCAUM) to 

develop a model rule that several states 

have adopted to regulate hydronic 

heaters. The model rule is a starting 

point for local regulatory authorities to 

consider, and additional actions may be 

needed due to site-specific concerns, 

e.g., local terrain, meteorology, 

proximity of neighbors and other 

exposed individuals. Thus, some 

regulatory authorities have instituted 

additional requirements, such as limits 

on proximity to neighbors, limits on 

visible emissions and limits on use in 

non-heating seasons. Some authorities 

have banned hydronic heaters entirely 

in some areas. 

The EPA also developed a similar 

voluntary partnership program for low 

mass fireplaces (engineered, prefabricated fireplaces) and site-built 

masonry fireplaces. Fireplaces were not 

included in the 1988 NSPS for 

residential wood heaters because typical 

fireplaces are not considered to be 

effective ‘‘heaters.’’ Most of the heat 

content from the wood burned in a 

typical fireplace is lost out the chimney 

rather than heating a room. The 

voluntary program began in February 

2009, and pertained only to low mass 

fireplaces at that time. In July 2009, the 

program was expanded to masonry 

fireplaces. Under this program, cleaner 

burning fireplaces are ones that qualify 

for the Phase 1 emissions level of 7.3 

grams of particles emitted per kilogram 

(g/kg) of fuel burned (approximately 57 

percent cleaner than unqualified 

models) or the Phase 2 emissions level 

of 5.1 g/kg (approximately 70 percent 

cleaner than unqualified models). So 

far, 36 models (of hundreds of models 

on the market) have qualified under this 

voluntary partnership program at the 

Phase 2 level. Typically, qualified 

models have improved insulation and 

added secondary combustion and/or a 

catalyst to reduce emissions. Some 

manufacturers have added doors to 

reduce the excess air and thus improve 

combustion. The Phase 2 emission level 

in the voluntary fireplace program has 

been considered as a starting point for 

some local regulatory authorities, and 

additional actions have also been 

considered due to site-specific concerns, 

e.g., local terrain, meteorology, 

proximity of neighbors and other 

exposed individuals, and magnitude of 

other emissions in the airshed. Thus, 

some regulatory authorities have 

instituted additional requirements (e.g., 

‘‘no burn’’ days on which the fireplaces 

cannot be operated) and some have 

banned new wood-burning fireplaces in 

some areas. 

The current 1988 NSPS in subpart 

AAA have been in effect for over 25 

years and manufacturers and test 

laboratories have gained considerable 

experience in complying with the 

requirements of the program. As a 

result, many manufacturers and test 

laboratories have suggested changes to 

the certification process to better 

implement the program, such as 

developing an electronic system for 

submittals and approval. Many 

manufacturers and test laboratories have 

also questioned the effectiveness of 

some of the current audit procedures. In 

addition, they have participated in the 

development of new test methods and 

test method improvements as part of the 

efforts of ASTM International (formerly 

known as the American Society of 

Testing and Materials). The 1988 NSPS 

left a placeholder for development of an 

efficiency test method for use in subpart 

AAA. On June 1, 2007, the EPA 

approved the Canadian Standards 

Association (CSA) stack loss method in 

B415 as an alternative for wood heater 

efficiency testing in subpart AAA 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6337 

7EPA Burn Wise (Consumer—Health Effects), 

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/healtheffects.html. 

8Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood 

Smoke. EPA–456/B–13–001, March 2013. Prepared 

by Outreach and Information Division, Air Quality 

Planning Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. pp. 4– 

5. 

9Memorandum dated April 4, 2013, from David 

Cole, EPA, to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0734. 

10Arthur Marin, Executive Director of NESCAUM 

and Dan Johnson, Executive Director of WESTAR, 

to Steve Page, Director OAQPS/EPA. April 28, 2008. 

11Arthur Marin, Executive Director of 

NESCAUM, to Gina McCarthy, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation/EPA. January 

14, 2011. 

12 Department of Ecology, State of Washington, 

Brochure on Wood Smoke and Your Health. 

September 2008, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/

91br023.pdf. 

13EPA Burn Wise (Health Effects of Breathing 

Wood Smoke), http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/

woodsmoke_health_effects_jan07.pdf. 

14 ‘‘Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood 

Smoke,’’ EPA–456/B–13–001. March 2013. 

provided that the tests use the same 

burn rate categories specified in the EPA 

Reference Method 28. We are now 

proposing that the current version of 

this method be used for efficiency 

testing (CSA B415.1–10). We are also 

proposing EPA Method 28 WHH (woodfired hydronic heaters) that has been 

used for qualification testing of 

hydronic heaters in the EPA voluntary 

partnership program and numerous 

state regulations. Other issues that have 

been identified over the years regarding 

test methods and emissions calculations 

include emissions averaging, burn rate 

weightings, hot start versus cold start, 

emission caps per burn rate, and 

catalyst degradation. Another issue is 

whether to change current requirements 

to conduct certification tests with ‘‘crib’’ 

wood to ‘‘cord’’ wood. ‘‘Crib wood’’ is 

a specified configuration and quality of 

dimensional lumber and spacers, which 

was intended to improve the 

repeatability of the test method in 1988. 

‘‘Cord wood’’ is a different specified 

configuration and quality of wood that 

more closely resembles what a typical 

homeowner would use. We address all 

these issues as part of this proposal. 

E. Why is residential wood smoke a 

concern? 

1. Health and air quality concerns. 

There is increasing recognition of the 

health impacts of particle pollution, to 

which wood smoke is a contributing 

factor in many areas. Wood smoke 

contains a mixture of gases and fine 

particles that can cause immediate 

effects, including burning eyes, runny 

nose and bronchitis. Exposure to fine 

particles has been associated with a 

range of health effects, including 

aggravation of heart or respiratory 

problems (as indicated by increased 

hospital admissions and emergency 

department visits), changes in lung 

function and increased respiratory 

symptoms, as well as premature death. 

Populations at greater risk for 

experiencing health effects related to 

fine particle exposures include older 

adults, children and individuals with 

pre-existing heart or lung disease.7

Residential wood smoke contains fine 

particles and toxic air pollutants (e.g., 

benzene and formaldehyde). Each year, 

smoke from wood heaters contributes 

hundreds of thousands of tons of fine 

particles throughout the country— 

mostly during the winter months. 

Nationally, residential wood 

combustion accounts for 44 percent of 

total stationary and mobile POM 

emissions, nearly 25 percent of all area 

source air toxics cancer risks, and 15 

percent of noncancer respiratory 

effects.8

In a number of communities, 

residential wood smoke increases 

particle pollution to levels that cause 

significant health concerns. Several 

areas with wood smoke problems either 

exceed the EPA’s health-based NAAQS 

for fine particles or are on the cusp of 

exceeding those standards. For example, 

in places such as Keene, New 

Hampshire; Sacramento, California; 

Tacoma, Washington; and Fairbanks, 

Alaska; wood combustion can 

contribute over 50 percent of daily 

wintertime fine particle emissions.9

In December 2012, the EPA issued 

revised NAAQS for PM to provide 

increased protection of public health 

and welfare. The 2012 NAAQS for PM 

strengthened the annual NAAQS for 

fine particles to 12 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) from the 1997 

standard of 15 mg/m3 and retained the 

existing 24-hour fine particle standard 

of 35 mg/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 

mg/m3 to continue to provide protection 

against effects associated with exposure 

to thoracic coarse particles. Areas that 

do not meet the standards must take 

steps to reduce PM emissions. The 

National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies (NACAA), the Environmental 

Council of States (ECOS), NESCAUM, 

the Western States Air Resources 

Council (WESTAR), and the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO) have argued that more 

stringent standards for new wood 

heating devices would provide a much 

needed tool for states and local 

communities to use in addressing the 

growth of pollution from these 

sources.10 11 Recent health studies 

considered in the review of the PM 

NAAQS confirm the impacts on public 

health. The latest information on the PM 

NAAQS reviews is at http://

www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html. 

There is also concern about the health 

effects of other pollutants found in 

wood smoke. In addition to PM, wood 

smoke contains harmful chemical 

substances such as CO, formaldehyde 

and other organic gases, and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX). 

Health effects from CO include: 

• Interference with the blood’s ability 

to carry oxygen to the brain, which 

impairs thinking and reflexes 

• Heart pain 

• Lower birth weights and increased 

deaths in newborns 

• Death 

Health effects from formaldehyde and 

other organic gases include: 

• Irritation of eyes, nose, and throat 

• Inflammation of mucous 

membranes, irritation of the throat and 

sinuses 

• Interference with lung function 

• Allergic reactions 

• Nose and throat cancer in animals 

and cancer in humans 

Nitrogen oxide can irritate the eyes 

and respiratory system, may damage the 

immune system by impairing the body’s 

ability to fight respiratory infection and 

can affect lung function.12

Residential wood combustion 

emissions contain potentially 

carcinogenic compounds including 

formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, and 

dioxin, which are toxic air pollutants, 

but their effects on human health via 

exposure to wood smoke have not been 

studied as extensively.13

2. Concerns about existing sources. 

Many areas of the country are struggling 

with reducing PM emissions due to 

residential wood smoke from existing 

wood-burning appliances. Existing 

wood heaters will not be affected by this 

rule. In addition, due to the long life 

span of wood-burning appliances and 

slow turnover, it may be many years 

before the full benefits of these 

regulations on new appliances will be 

shown. However, there are strategies to 

reduce wood smoke that states, counties 

and townships can take to reduce wood 

smoke independent of this rule.14 Some 

states have direct legislative authority, 

and all states have authority to address 

new and existing sources as SIP 

measures necessary to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. For examples, the State of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6338 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15HPBA OWHH Caucus letter to Greg Green, 

Director, Outreach and Information Division, EPA. 

September 27, 2007. 

Oregon, Washoe County (NV), and 

Township of Mammoth Lakes (CA) have 

required that, when a home is sold, 

existing wood heaters that have not 

been certified to meet the NSPS be 

removed and destroyed and not resold. 

As additional SIP strategies, some states 

and local authorities have banned wood 

burning during certain high PM events, 

restricted the amount of burning, and 

regulated the type of materials being 

burned. Non-regulatory programs, such 

as education programs to teach the 

public how to use their wood-burning 

appliances in ways that minimize 

emissions, have also been implemented. 

The EPA has also implemented 

programs that encourage good burning 

practices, which can have a significant 

impact on emissions. The EPA, some 

state and local agencies, and other 

stakeholders, including the Hearth, 

Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA), 

have been active in promoting wood 

heater/stove changeout programs to 

replace older, higher-emitting heaters/

stoves with lower-emitting EPAcertified 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 WESTAR and NESCAUM 

that urged us to update and develop 

regulations relating to a variety of wood 

combustion devices. The authors cited 

concerns that many communities are 

measuring ambient conditions above or 

very close to the PM2.5 NAAQS and that, 

in many instances, emissions from 

wood smoke are a large contributor to 

those high PM2.5 levels. In addition, 

wood heater technology has greatly 

improved since the last revision of the 

NSPS. The standards we are proposing 

today recognize the cleaner, more 

efficient technologies developed in 

recent years. Other states, 

environmental groups, and HPBA have 

also recommended several changes to 

the NSPS. The HPBA Outdoor Woodfired Hydronic Heater (OWHH) 

Manufacturers Caucus wrote the EPA to 

express their unanimous support for the 

EPA to develop a federal regulation for 

OWHH.15

Specific requests from stakeholders 

include: 

• Tightening emission standards 

based on current performance data 

• Addressing other pollutants of 

concern 

• Reviewing the format of the 

standards, including adding 

requirements to document the tested 

efficiency of the unit 

• Reevaluating exemptions, such as 

those based on air-to-fuel ratios and size 

and weight 

• Adding other wood heating devices 

such as pellet heaters/stoves, hydronic 

heaters, and masonry heaters to the 

NSPS 

• Regulating fireplaces and other 

‘‘non-heater’’ devices (e.g., cook stoves) 

• Regulating heating devices that 

burn fuel other than wood (e.g., other 

solid biomass and coal) 

• Updating test methods 

• Streamlining the certification 

process to use electronic data 

submittals/reviews 

• Considering use of International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO)- 

accredited labs and ISO-accredited 

certifying bodies 

• Improving compliance assurance/

enforceability and quality assurance/

quality control 

• Making the rule more consumer 

friendly by making more information 

readily available on-line 

III. Summary of Proposed Residential 

Wood Heater Appliance Amendments 

We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart AAA, Standards of 

Performance for New Residential Wood 

Heaters. We are also proposing two new 

subparts to address additional types of 

residential wood heating appliances. 

Specifically, we are proposing subpart 

QQQQ, Standards of Performance for 

New Residential Hydronic Heaters and 

Forced-Air Furnaces, and subpart RRRR, 

Standards of Performance for New 

Residential Masonry Heaters. The 

following sections describe the major 

provisions of each subpart. This 

proposal does not include any 

requirements that would apply to 

heaters that are fueled solely by gas, oil 

or coal. In addition, this proposal does 

not include any requirements associated 

with wood heaters or other woodburning appliances that are already in 

use. The EPA continues to encourage 

state, local, tribal, and consumer efforts 

to changeout (replace) older heaters 

with newer, cleaner, more efficient 

heaters, but that is not part of this 

federal rulemaking. 

A. Room Heaters 

The current 1988 regulation (subpart 

AAA) applies to affected appliances 

manufactured since 1988. The current 

emission limits would remain in effect 

for the heaters and model lines 

manufactured before the effective date 

of this rule until their current EPA 

certification expires (maximum of 5 

years) or is revoked. After the 

certification expires or is revoked, these 

heaters and other new heaters would 

have to meet updated emission 

standards. We propose to broaden the 

applicability of the wood heaters 

regulation beyond adjustable burn rate 

wood heaters (the focus of the original 

regulation) to specifically also include 

single burn rate wood heaters/stoves, 

pellet heaters/stoves, and any other 

affected appliance as defined in the 

proposed subpart AAA as a ‘‘room 

heater.’’ The proposed subpart AAA 

does not apply to new residential 

hydronic heaters, new residential 

forced-air furnaces and new residential 

masonry heaters because they would be 

subject to their own subparts. Like the 

1988 current subpart AAA, the 

proposed subpart AAA does not apply 

to fireplaces. This proposal tightens the 

definition for ‘‘cook stoves’’ and adds 

definitions for ‘‘camp stoves’’ and 

‘‘traditional Native American bake 

ovens’’ to clarify that they would not be 

subject to the standard other than 

appropriate labeling for cook stoves and 

camp stoves. Finally, the proposed 

subpart AAA clarifies that the emission 

limits would only apply to woodburning devices (i.e., not to devices that 

only burn fuels other than wood, e.g., 

gas, oil or coal). 

As discussed in section II, NSPS 

determinations of BSER must consider 

costs. The fact that this source category 

is for consumer products manufactured 

for residential sale results in cost 

considerations that are different from 

those for industrial process source 

categories that are typical for most 

NSPS. Specifically, if production and 

sales were to be suspended while 

designing, testing, field evaluating and 

certifying cleaner models, the cost of 

potential lost revenues would be 

significant, which necessitates 

reasonable lead times for compliance 

with proposed emission limitations. 

This was true in 1988, and is still true 

today. Thus, we propose to allow a 

transition period so that heaters/stoves 

with EPA certification currently in 

effect can continue to be manufactured 

and sold until the current certification 

expires (5 years from date of 

certification) or is revoked by the 

Administrator, whichever date is earlier. 

We would not allow renewal of these 

certifications. That is, in the near term, 

we are proposing to retain the current 

Phase II PM emission limits (issued in 

the current 1988 standards for 

compliance in 1990) for adjustable burn 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6339 

rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/

stoves with a current EPA certification 

issued prior to the effective date of this 

rule. While our top priorities are to 

ensure that emission reductions occur 

in a timely manner and that there is no 

backsliding from the improvements that 

many manufacturers have already made, 

it is also important to avoid 

unreasonable economic impacts on 

those manufacturers (mostly small 

businesses) who need additional time to 

develop a full range of cleaner models. 

The compliance schedule should also 

help avoid potential ‘‘logjams’’ at 

laboratories conducting certification 

testing. We ask for specific comments 

on the length of this proposed transition 

and the degree to which there would be 

any critical economic impacts on 

manufacturers who have heaters with 

current certifications if we were to not 

allow up to the full 5-year certification 

period for units manufactured after the 

effective date of the final rule. We also 

ask for specific comments on allowing 

grandfathering of Step 1 models that are 

tested in good faith according to the 

proposed test methods and the proposed 

emission limits, even though the final 

test methods may differ from this 

proposal, and if so, for how long. 

We are proposing a two-step 

compliance approach (referred to herein 

as the ‘‘Proposed Approach’’) that 

would apply to all new adjustable burn 

rate wood heaters, single burn rate wood 

heaters and pellet heaters/stoves. Under 

this Proposed Approach, the Proposed 

Step 1 emission limits for these sources 

would apply to each source (a) 

manufactured on or after the effective 

date of the final rule or (b) sold at retail 

on or after the date 6 months from the 

effective date of the final rule. Proposed 

Step 2 emission limits for these sources 

would apply to each adjustable rate 

wood heater, single burn rate wood 

heater and pellet heater/stove 

manufactured or sold on or after the 

date 5 years after the effective date of 

the final rule. We ask for specific 

comments on the Proposed Approach 

and the degree to which these dates 

could be sooner. 

We are also asking for comments on 

a three-step compliance approach 

(referred to herein as the ‘‘Alternative 

Approach’’) for all adjustable rate wood 

heaters, single burn rate wood heaters 

and pellet heaters/stoves. Under this 

Alternative Approach, the Alternative 

Step 1 emission limits would apply to 

each source: (a) manufactured on or 

after the effective date of the final rule, 

or (b) sold at retail on or after the date 

6 months from the effective date of the 

final rule. (Step 1 under the Alternative 

Approach is the same as Step 1 under 

the Proposed Approach.) The 

Alternative Step 2 emission limits 

would apply to each source 

manufactured or sold on or after the 

date 3 years after the effective date of 

the final rule. The Alternative Step 3 

emission limits would apply to each 

source manufactured or sold on or after 

the date 8 years following the effective 

date of the final rule (thus providing 5 

years between the Alternative Step 2 

and Alternative Step 3). We ask for 

specific comments on this Alternative 

Approach, including data and potential 

environmental and economic impacts 

on this alternative, and the degree to 

which the Alternative Approach 

emission levels and dates could be 

considered BSER. Our current 

preference is the Proposed Approach, 

but we intend to finalize a single 

compliance approach after fully 

considering the comments received 

during the public comment period on 

this proposed rulemaking. 

Table 3 summarizes the PM emissions 

standards that would apply to each 

wood heater appliance under this 

Proposed Approach at each step. Table 

4 summarizes the PM emissions 

standards that would apply to each 

wood heater appliance under each step 

of the Alternative Approach. 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED APPROACH SUBPART AAA PM EMISSIONS LIMITS

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: upon the effective date of final rule ...........

Step 2: 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: upon the effective date of final rule ...........

Step 2: 3 years after the effective date of the final 

rule.

Step 3: 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6340 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16The International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) and the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) prepare and 

publish international standards. 

discussion of this topic. However, we 

are requesting comments on the possible 

need for such a compliance extension 

for single burn rate wood heaters, which 

are not subject to the current subpart 

AAA requirements. 

We are proposing to make a single 

determination of BSER for both catalytic 

and noncatalytic heater systems. The 

EPA considered requiring catalyst 

replacement on a regular schedule but 

determined that federal enforcement of 

such a requirement would be difficult. 

As in the current 1988 rule, we are 

proposing to require manufacturers to 

provide warranties on the catalysts and 

prohibit the operation of catalytic 

heaters/stoves without a catalyst. In 

addition, we are proposing to require 

warranties for noncatalytic heaters/

stoves. Though we are not proposing 

efficiency standards at this time, we are 

proposing to require testing and 

reporting of these data; however, we are 

requesting specific comment on the 

need to propose efficiency standards 

and any data to support the basis for 

these standards. 

We are also proposing to require 

emission testing and reporting based on 

both crib wood and cord wood for the 

proposed Step 1 compliance, and 

allowing manufacturers to choose 

whether to certify with crib wood or 

cord wood for the proposed Step 1 upon 

the effective date of the final rule. For 

the proposed Step 2 compliance 5 years 

after the effective date of the final rule, 

we would require certifying with cord 

wood only. As discussed earlier in this 

preamble, ‘‘crib wood’’ is a specified 

configuration and quality of 

dimensional lumber and spacers that 

was intended to improve the 

repeatability of the test method in 1988. 

‘‘Cord wood’’ is a different specified 

configuration and quality of wood that 

more closely resembles what a typical 

homeowner would use. We ask for 

comments and test data to compare 

heater performance with crib wood and 

cord wood. 

Although we lack sufficient data to 

propose a separate CO emissions 

standard at this time, we propose to 

require that the manufacturer determine 

CO emissions during the compliance 

test and report those results to the EPA. 

We specifically request emission and 

cost data for systems that reduce CO 

emissions. If those systems warrant 

inclusion in the final rule, we would 

consider doing so. In addition, we ask 

for specific comments on whether the 

final rule should explicitly require 

indoor CO monitors as a critical safety 

component for heaters installed in 

occupied buildings or other buildings or 

enclosures in which the operator would 

enter to add fuel to the heater or 

conduct other normal operation and 

maintenance of the heater. Numerous 

stakeholders have indicated that an 

explicit requirement is needed. 

Like the current 1988 subpart, the 

EPA is using its authority under section 

114 of the CAA to require each 

manufacturer to submit certifications of 

compliance with this rule for all models 

and all units. As in the 1988 rule, 

provided that the certifications are 

timely, complete, and accurate, the EPA 

is proposing to allow certification to be 

determined based on testing of a 

representative unit within the model 

line. As in 1988, the cost of testing each 

unit would be an order of magnitude 

greater than the cost of a wood heater/ 

stove and would be economically 

prohibitive. In addition, as in 1988, the 

testing of each unit could create a 

potential ‘‘logjam’’ that would stymie 

the certification of cleaner model lines. 

However, as discussed earlier, we are 

asking for specific comments on 

whether we should require testing of 

more than one representative unit prior 

to certification of a model line. The 

proposed subpart revises the definition 

of ‘‘Accredited Test Laboratory,’’ from 

only EPA-accredited laboratories to 

laboratories approved by the EPA after 

being accredited by a nationally 

recognized accrediting body to perform 

testing for each of the test methods 

specified in this NSPS under ISO–IEC16

Standard 17025, to conduct the 

certification testing. The laboratories 

would have to register their credentials 

with the EPA and be approved by the 

EPA prior to conducting any 

certification testing or related work used 

as a basis for compliance with this rule. 

Also, they would be required to report 

any changes in their accreditation and 

any deficiencies found under ISO 

17025, and the EPA may revoke the 

approval if appropriate. Our proposal is 

this laboratory definition revision be 

effective upon the effective date of the 

final rule. However, we request specific 

comments on whether we should allow 

a transition period. 

The proposal would require a 

‘‘Certifying-Body-Based Certification 

Process,’’ upon the effective date of the 

final rule. Under this process, after 

testing is complete, a certification of 

conformity with the PM emissions 

standards must be issued by a certifying 

body with whom the manufacturer has 

entered into contract for certification 

services. The certification body would 

have to be accredited under ISO–IEC 

Standard 17065 and register their 

credentials with the EPA and receive 

EPA approval prior to conducting any 

certifications or related work used as a 

basis for compliance with this rule and 

report any changes in their accreditation 

and any deficiencies found under ISO 

17065. We believe any certifying body 

that is approved by the EPA and is ISOaccredited should be expected to act in 

such a way that will not create a conflict 

of interest. The EPA would oversee the 

certification body’s work and retain the 

right to revoke the approval if 

appropriate. Upon review of the test 

report and quality control plan 

submitted by the manufacturer, the 

certifying body may certify compliance 

and submit the required documentation 

to the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance for review, 

approval and listing of the certified 

appliance. Our preference is to require 

the new expanded certification process 

(i.e., inclusion of ISO-accredited and 

EPA-approved certifying bodies) for 

certifications that occur after the 

effective date of the final rule. However, 

we request specific comments on 

whether we should allow a transition 

period; that is, whether we should 

retain the current ‘‘Administrator 

Approval Process’’ to review the 

certification application, including test 

results, for the first year following the 

effective date of the final rule. Note that 

models certified prior to the effective 

date of the final rule would not have to 

be re-tested until the certification 

expires or is revoked. 

As in the current 1988 NSPS, each 

affected unit would be required to have 

an applicable permanent label and have 

an owner’s manual that contains 

specified information. We are proposing 

that permanent labels would be required 

for each affected unit on the effective 

date of the final rule. We propose to 

clarify that the permanent label must be 

installed so that it is readily visible both 

before and after the unit is installed. 

This clarification is needed to document 

the use of complying heaters that may 

be required by state and local rules and/ 

or to determine the unit’s applicability 

to any future changeout programs. We 

also request specific comments on how 

to best assure that manufacturers and 

retailers and online marketers of wood 

heaters only use valid certification test 

data and not exaggerated claims. 

In the current (1988) NSPS, temporary 

labels (aka, hangtags) were required for 

wood heaters that are subject to the 

standards and also for ones that are not 

(e.g., coal heaters/stoves). These 

temporary labels were intended 

primarily to contain information useful 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6341 

to consumers and prospective heater 

purchasers to be able to compare 

different appliance models and to 

inform the consumer about the 

importance of proper operation and 

maintenance. These temporary labels 

included the wood heater’s compliance 

status, comparative emission and 

efficiency performance data, and heat 

output rates and explicitly stated that 

the appliance will achieve low smoke 

output and high efficiency only if 

properly operated and maintained. The 

EPA no longer believes these temporary 

labels are necessary for all certified 

heaters because we have developed and 

are continuing to improve our education 

and outreach program for consumers on 

selecting the cleanest certified 

appliances and wood fuel with 

appropriate moisture content and on the 

effective use and operation of these 

appliances. Consequently, we are 

proposing to remove the requirement for 

temporary labels on certified heaters. 

Consumers can get additional 

information that would normally be 

contained on the temporary labels at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/

monitoring/programs/caa/

woodheaters.html. We request comment 

on the potential impact that deleting 

this requirement might have on a 

consumer’s ability to select wood 

heaters that meet the proposed 

standards and are the cleanest and 

whether we should consider developing 

a voluntary labeling program for the 

cleanest of the clean. As discussed 

elsewhere, we also ask for specific 

comments on language that we should 

require manufacturers and retailers to 

provide to consumers to help explain 

the relative benefits of high-performing 

heaters versus lower-performing heaters 

and how to reduce exaggerated claims. 

In addition to the PM emissions 

standards, we are proposing to continue 

to require the proper burn practices that 

already apply to the owner or operator 

of a wood heating appliance. That is, the 

current 1988 standards already include 

the requirement that the owner or 

operator must operate the heater 

consistent with the owner’s manual and 

not burn improper fuels and 

manufacturers typically void their 

warranties in cases of improper 

operation. Numerous states have 

expressed their support for the 

continuation of these requirements. 

Some states and local jurisdictions have 

enforced similar requirements, and this 

proposal would allow potential 

delegation of enforcement authority of 

these NSPS requirements upon the EPA 

approval of state requests. 

The proposed revision clarifies that 

the current requirement to operate 

according to the owner’s manual 

continues to include a list of prohibited 

fuel types that create poor or even 

hazardous combustion conditions and 

includes operation of pellet fuel 

appliances only with the grades of pellet 

fuels that are included in the 

certification tests, or better. We propose 

that pellets for the certification tests be 

only those that have been produced 

under a licensing agreement with the 

Pellet Fuels Institute (PFI), or equivalent 

(after request and subsequent approval 

by the EPA), to meet certain minimum 

requirements and procedures for a 

quality assurance process. Details of the 

PFI program are available at http://

pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/pfistandards-program/. We are not aware 

of any other U.S. organization that has 

a pellet fuel quality assurance program 

similar in quality to the PFI program. 

However, we request specific comments 

on whether another high quality 

program exists. Manufacturers’ data 

show that pellet fuel quality assurance 

is necessary to ensure that the 

appliances operate properly such that 

emissions are reduced as intended. We 

ask for specific comments on how to 

determine equivalency for fuel pellets, 

and whether we should include other 

requirements of best burn practices or 

adjustments to help ensure proper 

operation, e.g., chimney height and draft 

specifications, moisture content of wood 

and limits on visible emissions. 

The proposed subpart AAA still 

contains the crucial quality assurance 

provisions in the current 1988 NSPS. A 

comprehensive discussion of the 

rationale is included in the 1988 

preamble. For example, a model line 

must be recertified whenever any 

change is made in the original design 

that could affect the emissions rate for 

that model line or when any of several 

specified tolerances of key components 

are changed. The 1988 requirements for 

manufacturer quality assurance 

programs would be superseded by a 

Certifying-Body-Based Quality 

Assurance program. (As noted earlier in 

this preamble, we would not require 

retesting for models that are certified 

prior to the effective date of the final 

rule until the certification expires or is 

revoked.) The certifying body would 

conduct regular, unannounced audits to 

ensure that the manufacturer’s quality 

control plan is being implemented 

properly. 

The EPA audit testing programs of the 

1988 NSPS will be maintained under 

the proposed changes, although they 

will be streamlined and simplified to 

better ensure compliance and to clarify 

that audits can be based on any 

information the EPA has available and 

do not have to be statistically random. 

Also, we clarify that the EPA and states 

are allowed to be present during the 

audits and that states (and other entities, 

including the public) may provide the 

EPA with information that may 

ultimately be used in the EPA 

enforcement and compliance assurance 

efforts. 

As discussed earlier, the EPA 

developed Method 28 in 1987 and 1988 

as part of our efforts on the 1988 NSPS. 

We received input at that time from 

manufacturers, laboratories, and some 

states. Oregon Method 7 was the starting 

point for Method 28 and, thus, Method 

28 has many aspects similar to Oregon 

Method 7. The details on the history 

and development of Method 28 are 

contained in the February 18, 1987, 

proposal in the Federal Register (52 FR 

5003) and the February 26, 1988, final 

rule in the Federal Register (53 FR 

5866). 

The manufacturers, laboratories, 

states and the EPA have more than 25 

years of experience with Method 28, 

and it has been very useful for certifying 

hundreds of model lines of wood 

heaters/stoves. We asked the 

manufacturers, EPA-accredited 

laboratories and states for their insights 

on Method 28. Many stakeholders agree 

that changes should be made to improve 

the reproducibility and repeatability of 

the test procedures and to address 

concerns about how to best ensure 

protection across the entire U.S. when 

various operating scenarios are used and 

various wood species and densities are 

used. For example, to address some of 

these concerns, ASTM has used a 

‘‘consensus-based’’ process to develop 

E2515–10 ‘‘Standard Method for 

Determination of Particulate Matter 

Emissions in a Dilution Tunnel.’’ The 

EPA is proposing that this sampling and 

analysis method be used for all of the 

appliances in this rulemaking. As with 

all test methods, there are opportunities 

for continual improvement, and the EPA 

requests specific comments and 

supporting data for additional potential 

improvements to E2515–10. 

A number of states have expressed 

concern about ASTM’s Intellectual 

Property Policy which requires all 

participants to give their intellectual 

property rights to ASTM so that, in turn, 

ASTM can control distribution of the 

drafts and final test methods and sell 

the final test methods to potential users. 

Attorneys General for several states have 

indicated that state employees in their 

states cannot give to ASTM the property 

rights for property that their states paid 

for via the employee salaries and other 

expenditures and thus cannot 

participate in ASTM’s ‘‘consensusVerDate Mar<15>2010 21:15 Jan 31, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03FEP2.SGM 03FEP2

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6342 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17 ‘‘CSA B415.1–10: Performance testing of solidfuel-burning heating appliances,’’ Canadian 

Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada. 2010. 

based’’ process. For this rulemaking, 

ASTM is allowing public review, for no 

charge, of the ASTM test methods and 

draft work products relevant to this 

proposed rule at www.astm.org/epa. The 

EPA requests specific comments and 

supporting data on the substance of all 

of the test methods relevant to this 

rulemaking and specific comments on 

the ASTM process and ways to 

ameliorate the process concerns. 

The ASTM methods E2779–10 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining 

Particulate Emissions from Pellet 

Heaters’’ and E2780–10 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining Particulate 

Emissions from Wood Heaters’’ are 

being considered for potentially 

replacing the wood heater fueling and 

operation requirements in Method 28 

for pellet heaters and wood heaters, 

respectively. Note that ASTM intends to 

use the same E2515–10 for the sampling 

and analysis portion for all the 

appliances and then separate methods 

per appliance types for the fueling and 

operation portions of these methods. 

The EPA believes E2525–10 is a sound 

method for sampling and analysis and 

we are proposing its use. The EPA also 

believes that E2779–10 is a sound 

method for measuring emissions from 

pellet heaters/stoves and includes 

reasonable measures to reduce testing 

costs for continuously-fed appliances, 

and we are proposing its use. However, 

because, as noted earlier, some states 

were not able to participate in the 

ASTM method development process, we 

specifically request comments and 

supporting data of all aspects of not 

only these test methods but also all the 

proposed methods as part of the 

comments on this proposed rule. 

Similarly, the EPA believes that 

ASTM Method E2780–10 includes 

improvements for testing adjustable and 

single burn rate wood heaters, and we 

are proposing many of the 

improvements today. For example, we 

are proposing the use of the E2780–10 

appendix for testing single burn rate 

appliances. However, we, and some 

states, do not agree with all the changes 

that ASTM has made for adjustable burn 

rate wood heaters, and some provisions 

are not as protective as we, and some 

states, now believe they need to be. As 

noted above, several states are 

concerned about how to best ensure that 

the methods are protective for the entire 

U.S., considering differences in wood 

species, density, and homeowner 

operation. The EPA and the states are 

particularly concerned about scenarios 

in which heaters/stoves will have higher 

emissions in home use than the 

emissions measured in the laboratories. 

For example, the states and the EPA are 

concerned about the ASTM changes on 

burn rate categories, i.e., easing or 

eliminating the lowest burn rates that 

often occur in home operations and are 

typically the highest emitting and least 

efficient. The EPA is asking for specific 

comments on these issues and 

recommendations and supporting data 

for other changes. The following 

paragraphs discuss some of the key test 

method provisions we are proposing 

and not proposing. Additional 

information on the methods is at 

http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woodheaters and at www.astm.org/epa. 

1. We do not agree with the ASTM 

changes to the burn rate categories, low 

burn rate requirement, and weightings 

in Method 28. Several states are very 

concerned that easing these items would 

create the potential for backsliding. 

Also, we are aware of several design 

changes being considered by a number 

of manufacturers that are relatively 

inexpensive (i.e., less than $20 dollars) 

and will reduce the emissions during 

periods when operated at low burn 

rates. We instead propose that the 

original provisions in Method 28 be 

retained for the burn rate categories and 

low burn rate requirement. We 

considered the weightings and believe 

that if weightings are to be used, they 

should be the same as the original 

requirements in Method 28. We are also 

proposing that the burn rates not be 

weighted at all for the Step 2 standards 

but rather that the emission limits be 

separate for Burn Rate Category 1 

(lowest burn rate category) and Burn 

Rate Category 4 (maximum burn rate 

category) and that compliance for each 

be shown separately. 

2. We propose to not allow 5 minutes 

for startup before closing the doors 

because startup is often the highest 

emitting part of the wood heater 

operation, and manufacturers need to 

ensure that startup emissions are also 

reduced. Again, relatively inexpensive 

means exist to reduce these emissions. 

3. We are not proposing to use the 

new ASTM equation for converting the 

emission test values between the EPA 

Reference Method 5G ‘‘Determination of 

Particulate Emissions From Wood 

Heaters From a Dilution Tunnel 

Sampling Location’’ and the EPA 

Reference Method 5H ‘‘Determination of 

Particulate Emissions From Wood 

Heaters From a Stack Location’’ 

currently allowed in the NSPS. Rather, 

we are proposing that Method 5G(3) test 

values be reported as tested for heaters 

that have valid certifications prior to the 

effective date of this rule and ASTM 

E2515–10 for all other heaters and that 

Method 5H not be used for testing for 

certifications after the effective date of 

this rule. We request data to help inform 

our decision for the final rulemaking. 

4. We are not proposing to allow 

manufacturers to specify a smaller 

volume of the firebox for testing because 

of our concerns about how to ensure 

that homeowners do not circumvent 

such a specification during operation, 

thereby increasing emissions beyond the 

levels that are measured during testing. 

5. We are proposing several tighter 

specifications on the test fuel moisture 

content, fuel load and coal bed depth in 

order to improve the reproducibility and 

repeatability of the certification tests. 

This part of the proposal is based on 

recommendations from one of the 

original EPA-accredited laboratories. We 

specifically request comments and 

supporting data regarding the following 

proposed tighter specifications for the 

laboratory test: (a) tightening fuel load 

dry-basis moisture content tightened 

from the Method 28-allowed 6 

percentage-point range from 19 percent 

to 25 percent to a reduced range of 22.5 

percent +/¥1 percent; (b) tightening the 

Method 28-allowed range for fuel load 

weight from 7.0 lb/ft 3 +/¥10 percent of 

the fuel load weight (or 7 lb/ft 3 +/¥0.7 

lb/ft 3) to 7 lb/ft 3 +/¥1 percent (or 7 lb 

+/¥0.07 lb) of the fuel load weight, 

calculated in accordance with Method 

28; and (c) tightening the Method-28- 

allowed range for the test-initiation 

coal-bed weight from 20 percent to 25 

percent of the fuel load weight to 22 

percent +/¥1 percent of the fuel load 

weight. 

6. We propose to require efficiency 

testing according to CSA B415.1–1017

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6343 

18 ‘‘A Test Method for Certification of Cord WoodFired Hydronic Heating Appliances with Partial 

Thermal Storage: Measurement of Particulate Matter 

(PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions and 

Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating 

Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage.’’ Prepared 

for NYSERDA by Brookhaven National Laboratory, 

February 15, 2013. 

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 (onefourth) the thickness of the fuel piece or 

19 millimeters (mm) (3/4 in.), 

whichever is less, for 3 of the 

measurements made at approximately 3 

inches from each end and the center. 

Two additional measurements at 

approximately one-third the thickness 

shall be made centered between the 

other three locations.’’ 

10. We also propose this alternate 

procedure developed by Brookhaven 

National Laboratory: 18 ‘‘Select three 

pieces of cord wood from the same 

batch of wood as the test fuel and the 

same weight as the average weight of the 

pieces in the test load ± 1.0 lb. From 

each of these three pieces, cut three 

slices. Each slice shall be 1⁄2′′ to 3⁄4′′ 

thick. One slice shall be cut across the 

center of the length of the piece. The 

other two slices shall be cut half way 

between the center and the end. 

Immediately measure the mass of each 

piece in pounds. Dry each slice in an 

oven at 220 °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 

home use versus test laboratories. We 

are working with states and industry on 

a cord wood test method and evaluating 

potential revisions to the current 

version of the ASTM E2780–10 cord 

wood test method. Industry is 

conducting tests now using the cord 

wood test method, and we will consider 

the results of that testing when it 

becomes available during the public 

comment period of this rulemaking. 

B. Central Heaters: Hydronic Heaters 

and Forced-Air Furnaces 

The proposed subpart QQQQ would 

apply to new wood-fired residential 

hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces 

and any other affected appliance as 

defined in subpart QQQQ as a ‘‘central 

heater.’’ We believe this new ‘‘central 

heater’’ categorization will better ensure 

that all appliances potentially affected 

under new proposed subpart QQQQ are 

included in this proposed action. The 

provisions of subpart QQQQ would 

apply to each affected unit that is 

manufactured or sold on or after April 

4, 2014. This proposal does not include 

any requirements for heaters that are 

fueled solely by gas, oil or coal. In 

addition, this proposal does not include 

any requirements associated with 

appliances that are already in use. The 

EPA continues to encourage state, local, 

tribal and consumer efforts to changeout 

(replace) older heaters with newer, 

cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that 

is not part of this federal rulemaking. 

As discussed earlier in this preamble, 

subpart QQQQ affects a source category 

of mass-produced residential consumer 

products rather than typical industrial 

processes. Thus, this proposed NSPS 

has many aspects that are similar to 

those in Subpart AAA, e.g., certification 

of model lines and phased 

implementation. This Proposed 

Approach would apply to all new 

residential hydronic heaters and forcedair furnaces. Under the Proposed 

Approach, the Proposed Step 1 emission 

limit for residential hydronic heaters 

and forced air heaters would apply 

upon the effective date of the final rule. 

The Proposed Step 2 emission limit for 

residential hydronic heaters and forced 

air heaters would apply 5 years after the 

effective date of the final rule. We ask 

for specific comments on the Proposed 

Approach and the degree to which these 

dates could be sooner. 

We also considered an alternative 

three-step approach (Alternative 

Approach) for residential hydronic 

heaters and forced air heaters. Under 

this Alternative Approach, as in the 

Proposed Approach, the Alternative 

Step 1 emission limits for residential 

hydronic heaters and forced air heaters 

would apply upon the effective date of 

the final rule. The Proposed Step 1 

emission limits and the Alternative 

Approach Step 1 emission limits are 

identical. The Alternative Step 2 

emission limit for residential hydronic 

heaters and forced air heaters would 

apply 3 years after the effective date of 

the final rule. The Alternative Step 3 

emission limit for residential hydronic 

heaters and forced air heaters would 

apply 8 years after the effective date of 

the final rule (thus providing 5 years 

between the Alternative Step 2 and the 

Alternative Step 3). The Proposed Step 

2 emission limits and the Alternative 

Approach Step 3 emission limits are 

identical. We ask for specific comments 

on this Alternative Approach and the 

degree to which these dates could be 

sooner. 

Table 5 summarizes the proposed PM 

emissions standards that would apply 

under this Proposed Approach at each 

step. Table 6 summarizes the PM 

emissions standards that would apply 

under each step of the Alternative 

Approach. Similar to the proposed 

requirements for subpart AAA, we are 

not proposing a standard for CO or 

efficiency, but we are proposing to 

require manufacturers to collect and 

report CO emissions and efficiency data 

during certification tests. Some 

regulatory authorities have instituted 

additional requirements such as limits 

on visible emissions and limits on use 

in non-heating seasons and we ask for 

specific comments on the 

appropriateness of such limits and other 

requirements in this NSPS. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED APPROACH SUBPART QQQQ PM EMISSIONS STANDARDS

Appliance Steps Particulate matter emissions limits 

Residential Hydronic Heater ........... Step 1: Upon 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. 

Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of final rule .............................. 0.06 lb/MMBtu. 

Forced-Air Furnace ......................... Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule ................................... 0.93 lb/MMBtu. 

Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of final rule .............................. 0.06 lb/MMBtu. 

TABLE 6—ALTERNATIVE APPROACH SUBPART QQQQ PM EMISSIONS STANDARDS

Appliance Steps Particulate matter emissions limits 

Residential Hydronic Heater ........... Step 1: Upon 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. 

Step 2: 3 years after the effective date of final rule .............................. 0.15 lb/MMBtu. 

Step 3: 8 years after the effective date of the final rule ....................... 0.06 lb/MMBtu. 

Forced-Air Furnace ......................... Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule ................................... 0.93 lb/MMBtu. 

Step 2: 3 years after the effective date of final rule .............................. 0.15 lb/MMBtu. 

Step 3: 8 years after the effective date of final rule .............................. 0.06 lb/MMBtu. 

Unlike the 1988 subpart AAA 

requirements, the subpart QQQQ 

requirements would not provide an 

additional time period for the sale of 

unsold units manufactured before the 

compliance date. No additional time is 

prudent because cleaner EPA-qualified 

Phase 2 hydronic heaters systems have 

already been readily available for 

several years, the older systems have 

caused numerous complaints 

nationwide, and this proposal 

publication is ample notice for the 

remaining old high-emitting units. For 

the same reasons, the subpart QQQQ 

requirements would not include a small 

volume manufacturer compliance 

extension. See section V.C. of this 

preamble for more discussion of this 

topic. We ask for comments on the 

timing for implementation. 

As in the current subpart AAA for 

wood heaters/stoves, we are proposing a 

list of prohibited fuels because their use 

would cause poor combustion or even 

hazardous conditions. We request 

comment on these requirements and 

data to support additional requirements, 

if warranted. Also, as in the current 

subpart AAA for wood heaters/stoves, 

we are proposing that the owner or 

operator must not operate the hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace in a manner 

that is inconsistent with the owner’s 

manual. For pellet-fueled appliances, 

this proposal makes it clear that 

operation according to the owner’s 

manual includes operation only with 

pellet fuels that have been used in the 

certification test and have been graded 

and marked under a licensing agreement 

with the PFI, or equivalent (after request 

and subsequent approval by the EPA), to 

meet certain minimum requirements 

and procedures for a quality assurance 

process. Details of the PFI program are 

available at http://pelletheat.org/pfistandards/pfi-standards-program/. Data 

show that quality assurance provisions 

are necessary to ensure that the 

appliances operate properly such that 

emissions are reduced as intended. We 

ask for specific comments on the use of 

the PFI program and the PFI 

specifications, especially the degree to 

which the PFI program will adequately 

ensure the absence of construction and 

demolition waste (and associated toxic 

contaminants) in the pellets. (No other 

organization has volunteered to develop 

such a quality program.) 

The proposed labeling requirements 

and owner’s manual requirements are 

similar to the guidelines in the EPA’s 

current voluntary hydronic heater 

program with some improvements. We 

request specific comments on ways to 

improve the delivery of information on 

the permanent label and in the owner’s 

manual and whether different 

information might be useful to the 

consumer and to the regulatory 

authorities. 

The structure of the rest of the 

proposed subpart QQQQ is similar to 

the proposed subpart AAA certification 

and quality assurance process. We 

request specific comments on changes 

or improvements to that process that 

might be needed to address any special 

concerns related to the certification of 

hydronic heaters and forced-air 

furnaces. 

As discussed earlier, the EPA 

developed Method 28 OWHH, in 2006, 

as part of our efforts for voluntary 

qualification of cleaner hydronic 

heaters. We received input at that time 

from manufacturers, laboratories, and 

some states in order to quickly develop 

a mostly consensus-based method that 

we incorporated into the program 

partnership agreements. We used 

Method 28 for wood heaters/stoves as 

the foundation. Thus, Method 28 

OWHH has many aspects similar to 

Method 28. Three significant differences 

are: (1) Method 28 OWHH uses larger 

cribs because hydronic heater fireboxes 

are typically much larger than wood 

heater fireboxes; (2) Method 28 OWHH 

uses red oak instead of Douglas fir 

because red oak is the more common 

fuel in the U.S.; and (3) Method 28 

OWHH includes procedures for 

determining 8-hour heat output and 

efficiency. The manufacturers, 

laboratories, states and the EPA have 

now had over 7 years of experience with 

Method 28 OWHH and its successor 

Method 28 WHH (improved and 

expanded to include indoor heaters, not 

just outdoor heaters). 

All the stakeholders that have 

provided input on the test methods 

agree that the methods should be 

thoroughly vetted and changed as 

necessary to improve the method’s 

accuracy and precision and to address 

concerns about how to best ensure 

protection across the entire U.S. when 

various operating scenarios and wood 

species and densities are used. ASTM 

has developed E2618–13 to address 

some of these concerns, and the EPA 

believes that E2618–13 does include 

some improvements. However, as with 

the wood heater/stove methods, we and 

some states do not agree with all the 

changes that ASTM has made. For 

example, the states of Washington and 

Oregon are very concerned that Method 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6345 

19See footnote 18. 

28 WHH and ASTM E2618–13 do not 

specify fueling with Douglas Fir, which 

is used in EPA Method 28 for wood 

heaters/stoves and which these states 

require in their regulations for 

residential wood heaters, including 

hydronic heaters. They are concerned 

that hydronic heaters tested with red 

oak will have higher emissions when 

fueled with Douglas Fir and other less 

dense species typical in their states and 

have provided test data that shows 

higher emissions. Thus, they require 

testing with Douglas Fir in their states. 

Also, a number of states and the EPA are 

concerned about the ASTM changes to 

the burn rate categories, i.e., easing or 

eliminating testing at the lowest burn 

rates, which often occur in home 

operations and are typically the highestemitting and least efficient. For several 

years, we have been communicating 

with European certification laboratories 

to learn how they conduct their tests 

under EN 303–5 and to consider if 

incorporating some of their testing 

procedures might improve our test 

methods. 

More recently, because of initial 

concerns about some surprisingly high 

laboratory test efficiencies for a couple 

of the EPA voluntary partnership 

program Phase 2 qualified partial heat 

storage models, the EPA, the Northeast 

states that regulate hydronic heaters, 

laboratories (including EPA-accredited 

laboratories and Brookhaven National 

Laboratory) and manufacturers have 

conducted a review of voluntary 

partnership program qualifying test 

reports. All of the stakeholders that 

provided input on the test methods 

agree that we need a change in the test 

method for testing of non-integral 

partial heat storage models (i.e., models 

that have separate heat storage but the 

storage does not have the capacity to 

safely handle all the heat generated by 

a full load of fuel). ASTM has been 

leading an effort to develop an 

Appendix X2 to the test method for 

such models but has not completed that 

effort as of this proposal. Brookhaven 

National Laboratory recommended a 

method to the New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) and NYSDEC is 

requiring that method be used for 

certification of such models in their 

states. We are proposing that method be 

used for certification of the NSPS for 

hydronic heaters equipped with a 

partial heat storage unit.19

Further, we are proposing revisions to 

Method 28 WHH that would require that 

all affected non-pellet hydronic heaters, 

subject to new subpart QQQQ, conduct 

certification compliance testing using 

both crib wood and cord wood for the 

Step 1 emission limits upon the 

effective date of the final rule and solely 

cord wood for the Step 2 emission limits 

5 years after the effective date of the 

final rule. 

We are asking for specific comments 

on whether the EPA should use: (1) One 

or more of the draft versions of 

Appendix X2 being considered as part 

of ASTM work product WK26581; (2) 

the European Union test method 

EN303–05 as the Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection approved for 

certification of hydronic heaters in their 

state as equivalent to the EPA Method 

28 WHH; (3) the partial thermal storage 

test method developed by Brookhaven 

National Laboratory; and/or (4) some 

other test method(s). For use of any of 

the test methods, the EPA would require 

that the amount of heat storage for the 

actual sale and installation of the 

hydronic heaters be no less than the 

amount used for the certification tests. 

Because EN303–05 does not currently 

use heat storage during the certification 

test, if the EPA were to use EN303–05 

test results, the EPA would require the 

installed heater to have heat storage that 

can safely handle at least 60 percent of 

the maximum heat output of the heater 

or a greater level if the manufacturer 

specifies a greater level. The EPA is 

asking for specific comments on the 

appropriateness of this heat storage 

level or other levels. The EPA will 

consider any or all of these options as 

the preferred reference test methods or 

as acceptable emission testing 

alternatives. (ASTM previously 

developed an Appendix X1 for testing of 

models that have ‘‘full’’ heat storage that 

can safely accept the heat from the full 

load of fuel.) We request comments on 

all aspects of heater testing and are 

especially interested in emission test 

data that compare the results for testing 

by these different methods. 

Also, the review discussed above 

found a number of areas in the methods 

to improve the quality of the data and 

reduce anomalies. In June 2011, the 

voluntary partnership program 

stakeholders agreed to a number of 

changes to Method 28 OWHH, and we 

are proposing the revised method as 

EPA Reference Method 28 WHH. The 

EPA is asking for specific comments on 

this method and recommendations and 

supporting data for other changes or 

acceptable alternatives. The following 

paragraphs discuss some of the changes 

we are proposing for comment. 

Additional information on the EPA 

methods is available at http://

www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters. 

The ASTM methods and draft work 

products are available at www.astm.org/ 

epa. 

1. Heater (aka Boiler) Temperature 

Range 

We propose that for all tests, the 

return water temperature to the heater 

must be 120 °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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

20See footnote 19. 

electrodes must be one-fourth the 

thickness of the fuel piece or 19 mm (3/ 

4 in.), whichever is less for 3 of the 

measurements made at approximately 3 

inches from each end and the center. 

Two additional measurements at 

approximately one-third the thickness 

shall be made centered between the 

other three locations. We request 

specific comments on the moisture 

content limits and the procedures for 

determining the moisture content and 

the typical variances due to the 

measurement procedures. 

We also request specific comments on 

the following approach for determining 

moisture content. ‘‘Select three pieces of 

cord wood from the same batch of wood 

as the test fuel and the same weight as 

the average weight of the pieces in the 

test load ± 1.0 lb. From each of these 

three pieces, cut three slices. Each slice 

shall be 1⁄2′′ to 3⁄4′′ thick. One slice shall 

be cut across the center of the length of 

the piece. The other two slices shall be 

cut half way between the center and the 

end. Immediately measure the mass of 

each piece in pounds. Dry each slice in 

an oven at 220 °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.’’ 20

Also, we propose that moisture must 

not be added to previously dried fuel 

pieces except by storage under high 

humidity conditions and temperature 

up to 100 °F. Fuel moisture must be 

measured no more than 4 hours before 

using the fuel for a test. The test report 

must describe the source and storage 

history of the test fuel. 

5. Water Density 

a. We propose that the measured 

volumetric flow from the flow meter be 

converted to mass basis by using the 

water density based on water 

temperature. The same method must be 

used on both the load and supply side 

if the optional supply side meter is 

used. 

b. We propose that the water density 

be calculated using the water 

temperature measured at the flow meter. 

6. Calculations 

a. We propose that the electronic test 

reports submittals include all data 

within the locked spreadsheets so the 

formulas used and relevant calculations 

can be reviewed in detail. 

b. To ensure common application, we 

propose to require averages to be 

calculated on each 10-minute reading 

rather than averaging over the entire test 

run. 

7. Overall Efficiency (CSA B415.1–10 

Stack Loss Method) 

We propose that during each test run, 

data must be obtained and presented for 

the purpose of calculation of overall 

efficiency as specified in the stack loss 

method in CSA B415.1–10. This 

includes CO and CO2, flue gas 

temperature, and appliance mass 

(remaining fuel weight). Overall 

efficiency for each run must be 

determined as per CSA B415.1–10 and 

reported. Whenever the CSA B415.1–10 

overall efficiency is found to be lower 

than the overall efficiency based on the 

load side measurements, as determined 

by this method, the report must include 

a discussion of the reasons for this 

result. 

8. Wood Loading 

Test fuel loads would be determined 

by multiplying the firebox volume by 

4.54 kg (10 lb) of wood (as used, wet 

weight) per cubic foot, or a higher load 

density as recommended by the 

manufacturer’s operating instructions. 

As discussed earlier, the EPA will 

require separate tests in the proposed 

Step 1 using cribs and using cord wood. 

In the proposed Step 2, the tests would 

all be using cord wood. There are 

ongoing discussions on how to improve 

both types of tests. We are working with 

states and industry on a cord wood test 

method and evaluating making revisions 

to the current version of the ASTM cord 

wood test method and states’ ideas on 

cord wood testing. Also, we are 

reviewing European experiences with 

cord wood testing. 

9. Drawing of Test Apparatus 

The test report would be required to 

contain a drawing of the test apparatus, 

including thermocouples, piping 

arrangements including any 

recirculation loops, the thermopile and 

flow meter(s). 

10. Aquastat Settings 

Aquastat or other heater output 

control device settings that are 

adjustable would be set using 

manufacturer specifications, either as 

factory set or in accordance with the 

owner’s manual, and must remain the 

same for all burn categories. 

11. Narrative 

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. 

In addition, ASTM has developed a 

draft test method that uses cord wood 

rather than crib wood to better represent 

real world conditions. All stakeholders 

agree that a test method that better 

represents real world conditions would 

be a significant improvement and help 

ameliorate concerns that some heaters 

do not perform as well in home use as 

they do in laboratories. We are also 

interested in real-time emission test 

methods that measure cold or warm 

startup emissions and emission peaks/

durations. We are also interested in field 

test methods and less expensive test 

methods that regulators and neighbor 

can use to better quantify impacts in the 

real world. The EPA is asking for 

specific comments and data on all these 

potential methods, issues and 

recommendations. 

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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6347 

21Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. 

Estimated Emissions from Wood Heaters. February 

15, 2013. 

22 rwc_2008_tToolv4.1_feb09_2010.zip available 

in the docket. 

Although the CSA B415.1–10 

technical committee included numerous 

U.S. manufacturers and laboratories, it 

did not include any states or 

environmental groups, and the EPA 

participation was minimal during the 

development. Now that we have 

reviewed this method in substantively, 

we are satisfied that it 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 April 4, 2014. 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 subpart 

AAA and subpart QQQQ, 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 sufficient 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. 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 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. 

Masonry heater manufacturers and 

laboratories developed computer 

simulations as a way to encourage good 

designs without having to conduct 

emission tests for slight variations, 

especially because there are so few 

masonry heaters built every year per 

manufacturer. Since these units are built 

on-site, it is not easy to test each of 

them. These units are typically cleaner 

than pre-NSPS certified wood stoves. 

Considering all of these factors, we 

believe a simple computer simulation 

showing how new models would 

perform may be all that is necessary for 

many of these models. 

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 6.4 percent compliance 

cost-to-sales estimate for manufacture of 

single burn rate wood heater models. 

These impacts do not presume any passthrough 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.21 We developed the 

emission factors using the EPA 

Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) 

emission estimation tool,22 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, 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23Market Research and Report on North 

American Residential Wood Heaters, Fireplaces, 

and Hearth Heating Products Market. Prepared by 

Frost & Sullivan. April 26, 2010, pp. 31–32. 

24 2013 Global Outlook projections prepared by 

the Conference Board in November 2012; http:// 

www.conference-board.org/data/globaloutlook.cfm. 

25See footnote 24. 

We used data in the Frost & Sullivan 

Market (F&S) report 23 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.24 Historically wood 

heater shipments have most closely 

corresponded to GDP, housing starts, 

and price of wood relative to gas. We 

think the overall trend in the projection 

is reasonable in the absence of 

additional specific shipment 

projections. We did not change the 

relative percentages of one type of 

residential wood heater versus other 

types of residential wood heaters over 

this time period. We ask for comments 

and data that would support improved 

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 (for the 

years analyzed in the RIA). Note that we 

do not have national emission impacts 

from masonry heaters because they are 

not included in the RWC emission 

estimation tool. Because of the relatively 

high cost of emission testing versus the 

current small number of masonry 

heaters sold per manufacturer, and in 

total, there are few emission test data 

from masonry heater manufacturers and 

laboratories. Based on the limited data 

we have, we believe that nationwide 

emissions from masonry heaters are 

relatively low, given the low number of 

sales. Thus, we also believe that the 

total emission reductions from masonry 

heaters will be relatively low. However, 

the limited data we have do show that 

the emission reductions could be 

significant for some models that do not 

follow current best designs, perhaps as 

high as 70 percent for some designs. We 

do not know how many of these 

typically custom-made heaters already 

use best practice designs versus other 

designs and thus we do not have 

nationwide estimates of baseline 

emissions. We ask for comments and 

data to help us prepare emission 

estimates. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE (2014–2022) AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 25

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 only includes the emissions during the first year of the life of each wood heater. That is, this table does not include the emissions that continue for the duration of the lifetime of each appliance’s use, typically greater than 20 years. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6349 

26Roman, et al, 2008. ‘‘Expert Judgment 

Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in 

Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.,’’ 

Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268–2274. 27Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012. 

‘‘Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of 

emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and 

mobile emission sectors across the U.S.’’ 

Environment International 49 41–151. 

28U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA–452/R–12– 

003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Health and Environmental Impacts Division. 

December 2012. Available at http://www.epa.gov/

pm/2012/finalria.pdf. 

29U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Technical support document: Estimating the benefit 

per ton of reducing PM2.5 precursors from 17 

sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2013. 

30 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. 

Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. 

‘‘Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and 

Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution.’’ Journal of the American Medical 

Association 287:1132–1141. 

31Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 

2012. ‘‘Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and 

Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard 

Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.’’ Environ 

Health Perspect. Jul;120(7):965–70. 

32U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. December. Available on 

the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

experts, higher and lower benefits 

estimates are plausible, but most of the 

expert-based estimates fall between 

these two estimates.26 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, 

except for masonry heaters. As 

requested earlier in this preamble, we 

ask for emission and sales data per 

model that would help us prepare 

emission reduction estimates and 

corresponding monetized health 

benefits for masonry heaters. 

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, c

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. c The emission reductions and monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not included in this summary. 

These benefits estimates represent the 

monetized human health benefits for 

populations exposed to less PM2.5 from 

emission limits established to reduce air 

pollutants in order to meet this rule. 

Due to analytical limitations, it was not 

possible to conduct air quality modeling 

for this rule. Instead, we used a 

‘‘benefit-per-ton’’ approach to estimate 

the benefits of this rulemaking. To 

create the benefit-per-ton estimates, this 

approach uses a model to convert 

emissions of PM2.5 precursors into 

changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and 

another model to estimate the changes 

in human health associated with that 

change in air quality, which are then 

divided by the emissions in specific 

sectors. These benefit-per-ton estimates 

were derived using the approach 

published in Fann et al. (2012),27 but 

they have since been updated to reflect 

these studies and population data in the 

2012 p.m. NAAQS RIA.28 Specifically, 

we multiplied the benefit-per-ton 

estimates from the ‘‘Residential Wood 

Heaters’’ category by the corresponding 

emission reductions.29 All nationalaverage 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 benefitper-ton estimates for this category is 

available in the technical support 

document, which is referenced in the 

footnote below and 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 benefitper-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 30 and the 

extended Six Cities cohort study.31 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. 

Considering a substantial body of 

published scientific literature, reflecting 

thousands of epidemiology, toxicology, 

and clinical studies, the EPA’s 

Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter 32 documents the 

association between elevated PM2.5

concentrations and adverse health 

effects, including increased premature 

mortality. This assessment, which was 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

33Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for 

Residential Wood Heaters NSPS. [INSERT DATE 

RULE IS SIGNED]. 

34Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. 

Residential Heater Manufacturer Cost Impacts. 

February 22, 2013. 35Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. 

Unit Cost Estimates of Residential Wood Heating 

Appliances. February 21, 2013. 36 In developing average R&D costs, the EPA used 

the highest industry R&D estimates supplied, in 

order to avoid under-estimating potential costs per 

model line and to avoid understating the number 

of model lines that would undergo R&D nationwide. 

reviewed twice by the EPA’s 

independent Science Advisory Board, 

concluded that the scientific literature 

consistently finds that a no-threshold 

model most adequately portrays the PMmortality concentration-response 

relationship. Therefore, in this analysis, 

the EPA assumes that the health impact 

function for fine particles is without a 

threshold. 

In general, we are more confident in 

the magnitude of the risks we estimate 

from simulated PM2.5 concentrations 

that coincide with the bulk of the 

observed PM concentrations in the 

epidemiological studies that are used to 

estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are 

less confident in the risk we estimate 

from simulated PM2.5 concentrations 

that fall below the bulk of the observed 

data in these studies. Concentration 

benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest 

measured level [LML] or one standard 

deviation below the mean of the air 

quality data in the study) allow readers 

to determine the portion of population 

exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at 

or above different concentrations, which 

provides some insight into the level of 

uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5

mortality benefits. There are 

uncertainties inherent in identifying any 

particular point at which our confidence 

in reported associations becomes 

appreciably less, and the scientific 

evidence provides no clear dividing 

line. However, the EPA does not view 

these concentration benchmarks as a 

concentration threshold below which 

we would not quantify health benefits of 

air quality improvements. 

For this analysis, policy-specific air 

quality data are not available. Thus, we 

are unable to estimate the percentage of 

premature mortality associated with this 

specific rule’s emission reductions at 

each PM2.5 level. As a surrogate measure 

of mortality impacts, we provide the 

percentage of the population exposed at 

each PM2.5 level using the source 

apportionment modeling used to 

calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates 

for this sector. Using the Krewski, et al, 

(2009) study, 93 percent of the 

population is exposed to annual mean 

PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8 

mg/m3. Using the Lepeule, et al, (2012) 

study, 67 percent of the population is 

exposed above the LML of 8 mg/m3. It 

is important to note that baseline 

exposure is only one parameter in the 

health impact function, along with 

baseline incidence rates, population, 

and change in air quality. Therefore, 

caution is warranted when interpreting 

the LML assessment for this rule 

because these results are not consistent 

with results from rules that had air 

quality modeling. 

Every benefit analysis examining the 

potential effects of a change in 

environmental protection requirements 

is limited, to some extent, by data gaps, 

model capabilities (such as geographic 

coverage) and uncertainties in the 

underlying scientific and economic 

studies used to configure the benefit and 

cost models. Despite these uncertainties, 

we believe the benefit analysis for this 

rule provides a reasonable indication of 

the expected health benefits of the 

rulemaking under a set of reasonable 

assumptions. In addition, we have not 

conducted air quality modeling for this 

rule, and using a benefit-per-ton 

approach adds another important source 

of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. 

The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits 

analysis provides an indication of the 

sensitivity of our results to various 

assumptions. 

One should note that the monetized 

benefits estimates provided above do 

not include benefits from several 

important benefit categories, including 

exposure to HAP, VOC and ozone 

exposure, as well as ecosystem effects 

and visibility impairment. Although we 

do not have sufficient information or 

modeling available to provide 

monetized estimates for these benefits 

in this rule, we include a qualitative 

assessment of these unquantified 

benefits in the RIA 33 for this proposal. 

For more information on the benefits 

analysis, please refer to the RIA for this 

rule, which is available in the docket. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

In analyzing the potential cost 

impacts of the proposed NSPS, we 

considered two types of impacts. The 

first was the impact to the manufacturer 

to comply with the proposed standards. 

The second was the increase in price of 

the affected unit. In both of these cases, 

we considered the same input variables: 

R&D cost to develop and certify 

complying model lines, certification 

costs (where these are separate from 

R&D), reporting and recordkeeping 

costs, numbers of shipments of each 

appliance category (modified, from 

Frost & Sullivan report), number of 

manufacturers, and number of models 

per manufacturer. This section of the 

preamble contains a summary of these 

costs. For more detailed information, 

see the manufacturer cost impact 

memo 34 and unit cost memo 35 in the 

docket. Unless otherwise specified, all 

costs are in 2010 dollars. 

To develop average R&D costs, we 

reviewed information provided by 

manufacturers. Based on this 

information, we estimated 36 average 

costs to develop a new model line, 

including testing, of 356,250 for 

certified wood heaters and pellet 

heaters/stoves. We also assumed 

356,250 for single burn rate wood 

heaters, which may be high if currently 

available units can meet the standards 

without significant modifications as 

some manufacturers have suggested. We 

also assumed development costs for 

forced-air furnaces and hydronic heaters 

of 356,250. Finally, we also assumed 

development costs of 356,250 for the 

masonry heaters. The estimates of the 

cost of R&D are crucial to our estimates 

of overall costs and economic impacts 

and greatly influence our decisions on 

BSER, implementation lead times and 

small volume provisions. Thus, we 

request specific comments on these 

estimates, including whether they 

should be reduced and thus allow 

greater emission reductions sooner. 

We annualized the R&D costs over 6 

years, applied the NSPS implementation 

assumptions, and estimated the average 

manufacturing cost per model line per 

manufacturer. Under the proposed 

rules, pellet heaters/stoves will only 

face certification (testing) costs (no R&D 

should be required), so we estimated 

certification costs of 10,000 per model 

line. Similarly, many masonry heater 

model lines that would comply with the 

proposed standards have already been 

developed. These manufacturers would 

also face certification costs of 10,000 per 

model line. We estimated post R&D 

period certification costs for hydronic 

heaters and forced-air furnaces at 20,000 

per model line. 

The masonry heater compliance costs 

included implementation of a software 

package based on a European masonry 

heater design standard. This software 

has been verified in the laboratory and 

under field conditions to produce 

masonry heaters that would meet the 

proposed NSPS emission limits. The 

cost of this software to the user is 

approximately $1,500 for the package 

with an approximately $450 annual fee 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6351 

37See footnote 36. 38Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. 

Residential Heater Cost Effectiveness Analysis. 

February 26, 2013. 

that commences in the second year 

following purchase. In addition, we 

believe that some manufacturers will 

use this approach to demonstrate that 

‘‘similar’’ model designs meet the 

proposed emissions standards. 

The estimate of the number of model 

types was derived from information 

provided by HPBA, individual 

manufacturers, and Internet searches of 

product offerings. For numbers of 

manufacturers, we started with HPBA 

data and modified the dataset based on 

Internet searches of manufacturers of 

the major appliance types. Table 9 is a 

summary of the nationwide average 

annual NSPS-related cost increases to 

manufacturers. The average annual cost 

increases are presented over the 2014 to 

2022 period consistent with the years 

analyzed in the RIA,37 as well as over 

the 2013 to 2038 period. The 2013 to 

2038 period encompasses the first year 

of estimated NSPS-related costs (2013 

since some companies have already 

started in anticipation of the NSPS) 

through the life span of models 

designed to meet the NSPS, as 

explained further below and in our 

background analyses.38

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF NATIONWIDE AVERAGE ANNUAL COST INCREASES

[2010$] 

Appliance Type 2014–2022 

Period 

2013–2038 

Period 

Wood Heaters .......................................................................................................................................................... $4,212,303 $1,749,726 

Single Burn Rate Heaters ........................................................................................................................................ 901,732 456,316 

Pellet Heaters/Stoves .............................................................................................................................................. 3,460,489 1,702,796 

Forced-Air Furnaces ................................................................................................................................................ 2,252,284 1,171,222 

Hydronic Heating Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 4,554,152 2,221,551 

Masonry Heaters ..................................................................................................................................................... 307,511 228,896 

Total Average Annual Cost .............................................................................................................................. 15,688,471 7,530,507 

To develop estimates of potential unit 

cost increases, we used major variables 

including the estimated number of units 

shipped per year, the costs to develop 

new models, baseline costs of models, 

and the schedule by which the proposed 

revised NSPS would be implemented. 

Both the number of shipped units and 

the baseline costs of models were based 

on data from the Frost & Sullivan report 

with modifications to address additional 

appliances or subsets of appliances. The 

20-year model design life span and 20- 

year use/emitting appliance life span are 

based on actual historical design 

certification and heater use data. That 

is, the data show that many models 

developed for the current 1988 NSPS 

are still being sold (after 25 years), many 

‘‘new’’ models still have the same 

internal working parts with merely 

exterior cosmetic changes, and most 

residential wood heaters in consumer 

homes emit for at least 20 years and 

often much longer. Therefore, our 

analysis tracks shipments and costs 

through year 2038 (i.e., 19 years after a 

model designed to meet the NSPS Step 

2 emission limits expected to be 

implemented in 2020 has completed 

development and is shipped). Finally, 

we also estimated the potential 

additional manufacturing costs to make 

NSPS complying models. These 

expenses result from the use of more 

expensive structural materials, 

components to enhance good 

combustion, etc. We estimated the 

following additional manufacturer price 

increases per unit based on appliance 

type: 

• Certified wood heaters and pellet 

heaters/stoves represent a welldeveloped technology, and we could not 

identify price differences between 

models due solely to lower emission 

levels compared to models with higher 

emission levels. Rather, price 

differences are more closely related to 

cosmetic differences and output. 

Therefore, we have assumed no 

additional manufacturing costs. 

• One manufacturer estimated that it 

will cost an average of 100 more to 

manufacture a lower emitting single 

burn rate product. 

• We have seen a range of estimates 

for additional price increases for 

manufacture of a cleaner hydronic 

heater, with an average being 

approximately 3,000 (as compared to a 

typical pre-regulation sales price of 

7,500). 

• We estimate that the additional 

price increases to manufacture a 

certified forced-air furnace will be 

comparable to the price increases for 

manufacturing certified hydronic 

heaters, i.e., $3,000 (as compared to a 

typical pre-regulation price of $900). 

Our next step was to develop the 

following incremental cost formula: 

Cost of R&D multiplied by number of 

units shipped per year divided by 

number of models multiplied by model 

life equals the incremental cost of 

developing a new unit, spread over the 

number of units expected to be sold 

during the model life. In developing this 

calculation, we included the concept 

that the R&D costs per model line are 

recovered in the sales price of future 

models, which means that the more 

units that are sold or the longer the 

model life, the lower the incremental 

cost per unit. For our unit cost analysis, 

we assumed a flat growth rate in 

shipments—that is, we assumed future 

shipments over the 20 years of model 

design life would be equal to the 

shipments estimated in the first NSPS 

compliance year. We did not assume 

lower sales due to market competition 

with other wood heaters or non-wood 

heaters. We did not assume lower 

projected sales for increased prices 

because of the uncertainty of other 

demand factors. Where there are 

additional manufacturing costs as 

discussed above, we added these to the 

unit cost number. Table 10 is a 

summary of the baseline unit costs, 

NSPS unit costs, and incremental cost 

increase. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

39Subpart AAA—Standards of Performance for 

New Residential Wood Heaters: Revised Draft 

Review Document. Prepared for EPA by EC/R 

Incorporated. December 30, 2009. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF UNIT COST IMPACTS

[2010$] 

Appliance type Baseline Post-NSPS Incremental increase 

Certified Wood Heaters ................................................................................................... $859 $883 $24 

Single Burn Rate Heaters ................................................................................................ 253 479 226 

Pellet Heaters/Stoves ...................................................................................................... 1,295 1,319 24 

Forced-Air Furnaces ........................................................................................................ 912 4,174 3,262 

Masonry Heaters ............................................................................................................. 9,157 9,245–9,997 88–840 

Hydronic Heating Systems .............................................................................................. 7,528 13,986 6,458 

We request specific comments on 

these estimates, which significantly 

affect the estimates of costs per model 

lines and per unit sold and potential 

changes in sales and, thus, affect 

decisions on the affordability of 

candidate BSER. For example, if the 

number of model lines was less and the 

number of heaters per model line was 

greater, then the cost per unit sold 

would be less and more stringent 

options for BSER could potentially be 

implemented sooner. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

The economic impacts of the 

proposed rule are estimated using 

industry-level estimates of annualized 

compliance cost to value of shipments 

(receipts) for affected industries. In this 

case, cost-to-receipts ratios approximate 

the maximum price increase needed for 

a producer to fully recover the 

annualized compliance costs associated 

with a regulation. Essentially, the 

revenues to producers will likely fully 

cover the annualized compliance cost 

incurred by producers at this maximum 

price increase. Any price increase above 

the cost-to-receipts ratio provides 

revenues that exceed the compliance 

costs. These industry level cost-toreceipts ratios can be interpreted as an 

average impact on potentially affected 

firms in these industries. Cost-toreceipts ratios for the affected product 

types range from 2.3 percent for pellet 

heaters/stoves up to 6.4 percent for 

single burn rate wood heaters for the 

proposed option. More information on 

how these impacts are estimated can be 

found in Chapters 5 and 6 of the RIA. 

In estimating the net benefits of 

regulation, the appropriate cost measure 

is ‘‘social costs.’’ Social costs represent 

the welfare costs of the rule to society. 

We believe that the social costs are best 

approximated by the compliance costs 

estimated for this rule. Thus, the 

annualized social costs for this proposal 

are best estimated to be $15.7 million 

for the proposed option, based on the 

estimate of costs to manufacturers for 

the proposal and assuming no cost passthrough to consumers. More information 

on how these social costs are estimated 

can be found in Chapter 5 of the RIA. 

E. What are the non-air quality health 

and energy impacts? 

These proposed NSPS are anticipated 

to have no impacts or only negligible 

impacts on water quality or quantity, 

waste disposal, radiation or noise. To 

the extent new NSPS models are more 

efficient, that would lead to reduced 

wood consumption, thereby saving 

timber and preserving woodlands and 

vegetation for aesthetics, erosion 

control, carbon sequestration, and 

ecological needs. 

It is difficult to determine the precise 

energy impacts that might result from 

this proposed rule. On the one hand, to 

the extent that the NSPS wood-fueled 

appliance is more efficient, energy 

outputs per mass of wood fuel 

consumed will rise. However, woodfueled appliances compete with other 

biomass forms as well as more 

traditional oil, electricity, and natural 

gas. We have not determined the 

potential for consumers to choose other 

types of fuels and their associated 

appliances if the consumer costs of 

wood-fueled appliances increase and at 

what level that increase would drive 

consumer choice. Similarly, we have 

not determined the degree to which 

better information on the energy 

efficiency of the NSPS appliances will 

encourage consumers to choose new 

wood-fueled appliances over other new 

appliances. 

V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments 

A. Why are we proposing to expand the 

scope of appliances subject to the 

NSPS? 

As described in section II, the EPA 

has had ongoing discussions with many 

stakeholders regarding the need to 

expand the scope of the current 

residential wood heater regulation. 

Stakeholders described adverse health 

and environmental impacts arising from 

the increasing use of some appliances, 

actions taken at the state and local 

levels to address such concerns, and 

growth in types and numbers of 

appliances that are currently on the 

market. Numerous states (e.g., Vermont, 

New York, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota) 

have indicated to us that individuals’ 

concerns about smoke from residential 

wood burning, particularly by hydronic 

heaters, are the top source of 

environmental complaints. In the case 

of masonry heaters, we believe EPA 

certification of these typically cleaner 

devices, would allow them to be 

excellent emission reduction 

alternatives to replace pre-NSPS wood 

heaters and be a good consumer 

alternative in parts of the country that 

currently ban uncertified appliances 

(contingent upon approval by the local 

jurisdiction). We also saw a need to 

address the residential heating market 

in a way that recognizes that some 

heaters and fuels are substitutes for each 

other. Regulating only one type of heater 

may result in unintended incentives for 

consumers to favor purchase and use of 

unregulated and potentially higher 

emitting devices. We felt a 

comprehensive assessment was needed. 

Therefore, as part of the NSPS review 

process, we evaluated a wide range of 

residential biomass heating devices and 

non-heating devices (such as cook 

stoves and fireplaces) to determine what 

expansions in scope might be needed.39

The residential wood heaters NSPS is 

a ‘‘standard of performance’’ as defined 

by section 111(a) of the CAA. The term 

‘‘standard of performance’’ means a 

‘‘standard for emissions of air pollutants 

which reflects the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of 

emission reduction which (taking into 

account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.’’ As discussed earlier, the 

level of control prescribed by section 

111 historically has been commonly 

referred to as ‘‘Best Demonstrated 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6353 

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 

previously with BDT, in determining 

BSER, 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 mass-produced 

residential consumer products, 

fundamentally different from the typical 

NSPS source category that regulated 

industrial processes. Thus, for the 

residential wood heaters source category 

important elements in determining 

BSER include the significant costs and 

environmental impacts of delaying 

production and sales while models with 

those systems are being designed, 

tested, field evaluated, and certified. 

The EPA determines the appropriate 

emission limits representative of BSER. 

After the emission limits are 

established, in general, the source may 

use whatever systems meet the emission 

limits. In developing the proposed rule, 

we evaluated possible systems both at 

baseline conditions (conditions in the 

absence of additional regulation) and 

under other scenarios. In most cases, 

candidate BSER for residential wood 

heaters is based on improved 

combustion techniques, primarily 

improvements in model-specific 

combinations of time, temperature, and 

turbulence. That is, the improved 

combustion models have greater airflow 

residence time, better insulation to 

increase temperatures, and passageways 

and directed flows to improve mixing 

and turbulence. In addition, some 

heaters also use catalytic combustors to 

reduce emissions. Each manufacturer 

has a potential myriad of combinations 

of specific designs that could 

incorporate these key aspects. Many 

systems reduce emissions significantly, 

increase efficiency, and provide good 

operator flexibility. The key differences 

tend to be confidential business 

information as to the specifics of the 

combination that the manufacturer uses 

and does not share with other 

manufacturers but rather holds as 

proprietary. Similarly, the industry 

trade association cannot facilitate 

exchange of such information because of 

antitrust regulations. Because each 

appliance type has a potentially unique 

emissions profile, market niche, and 

manufacturer profile, we made BSER 

determinations for each heater type, as 

described below. 

For certain types of devices, 

information is lacking. For example, we 

have no information or very limited 

information on emissions and emission 

reduction techniques for cook stoves, 

pizza ovens, chimineas, coal stoves and 

biomass (other than wood or wood 

pellet) stoves/furnaces (e.g., fueled with 

grass, corn, cherry pits). We are 

interested in receiving data for 

contributions to air quality, 

endangerment of public health and 

welfare, emissions, potential emission 

reductions, costs, prices, and sales of 

coal stoves and biomass stoves because 

we believe we do not have sufficient 

information at this time to list these 

sources under section 111(b) and 

develop proposed standards. For 

example, usage rates of some of these 

appliances are limited both in numbers 

of new units and in the number of 

markets they occupy. Also, some 

stakeholders have stated that use of coal 

stoves is more common in some coal 

mining regions, where the consumer 

may have access to free or cheap coal, 

but such stoves are not typically used in 

other areas. We request data on any of 

these appliances that might help us 

potentially develop national programs 

or standards for these devices in the 

future. 

We are also deferring any regulatory 

action addressing emissions from woodburning fireplaces at this time. 

Fireplaces typically are not designed to 

be ‘‘wood heaters’’ and thus are not 

within the current scope of the 

‘‘residential wood heater’’ source 

category listed on February 18, 1987, 

pursuant to the authority of section 

111(b). (Fireplaces are typically used for 

ambience and most of the heat content 

of the wood is lost out the chimney with 

the relatively large amounts of excess 

combustion air rather than heating the 

room. For effective heating, some 

homeowners have inserted a new EPA 

certified wood stove into an otherwise 

open masonry fireplace. In those cases, 

new wood heaters/stoves are regulated 

under the current 1988 rule and would 

be regulated by this proposal. Also, 

some fireplaces have restricted excess 

combustion air to less than 35:1 air-tofuel ratio and are certified under the 

current 1988 NSPS.) Fireplaces are 

addressed in the current EPA voluntary 

partnership program that encourages the 

development and sale of lower-emitting 

wood-burning fireplaces over the sale of 

higher-emitting fireplaces. The EPA’s 

fireplace program covers new masonry 

and prefabricated (low-mass) fireplaces 

and retrofit devices for existing 

fireplaces. See the voluntary partnership 

program Web site for more information: 

www.epa.gov/burnwise/

participation.html#fireplace. We request 

comments and additional data on 

contributions to air quality, 

endangerment of public health and 

welfare, emissions, potential emission 

reductions, costs, prices, and sales of 

fireplaces. We request data that might 

help us potentially develop new or 

revised national programs or a source 

category listing and standards under 

section 111(b) for these devices in the 

future. We are especially interested in 

data on current and projected sales of 

new wood-burning fireplaces versus 

gas-fired fireplaces, current and 

projected usage patterns for new 

fireplaces versus existing fireplaces, 

current and projected quantities of 

wood burned per existing and new 

fireplaces, current and projected best 

systems of emission reduction for new 

fireplaces versus existing fireplaces and 

costs of current and projected best 

systems versus current costs of 

fireplaces. Also, we are interested in 

national data and how these data vary 

by state and local areas. 

B. How did we determine BSER and the 

proposed emission standards? 

As discussed earlier in this preamble, 

the proposed subparts AAA, QQQQ, 

and RRRR recognize that the sources 

covered by these subparts are 

fundamentally different from the typical 

NSPS source category in that residential 

wood heaters are mass-produced 

residential consumer products whereas 

most NSPS regulate industrial 

processes. Discussions in sections V.B.1 

through V.B.4 of this preamble focus on 

the analysis of PM emission reductions 

under our proposed two-step phased-in 

standards for each appliance type 

affected by this proposal. In general, for 

this rulemaking, we have determined 

that the proposed first step represents 

the emission levels that almost all 

models can readily achieve now using 

today’s designs and technology. Further, 

we have determined that the proposed 

second step represents stronger 

emission levels achievable for all 

appliance types at reasonable cost, but 

allows appropriate lead times for 

manufacturers to redesign their model 

lines to accommodate the improved 

technology across multiple model lines 

and test, field evaluate, and certify the 

new model lines. See section V.B.5 for 

a discussion of the Alternative 

Approach we considered to reduce PM 

emissions based on three-step phased-in 

standards, under which the strongest 

emission standard would be 8 years 

after the effective date of the final rule 

rather than the proposed 5 years. 

Section V.B.6 discusses other provisions 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

40See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. 41Analysis period assumes that manufacturers 

will incur R&D costs beginning in 2013, in 

anticipation of final rule. Analysis is 2013 through 

2057, based on assumption that the internal 

emission-related components of a model designed 

to meet the proposed Step 2 emission limit will be 

manufactured/shipped for 20 years, and shipped 

models will emit in residences for another 20 years. 

See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. PM2.5, VOC and CO 

costs per ton are calculated independently for 

illustrative purposes, even though VOC and CO 

reductions would actually occur with no additional 

cost as the PM2.5 reductions are achieved. 

we considered and for which we request 

additional data and information from 

commenters. 

For these source categories, our BSER 

determination rests on: (1) the 

achievability of the proposed emission 

levels (i.e., the fact that top-performing 

models for each appliance type are 

already achieving the proposed 

emission levels); and (2) the cost 

effectiveness of the proposed standards 

when considering the design life span 

and the emitting life span of the 

appliances in residences. The net 

monetized benefits of the proposal far 

exceed the costs for all options 

considered. Realistic model design and 

appliance emitting life span 

assumptions are essential components 

for a meaningful cost effectiveness 

analysis. As explained above in section 

IV.C. and in our background 

documentation,40 a model design life 

span of 20 years is supported by the 

historical data that show that the noncosmetic aspects of wood heaters 

designed to meet the 1988 NSPS are still 

being used today in some model lines. 

While some manufacturers may choose 

to make more frequent cosmetic changes 

to their models, the internal design 

changes a manufacturer must make to a 

wood heater model line to comply with 

the NSPS are longer lasting. 

Furthermore, once installed in 

consumer homes, wood heaters emit for 

at least 20 years and many are operated 

in residences for much longer time 

periods (a key fact motivating wood 

heater/stove changeout programs). Once 

purchased, consumers tend to only 

replace appliances when they no longer 

serve their functional purpose. Wood 

heaters tend to serve the basic function 

of producing heat for well over 20 years. 

Table 11 presents our estimated 

cumulative costs, PM2.5 emission 

reductions, and associated cost per ton 

for our proposed limits, based on a 

model design life span of 20 years and 

an appliance emitting life span of 20 

years. 

For all of the standards proposed in 

this Federal Register notice, the EPA 

invites specific comments on the data 

and analyses on which we base the 

proposed standards. Moreover, the EPA 

invites specific comments that provide 

additional data and analyses that would 

support a different standard. Interested 

persons should note that the EPA will 

consider promulgating a more stringent 

or less stringent standard than what we 

are proposing for any of these 

categories, if the record contains data or 

analyses that support a different 

standard. 

TABLE 11—COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PM2.5 EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS AND EMISSION COREDUCTIONS BASED ON CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

[2013–2057] 41

Appliance type 

Nationwide 

cumulative 

cost 

(2010$) 

PM2.5 reductions VOC Co-Reductions CO Co-Reductions 

Cumulative 

emission 

reduction 

(tons) 

Cost per ton 

(2010$) 

Cumulative 

emission 

reduction 

(tons) 

Cost per ton 

(2010$) 

Cumulative 

emission 

reduction 

(tons) 

Cost per ton 

(2010$) 

Cord Wood Stoves ....... $45,492,874 96,523 $471 136,293 $334 1,426,240 $32 

Single Burn Rate 

Stoves ....................... 11,864,204 236,254 50 416,828 28 1,602,218 7 

Pellet Stoves ................ 44,272,694 29,269 1,513 392 112,894 152,082 291 

Furnaces ...................... 30,451,763 823,770 37 349,207 87 5,491,797 6 

Hydronic Heaters ......... 57,760,316 360,587 160 152,858 378 2,403,916 24 

Total * .................... 189,841,851 1,546,403 123 1,055,578 180 11,076,253 17 

* NOTE: Masonry Heaters are not included in this analysis because representative emission tons per appliance could not be determined. 

1. Room Heaters 

The current subpart AAA definition 

of ‘‘wood heater’’ specifies certain 

conditions, including that affected 

sources are those that have an air-to-fuel 

ratio of less than 35:1. As part of the 

regulatory negotiation for the current 

1988 NSPS, the EPA included the air-tofuel criterion in the rule primarily to 

exclude typical fireplaces from the 

affected source definition. An 

unintended side effect, however, is that 

it also resulted in the exclusion of the 

majority of pellet heaters/stoves. Also 

included in the current 1988 NSPS 

definition of ‘‘wood heater’’ is an 

exclusion of heaters that have a 

minimum burn rate of greater than 5 kg/ 

hr. The definition and test methods had 

the effect of excluding a large number of 

single burn rate wood heaters. As 

described below, we are proposing to 

change the applicability of subpart AAA 

to include all three types of ‘‘room 

heater’’ appliances: adjustable burn rate 

wood heaters, pellet heaters/stoves and 

single burn rate wood heaters. Our 

intent is that this rule will be stated in 

broad enough terms to regulate any 

future room heater appliances that may 

come into the U.S. market and function 

as room heaters. 

a. Adjustable Burn Rate Wood Heaters 

Adjustable burn rate wood heaters 

include freestanding heaters and heaters 

modified to fit within a firebox 

(sometimes called fireplace inserts). 

These units were the primary focus of 

the 1988 NSPS and are subject to 

current NSPS limits of 7.5 g/hr for 

noncatalytic heaters and 4.1 g/hr for 

catalytic heaters. As discussed in the 

February 26, 1988, final rule (53 FR 

5865) and earlier in this preamble, the 

EPA considered the performance of 

catalytic heaters and noncatalytic 

heaters co-BDT (now called BSER) 

because the net emissions over time 

were estimated to be similar (even 

though the initial certification test 

results are typically lower for catalytic 

models) assuming possible degradation 

of the catalyst and lack of catalyst 

replacement by the operator. The EPA 

considered requiring catalyst 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6355 

42Attachment A of Residential Wood Heaters 

Manufacturer Cost Memorandum to Gil Wood, 

USEPA, from EC/R Inc. February 22, 2013. 

43The Interim Wood Stove Catalytic Combustor 

Longevity Study, Prepared for the Catalytic Hearth 

Coalition by L. Pitzman et al, OMNI Environmental 

Services. January 4, 2010. 

replacement on a regular schedule, but 

determined that enforcement of such a 

requirement would be difficult. 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. Additionally, 

because of these concerns, the EPA 

wanted to ensure that further 

development of both noncatalytic and 

catalytic technology would continue. 

Since the 1988 NSPS was developed, 

the state of Washington issued 

standards in 1995 imposing limits of 4.5 

g/hr for noncatalytic heaters and 2.5 g/ 

hr for catalytic heaters. In developing 

the proposed revisions to the NSPS, we 

evaluated and identified these 

‘‘improved’’ catalytic and noncatalytic 

systems and associated emission levels 

as the proposed Step 1. This analysis 

showed that the state of Washington 

level of 4.5 g/hr is achieved by 107 out 

of 121 (88 percent) of the EPA-certified 

adjustable burn rate wood heater models 

in production and sold in the U.S. today 

(noncatalytic and catalytic models 

combined). This statistic includes 92 of 

the 106 certified noncatalytic wood 

heater models (87 percent) and 15 of the 

15 certified catalytic models (100 

percent). The median certification value 

for noncatalytic models was 3.2 g/hr 

and for all certified models was 3.4 g/ 

hr. Details of the analysis are in the 

docket.42

For the proposed Step 2 (5 years after 

the effective date of the final standard), 

we considered ‘‘state-of-the-art’’ systems 

that achieve a certification value of 1.3 

g/hr (using crib wood as the test fuel as 

specified in Method 28 as required by 

the 1988 NSPS). This is approximately 

50 percent less than the 1995 state of 

Washington standard for catalytic 

models (2.5 g/hr). The EPA certification 

test data show that a level of 1.3 g/hr is 

achieved by 27 adjustable burn rate 

wood heater models as of December 

2013. This includes 11 certified 

noncatalytic wood heater models and 16 

certified catalytic models. There were 

no apparent break points other than the 

current state of Washington initial 

certification level of 4.5 g/hr for 

noncatalytic heaters. That is, the 

distribution of certification values was 

relatively linear with no step functions 

other than at the state of Washington 

level of 4.5 g/hr. We ask for comments 

and emission test data using cord wood 

to help us determine if the proposed 

emission levels should be adjusted for 

any differences between crib wood and 

cord wood. 

This source category is fundamentally 

different from the typical NSPS source 

category composed of industrial 

processes. This source category involves 

the manufacture and sale of massproduced residential consumer products 

that are significantly affected by 

production and sales volumes and 

timing of testing and certification. Thus, 

we are proposing implementing the 

proposed Step 2 BSER emission limit 5 

years after the effective date of the final 

standard to allow for longer lead times 

for redesign, testing, field evaluation 

and certification. This also spreads the 

costs over a longer time and a larger 

number of units. The intent behind the 

proposed Step 2 BSER emission limit is 

to recognize that current state-of-the-art 

level of performance appears to be 

significantly better than the state of 

Washington limit of 4.5 g/hr met by over 

85 percent of the heaters sold today on 

a sales-weighted basis (i.e., 92 out of 106 

noncatalytic models and 15 out of 15 

catalytic models), and furthermore 

better than the state of Washington 

catalytic limit of 2.5 g/hr for over 25 

percent of the adjustable burn rate wood 

heaters sold in the U.S. today (i.e., 20 

out of 106 or approximately 19 percent 

of noncatalytic models and 13 out of 15 

or approximately 87 percent of catalytic 

models). As noted earlier and discussed 

more fully in the paragraphs below, our 

decisions on BSER for this source 

category have fully considered not only 

the emission performance but also the 

cost and economic impacts, including 

the costs to accommodate the best 

systems in additional model lines. The 

net monetized benefits far exceed the 

costs of all options considered. 

The cost impacts of the proposed Step 

1 are very small. This is because, 

despite being a limit that was originally 

developed for only one state, over 85 

percent of currently EPA-certified noncatalytic and catalytic heaters that are in 

active production already meet the state 

of Washington initial certification test 

values. We also believe production of 

any certified heaters that do not meet 

the proposed Step 1 standard would be 

discontinued, as manufacturers would 

likely focus on models that already 

comply with the proposed standard in 

the short term. While implementing the 

proposed Step 1 standard would not 

impose any significant additional costs 

on most of the manufacturers, it also 

would not achieve a large amount of 

new emissions reductions for most of 

the models. However, implementing an 

emission standard associated with the 

proposed Step 1 would have the benefit 

of ensuring consistent nationwide 

standards and ensuring that the 

remaining 15 percent of non-complying 

adjustable burn rate wood heater models 

could no longer be sold. It would also 

ensure that wood heater/stove 

changeout programs aimed at reducing 

emissions from old, pre-NSPS or prestate of Washington heaters/stoves 

would result in replacement models that 

meet the state of Washington levels or 

better. 

The proposed Step 1 limit eliminates 

the distinction between catalytic and 

non-catalytic heater models, which we 

view as progress. It is important to 

remember that the lower emission level 

catalytic standards were initially 

instituted because of concerns that the 

early generation catalysts would 

degrade over time, resulting in eventual 

real world emission levels comparable 

to non-catalytic units. After 25 years of 

catalyst heater development experience, 

manufacturers have demonstrated that 

the performance of these heaters 

typically remains consistently good over 

the course of proper operation because 

of changes manufacturers have made to 

improve heater design to protect the 

catalysts from flame impingement and 

other factors that previously caused 

catalysts to degrade significantly. For 

example, one recent study of four 

catalytic combustors from the two 

selected heaters/stoves showed that the 

combustors maintained substrate 

integrity without substantial PM 

emissions performance reduction.43

Therefore, establishing a separate limit 

to accommodate ‘‘degradation’’ seems to 

create a distinction where none exists 

and adds unnecessary confusion to the 

overall regulation. 

We recognize that there may be 

concern that a single limit based on the 

Washington State non-catalytic limit 

could result in ‘‘backsliding’’ of current 

catalytic heater models. We think that 

the likelihood of actual backsliding is 

extremely low because of other factors 

driving the wood heater market. Given 

the pending implementation of the 

proposed Step 2 limits described below 

and that some manufacturers have 

heaters that already achieve Step 2, all 

manufacturers would have market 

incentives to improve performance as 

soon as possible rather than degrade 

performance. Also, with consumer 

education regarding the impacts of PM 

emission levels, we believe that 

consumer pressure will favor better 

performing units that in general are 

more energy efficient and lower 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6356 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

44See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. 

45See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. 46Final Report: EPA Wood Heater Emission Test 

Method Comparison Study. Prepared by Robert 

Ferguson, Ferguson, Andors & Company for the 

Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association. December 

1, 2010. 

emitting at reasonable cost, especially as 

they compare wood heaters and gas 

heaters. However, we are requesting 

comments on whether we should 

maintain a separate, lower limit for 

catalytic heater models for the proposed 

Step 1 emission limits, based on the 

current state of Washington catalytic 

standard of 2.5 g/hr. 

The proposed Step 2 state-of-the-art 

BSER cost and economic impacts would 

be significant, but our analysis shows a 

very reasonable cost per ton of emission 

reduction when considering the typical 

design and appliance life spans.44 Our 

data show that at the proposed Step 2 

BSER emission level of 1.3 g/hr, about 

20 percent of catalytic models and 5 

percent of noncatalytic models currently 

manufactured would already comply 

with the proposed Step 2 standard. 

Thus, manufacturers would need to 

either modify noncomplying lines or 

develop new ones to continue 

production for approximately 95 

percent of the current market. Some 

unknown fraction of manufacturers may 

be able to switch some of their 

production from noncomplying models 

to complying models. Because we do 

not know this fraction, because the total 

of complying units is only 6 percent 

(combined catalytic and non-catalytic 

models) at this time, and because many 

manufacturers have no complying 

models at this time, we have assumed 

this fraction to be zero for our analysis. 

Historically, those manufacturers that 

chose to comply with the 1988 NSPS 

did so for a full range of models. Thus, 

our analysis shows the potential 

emission and cost impacts for the 

approximately 95 percent of adjustable 

burn rate wood heater models projected 

to undertake R&D needed to develop the 

heater-specific combinations of time, 

temperature, and turbulence to achieve 

higher efficiencies and lower (proposed 

Step 2 compliant) emissions. That is, 

although the manufacturers know the 

factors that are important for good 

combustion and low emissions, they 

still need to develop and test the 

laboratory-specific combinations that 

can be incorporated into the design of 

specific model lines. Alternatively, 

some manufacturers might convert 

noncatalytic models to catalytic models 

or hybrids as ways to reduce emissions. 

We estimated the resulting 

nationwide costs based on the cost 

assumptions explained in section IV.C. 

The average annual cost increase to 

manufacturers of adjustable burn rate 

wood heaters during the 2014 through 

2022 period analyzed in the RIA is 

approximately $4.2 million. Estimated 

nationwide annual PM2.5 emissions, 

averaged over this same period (2014– 

2022), are projected to be 548 tons/year 

under baseline conditions versus 385 

tons/year under the proposed two-step 

BSER, an average reduction of 163 tons/ 

year, considering only the first year of 

emissions for each new heater sold. 

Given that limited snapshot for these 

cost and emission estimates, the average 

cost of reducing each new ton of PM2.5

emissions during the 2014–2022 period 

would be approximately $26,000 per ton 

annually. As explained in section IV.C, 

the cost-to-sales ratio, which is an 

indicator of the ability of the 

manufacturer to successfully absorb the 

regulatory impacts, is high at 4.3 

percent. However, when considering the 

total costs and cumulative emission 

reductions over the more representative 

full model design life span and 

appliance emitting life span of 20 years; 

the overall cost effectiveness is 

approximately $500 per ton (shown 

above in Table 11).45

Given the reasonable cost 

effectiveness of imposing the two-step 

BSER when considering total costs and 

cumulative emission reductions, and 

given the 6-year lead time (from the date 

of these proposed standards) until 

models must meet the proposed Step 2 

emission limit, we determined that the 

two-step phased-in emission limits 

represent BSER for these residential 

consumer product appliances at this 

time. Thus, we are proposing a two-step 

standard for adjustable burn rate wood 

heaters, in which Proposed Step 1 is 

required upon the effective date of the 

final rule and Proposed Step 2 is 

required 5 years after the effective date 

of the final rule. Section V.B.5 discusses 

a three-step alternative approach that 

we also considered for adjustable burn 

rate wood heaters, and on which we are 

seeking comment. 

We note that there have been some 

technical questions associated with 

measuring the emission levels 

associated with the proposed Step 2, 

which we are addressing in this 

proposed rule. That is, the currently 

available laboratory proficiency test 

results cast some doubt on the 

reproducibility of test results at lower 

levels of the standard for the current 

EPA Test Method 28. An HPBA 

analysis 46 found that the repeatability 

and reproducibility of the current test 

method for wood heater emissions, as 

demonstrated by the EPA-accredited 

laboratory proficiency test data, may be 

poor based on the scope of their 

analysis. Their analysis stated: 

• ‘‘At the 95-percent confidence level, 

repeatability for the EPA weighted 

average emission rate is at best ±2.9 g/ 

hr and ranged as high as ±5.4 g/hr.’’ 

• ‘‘The reproducibility was no better 

than ±4.5 g/hr and ranged as high as 

±6.4 g/hr.’’ 

We believe some mitigating factors are 

not accounted for in their analysis, such 

as the lack of regulatory requirements or 

incentives for the test laboratories to 

achieve highly reproducible results in 

proficiency testing (i.e., the laboratories 

are not required to meet a certain 

proficiency level; they are not paid for 

the proficiency tests, but rather they 

absorb the costs as part of their 

overhead; and, in some cases, they 

intentionally staged the test to 

demonstrate that variability was 

possible within the current protocol). 

Also, these factors do not reflect the 

proposed changes to improve the 

repeatability and reproducibility of the 

test method. Consequently, we believe 

the previous results merit consideration 

of concerns about implementing a lower 

emission standard, but they do not 

mean that lower emission standards 

cannot be measured accurately. For 

example, the State of Washington 

Department of Ecology has successfully 

used lower emission levels in their 

regulations since 1995, and the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

has used lower levels for tax credits for 

low-emitting pellet heaters/stoves. 

As noted earlier in this section, we 

ask for comments and emission test data 

using cord wood to help us determine 

if the proposed emission levels should 

be adjusted for any differences between 

crib wood and cord wood. 

b. Pellet Heaters/Stoves 

Several certified pellet heaters/stoves 

are subject to current subpart AAA. 

However, most models currently offered 

for sale are exempt due to air-to-fuel 

ratios greater than 35:1. We considered 

candidate options similar to those 

discussed earlier for wood heaters/

stoves, i.e., improved catalytic and 

improved noncatalytic systems and 

state-of-the-art systems. Our data set for 

currently manufactured U.S. pellet 

heaters/stoves, for which we have 

reproducible emissions data, contains 

24 models, of which 23 would meet the 

4.5 g/hr proposed Step 1 BSER emission 

limit. We also compared the listings of 

certified pellet heaters/stoves for both 

the EPA and the state of Washington. Of 

the 224 pellet heater/stove models from 

both lists, 221 models produced by 35 

manufacturers would meet the state of 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6357 

47See footnotes 36 and 38. 

48See footnotes 24, 36, and 38. 49See footnote 36. 

Washington emission standard. Only 

three models produced by three 

manufacturers would not meet the 

standard. Assuming that the rest of the 

pellet heater/stove market has 

comparable performance, we would 

expect to see only a small cost impact 

of requiring the proposed Step 1 BSER 

emission levels of 4.5 g/hr for 

noncatalytic and catalytic pellet heaters 

in terms of having to redesign units to 

meet the proposed Step 1 BSER. 

Even though additional R&D would 

not be required to meet the proposed 

Step 1 BSER, manufacturers would need 

to test and certify their heaters/stoves to 

sell them after the effective data of the 

final rule, which we expect to occur in 

2015. Some manufacturers of pellet 

heaters/stoves have started incurring 

costs in anticipation of the final rule. 

They would also incur ongoing 

recertification costs for the fraction of 

heaters/stoves with expiring 

certifications. 

Some stakeholders have argued that 

pellet heaters/stoves are relatively 

cleaner burning than other wood heaters 

and that regulation is not needed. Other 

stakeholders have argued that pellet 

heater/stove standards should be tighter 

to show how clean they are and 

encourage consumers to purchase pellet 

heaters/stoves instead of cord wood 

heaters/stoves. Considering both 

positions, and because pellet heaters/

stoves are cleaner burning in general, 

we think there is environmental value 

in ensuring they have an EPA 

certification so they can be sold in 

jurisdictions that require such 

certification of any wood-burning 

appliance (contingent upon approval by 

the local jurisdiction). This would help 

avoid a competitive imbalance regarding 

wood heaters. Also, we believe there is 

environmental value in having thirdparty accredited laboratory test results 

available in all areas so that consumers 

can make informed choices among 

competing residential heaters. 

We are also proposing 

implementation of a Step 2 state-of-theart BSER 5 years after the effective date 

of the final rule. We estimate that at 

least 30 percent of current U.S. pellet 

heater/stove models already meet the 

proposed Step 2 emission level. We 

assume that manufacturers will either 

modify the remaining models or invest 

in developing new model lines that can 

meet the proposed Step 2 emission 

level. This assumption may somewhat 

overstate the potential cost and 

economic impacts of requiring a 

proposed Step 2 BSER, because some 

noncomplying models will be dropped 

and manufacturers may consolidate 

their model lines in the short term. 

However, we do not know how many 

models will be dropped. This industry 

has a history of manufacturing a wide 

range of choices of models for the 

marketplace. 

The nationwide annualized total costs 

are significant based on our cost 

assumptions explained in section IV.C 

and in our background 

documentation.47 The average annual 

cost increase to manufacturers of pellet 

heaters/stoves during the 2014 through 

2022 period analyzed in the RIA is 

approximately $3.5 million. Estimated 

nationwide annual PM2.5 emissions, 

averaged over this same period (2014– 

2022), are projected to be 199 tons/year 

under baseline conditions versus 150 

tons/year under the proposed two-step 

BSER, an average reduction of 49 tons/ 

year, considering only the first year of 

emissions for each new heater sold. 

Given this limited snapshot for these 

cost and emission estimates, the average 

cost of reducing each new ton of PM2.5

emissions during the 2014–2022 period 

is approximately $71,000 per ton 

annually as compared to the monetized 

health benefits of $360,000 per ton to 

$810,000 per ton of reducing direct 

PM2.5. The annualized cost-to-sales ratio 

is 2.3 percent. However, when 

considering the total costs and 

cumulative emission reductions over 

the more representative full model 

design life span and appliance emitting 

life span of pellet heaters/stoves, the 

overall cost effectiveness is 

approximately $1,500 per ton (shown 

above in Table 11).48

Given the reasonable cost 

effectiveness of imposing the proposed 

two-step BSER when considering total 

costs and cumulative emission 

reductions, and given the 6-year lead 

time (from the date of these proposed 

standards) until model lines must come 

into compliance with the proposed Step 

2 limit, we determined that the two-step 

phased-in limits represent BSER for 

these residential consumer appliances at 

this time. Thus, we are proposing a twostep standard for pellet heaters/stoves, 

in which Proposed Step 1 is required 

upon the effective date of the final rule, 

and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

Section V.B.5 discusses a three-step 

alternative approach that we also 

considered for pellet heater/stoves, and 

on which we are seeking comment. 

c. Single Burn Rate Wood Heaters 

Single burn rate wood heaters 

represent a huge regulatory exemption 

in the current residential wood heater 

market. We estimate that over 40,000 of 

these units are sold per year. We 

evaluated all of the available emission 

data and discussed the state of R&D 

with manufacturers of single burn rate 

wood heaters. The data show that the 

BSER for single burn rate wood heaters 

based on improved combustion could 

achieve the same emission levels for one 

individual burn rate category as 

adjustable burn rate category wood 

heaters do for the weighted average of 

four burn rates. To compare single burn 

rate emissions to adjustable burn rate 

emissions, however, one must 

remember that single burn rate wood 

heaters are by definition incapable of 

operating at the lowest burn rates, and 

that these low burn rates result in the 

greatest level of emissions in an 

adjustable burn rate wood heater. Thus, 

the certification test method for single 

burn rate wood heaters must be 

modified to take the single burn rate 

into account (instead of the multiple 

burn rates for the adjustable rate 

heaters). For example a rate of 3.0 g/hr 

could be considered to be equivalent to 

the state of Washington standards (of 4.5 

g/hr for adjustable burn rate wood 

heaters) adjusted to the single burn rate. 

Considering that single burn rate 

wood heaters will not be expected to 

operate at the typically higher-emitting 

burn rates, we expect the majority of 

single burn rate wood heaters to meet 

the proposed Step 1 BSER limit of 4.5 

g/hr for adjustable burn rate wood 

heaters, if the design is focused on one 

optimal single burn rate. However, some 

models would require modifications to 

ensure that they consistently pass the 

test and to add tamper-proof settings to 

ensure that operators do not circumvent 

the intent of the NSPS. For our analyses, 

we assumed that all existing models 

would need to be modified through 

R&D, resulting in significant emission 

reductions to achieve the proposed Step 

1 BSER. We request specific data and 

comments regarding these assumptions. 

Since 2009, single burn rate wood 

heater designs have been undergoing 

R&D in anticipation of the proposed 

NSPS, and the information that we have 

from industry is that cleaner designs are 

nearly market-ready.49 Nonetheless, 

because these devices were previously 

unregulated and may need to transfer 

technology from adjustable burn rate 

wood heaters, our cost analysis assumed 

that R&D efforts would intensify in 

order to meet the proposed Step 1 

standard while also beginning R&D to 

develop models to meet the more 

stringent proposed Step 2 BSER limit. 

Specifically, for single burn rate wood 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6358 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

50See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. 

51See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. 

52A list of cleaner hydronic heaters participating 

in the EPA’s voluntary partnership program is 

located at http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/

owhhlist.html. 

heaters, we doubled our R&D estimate of 

$356,250 per model for other appliances 

in these early years. 

The nationwide annualized total costs 

are based on the cost assumptions 

explained in section IV.B and in the 

background documentation.50 The 

average annual cost increase to 

manufacturers of single burn rate 

heaters during the 2014 through 2022 

period analyzed in the RIA is 

approximately $902,000. Estimated 

nationwide annual PM2.5 emissions, 

averaged over this same period (2014– 

2022), are projected to be 932 tons/year 

under the baseline (unregulated) 

condition versus 178 tons/year under 

the proposed two-step BSER, an average 

reduction of 754 tons/year, considering 

only the first year of emissions for each 

new heater sold. Given this limited 

snapshot for these cost and emission 

estimates, the average cost of reducing 

each new ton of PM2.5 emissions during 

the 2014–2022 period is approximately 

$1,200 per ton annually as compared to 

the monetized health benefits of 

$360,000 per ton to $810,000 per ton of 

reducing direct PM2.5. The cost-to-sales 

ratio is 6.4 percent and is calculated 

based on only the initial 5-year period. 

However, when considering the total 

costs and cumulative emission 

reductions over the more representative 

full model design life span and 

appliance emitting life span, the overall 

cost effectiveness is approximately $50 

per ton (shown above in Table 11).51

Given the reasonable cost 

effectiveness of imposing the two-step 

BSER when considering total costs and 

cumulative emission reductions, and 

given the 6-year lead time (from the date 

of these proposed standards) until new 

model lines must meet the proposed 

Step 2 emission limit, we determined 

that the two-step phased-in limits 

represent BSER for these residential 

consumer appliances at this time. Thus, 

we are proposing a two-step standard 

for single burn rate wood heaters, in 

which Proposed Step 1 is required upon 

the effective date of the final rule and 

Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after 

the effective date of the final rule. 

Section V.B.5 discusses a three-step 

alternative approach that we also 

considered for single burn rate wood 

heaters, and on which we are seeking 

comment. 

2. Central Heaters 

We are proposing subpart QQQQ for 

wood-burning appliances that function 

as ‘‘central heaters’’ with the purpose of 

heating the entire residence, including 

current new residential hydronic 

heaters and forced-air furnaces. Our 

intent is that this rule will be stated in 

broad enough terms to regulate any 

future central heater wood-burning 

appliances that may come into the U.S. 

market and function as central heaters. 

In this section, we describe our rationale 

for determining BSER and the 

associated proposed emission standards 

for both hydronic heating systems 

(‘‘hydronic heaters’’) and forced-air 

furnaces. As discussed earlier in this 

preamble, the source categories to be 

regulated by proposed subparts AAA, 

QQQQ, and RRRR are fundamentally 

different from the typical NSPS source 

category that includes industrial 

processes whereas subparts AAA, 

QQQQ, and RRRR include massproduced residential consumer 

products. Thus, additional factors are 

included in the analyses presented 

today. Section V.B.2.a. below discusses 

hydronic heaters. Section V.B.2.b. 

discusses forced-air furnaces. 

a. Hydronic Heaters 

As described in section II.D, hydronic 

heaters (commonly known as ‘‘outdoor 

wood boilers’’ although there are indoor 

units as well) are the subject of an EPA 

voluntary partnership program, started 

in January 2007. The EPA’s voluntary 

partnership program provided criteria in 

2007 for qualification of units to be 

approximately 70 percent cleaner than 

unqualified models (Phase 1, ‘‘orange 

hangtag’’). In October 2008, the program 

evolved to Phase 2, and EPA-qualified 

Phase 2 (‘‘white hangtag’’) units are 

approximately 90 percent cleaner than 

older, pre-program unqualified units. 

Under the Phase 2 voluntary 

partnership program, new qualified 

models must emit no more than 0.32 lb/ 

MMBtu of heat output and have a cap 

of 18 g/hr on any individual test run 

conducted during the qualifying test. 

(As noted in the hydronic heaters test 

method discussion in this preamble, the 

EPA, the manufacturers, the 

laboratories, and key states conducted 

an additional review of the test reports 

to support these qualifications and 

made some changes to the test methods 

to improve the reliability and 

reproducibility of the test results.) 

The proposed Step 1 emission limit 

for hydronic heaters is the Phase 2 

qualifying level of the hydronic heater 

voluntary partnership program, 0.32 lb/ 

MMBtu. There are currently 36 models 

(27 cord wood and 9 pellet models) 

built by 17 U.S. manufacturers that have 

been qualified to meet the 2008 Phase 

2 level of 0.32 lb/MM BTU.52 In almost 

all cases, the manufacturers developed 

models that rely upon improved 

combustion techniques, primarily 

improvements in time, temperature, and 

turbulence. That is, the improved 

combustion models have greater 

residence time, separation of the firebox 

and the water jacket and the addition of 

better heat exchangers and better 

insulation to increase temperatures, and 

passageways and directed flows to 

improve mixing and turbulence. In 

some cases, manufacturers are also 

using catalyst technology. Each 

manufacturer has developed their own 

confidential business combinations of 

specific designs that incorporate these 

key aspects and some other techniques. 

In addition to the voluntary 

partnership program, the EPA provided 

technical and financial support for 

NESCAUM to develop a model rule for 

outdoor hydronic heaters, which several 

states have adopted or plan to adopt to 

regulate those units in their 

jurisdictions. The model rule Phase 2 

emission limits and the voluntary 

partnership program Phase 2 emission 

levels/caps are identical, and are the 

same as our proposed Step 1 limit. In 

several states, the Phase 2 emission 

levels have become regulatory 

requirements for new units. Based on 

our experience with the hydronic heater 

market through the voluntary 

partnership program, we understand 

that it is dominated by a few 

manufacturers in terms of the bulk of 

sales, and each of these manufacturers 

has at least one qualifying model 

already. 

For these reasons, we consider the 

Phase 2 voluntary partnership program 

level the appropriate emission level for 

the NSPS proposed Step 1 BSER, 

effective upon the effective date of the 

final rule. As noted above, there are 

currently 36 models (27 cord wood and 

9 pellet models) built by 17 U.S. 

manufacturers that have already been 

qualified to meet the Phase 2 voluntary 

partnership program level of 0.32 lb/

MM BTU. 

The EPA believes the proposed Step 

2 limit for hydronic heaters is 

achievable for some manufacturers now 

and would be achievable for all 

manufacturers 5 years after the effective 

date of the final rule. We consider this 

compliance period a reasonable amount 

of time for manufacturers to complete 

development across model lines and 

complete testing, field evaluation, and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6359 

53See footnote 54. 

54European Wood-Heating Technology Survey: 

An Overview of Combustion Principles and the 

Energy and Emissions Performance Characteristics 

of Commercially Available Systems in Austria, 

Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; Final 

Report; Prepared for the New York State Energy 

Research and Development Authority; NYSERDA 

Report 10–01; April 2010. 

55See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. 

56See footnotes 36 and 38. 

certification so that sufficient models 

are ready for sale. We reviewed all the 

hydronic heater emission data available, 

and we found our proposed Step 2 

emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu is 

already met by 4 hydronic heater 

models (2 cord wood and 2 pellet 

models) built by 2 U.S. manufacturers 

(using crib wood as specified in Method 

28 WHH in the voluntary partnership 

program),53 as well as over 50 European 

models per test method EN 303–05 

(which uses cord wood).54 We ask for 

comments and emission test data using 

cord wood and different test methods to 

help us determine if the proposed 

emission levels should be adjusted for 

any differences in test methods and test 

fuels, e.g., between crib wood and cord 

wood. 

Our review of the available data also 

showed a break point at the emission 

level of 0.15 lb/MMBtu heat output. We 

considered this break point as a 

candidate for interim Step 2 in the 

three-step Alternative Approach, as 

discussed in section III above. Several 

years ago, we discussed the 0.15 lb/

MMBtu level with the voluntary 

program stakeholders, including states 

and manufacturers, as a potential future 

‘‘Phase 3’’ interim target in the 

voluntary partnership program to 

reduce emissions to approximately onehalf of the Phase 2 voluntary 

partnership program level. Some of the 

manufacturers responded quickly to this 

informal target and now 11 of the 36 

models (6 cord wood and 5 pellet 

models) that currently qualify under the 

Phase 2 voluntary partnership program 

already qualify at an emission level of 

0.15 lb/MMBtu or better. 

The proposed BSER levels include 

both outdoor hydronic heaters and 

indoor hydronic heaters. The initial 

manufacturers who actively participated 

in the voluntary partnership program 

were primarily manufacturers of 

outdoor units, due to the very large 

concern about the health effects of 

emissions from the outdoor units and 

the fact that over 90 percent of hydronic 

heater sales were and still are for 

outdoor models. When we moved to 

Phase 2 of the voluntary partnership 

program in October 2008, we explicitly 

included indoor units to more strongly 

encourage cleaner indoor units and to 

provide another tool for the states and 

local jurisdictions, especially since 

some states were concerned that some 

high-emitting indoor units were 

avoiding rules that only specified 

outdoor units. Indoor and outdoor 

models compete in the marketplace and 

having standards on only outdoor units 

would provide a market advantage to 

indoor models. Indoor and outdoor 

models both can use currently available 

improved combustion and improved 

heat transfer techniques to achieve 

similar emission levels. Given the 

number of years the voluntary 

partnership program has already been in 

existence, we believe our proposed Step 

1 limit upon the effective date of the 

final rule and the proposed Step 2 limit 

5 years after the effective date of the 

final standard provide reasonable lead 

time to incorporate BSER in both 

outdoor and indoor residential 

consumer models. We ask for specific 

comments and data on this 

determination and the degree to which 

other options would be appropriate. 

We estimate that there are 30 

manufacturers producing approximately 

120 hydronic heater models for sale in 

the U.S. On a sales-weighted basis, less 

than 25 percent of the models currently 

sold would need to undertake R&D to 

meet the proposed Step 1 BSER limit, 

with a higher percentage that would 

need to undertake R&D to meet the 

proposed Step 2 BSER limit. We 

assumed that any manufacturer 

undertaking R&D to develop a new 

model would aim to meet the proposed 

Step 2 limit to maximize the lifetime of 

the resulting product, while shifting 

production to models that already meet 

the proposed Step 1 limit. For our cost 

analysis, we assumed that 100 percent 

of the 120 hydronic heater models 

would incur NSPS-related R&D costs to 

achieve the proposed Step 2 BSER limit. 

Considering typical R&D lead times, and 

even the different starting dates for 

outdoor versus indoor manufactures, we 

concluded that 5 years after the effective 

date of the final standard is an 

achievable compliance deadline for both 

outdoor and indoor models, even if they 

were just starting their R&D now. As 

discussed earlier in this preamble, most 

manufacturers have known of the 

hydronic heater emission concerns for 

over 7 years already. 

We also investigated the performance 

of European models in considering 

BSER options. Several European 

countries have already established 

emission limits, and they are 

considering more stringent limits in the 

near future. This has encouraged the 

European industry to develop more 

energy efficient and lower emitting 

technologies. Most of these state-of-theart models use multiple-stage 

combustion and some use oxygen 

sensors and CO sensors and automated 

feedback controls to help optimize 

combustion conditions. A concern in 

comparing the emission performance of 

European models with North American 

models is the difference in test methods. 

All European models are tested on cord 

wood fuel in Europe by European 

laboratories to meet European 

standards. Few have been imported to 

the U.S. (by U.S. companies) and very 

few have been tested in the U.S. 

according to U.S. testing requirements. 

However, a recent report 55 included an 

effort to compare the performance of the 

European models to U.S. type 

performance standards. Although a 

perfect comparison is not possible due 

to differences in duty-cycle (i.e., 

proportion of time the unit is operating) 

to be evaluated in the test and the 

emissions sampling and analysis 

protocols, the analysis indicates that the 

top 20 percent performing European 

wood boilers (i.e., hydronic heaters) in 

the size range of 120,000–170,000 Btu 

would meet an output-based emission 

rate of 0.06 lb/MMBtu using the 

European test methods. The underlying 

test data and limited comparative 

testing show that over 50 European 

models would likely be considered 

state-of-the-art BSER and be capable of 

meeting the proposed Step 2 BSER 

associated emission level of 0.06 lb/

MMBtu heat output, using EN 303–05, 

which specifies cord wood as the test 

fuel. We ask for comments and emission 

test data using different test methods 

and cord wood to help us determine if 

the proposed emission levels should be 

adjusted for any differences in test 

methods and between fuels, e.g., crib 

wood and cord wood. 

The nationwide annualized total costs 

are based on the cost assumptions 

explained in section IV.C and in the 

background documentation.56 The 

average annual cost increase to 

manufacturers of hydronic heaters 

during the 2014 through 2022 period 

anlayzed in the RIA is approximately 

$4.6 million. Estimated nationwide 

annual PM2.5 emissions, averaged over 

this same period (2014–2022), are 

projected to be 1,332 tons/year under 

the baseline (unregulated) condition 

versus 84 tons/year under the proposed 

two-step BSER, an average reduction of 

1,249 tons/year, considering only the 

first year of emissions for each new 

heater sold. Given this limited snapshot 

for these cost and emission estimates, 

the average cost of reducing each new 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6360 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

57See footnotes 36 and 38. 

58CSA B415.1–10: Performance testing of solidfuel-burning heating appliances, Canadian 

Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada. March 2010. 

59Environment Canada was created in 1971, and 

has the responsibility to implement the Government 

of Canada’s environmental agenda including, but 

not limited to, Canada’s environmental and wildlife 

legislation, enforcement activities and other efforts 

to protect, conserve and enhance the environment. 

ton of PM2.5 emissions during the 2014– 

2022 period is approximately $3,600 per 

ton annually. The annualized cost-tosales ratio is 3.3 percent for hydronic 

heater models. However, when 

considering the total costs and 

cumulative emission reductions over 

the more representative full model 

design life span and appliance emitting 

life span, the overall cost effectiveness 

is approximately $160 per ton (shown 

above in Table 11).57

Given the reasonable cost 

effectiveness of imposing the two-step 

BSER, and given the 6-year lead time 

(from the date of these proposed 

standards) until model lines must come 

into compliance with the proposed Step 

2 limit, we determined that the two-step 

phased-in limits represent BSER for 

these residential consumer appliances at 

this time. Thus, we are proposing a twostep standard for hydronic heaters, in 

which Proposed Step 1 is required upon 

the effective date of the final rule, and 

Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after 

publication of the final rule. Section 

V.B.5 discusses a three-step alternative 

approach that we also considered for 

hydronic heaters, and on which we are 

seeking comment. 

b. Forced-air Furnaces 

Emissions from wood-fired, forced-air 

furnaces have not previously received 

much attention in the U.S. However, 

industry information suggests that there 

are three times more sales of wood-fired, 

forced-air furnaces each year compared 

to wood-fired hydronic heaters. These 

units are relatively easy to retrofit into 

existing structures, and their sales price 

is substantially less than hydronic 

heaters but greater than gas or oil 

furnaces. Because they are whole-house 

heating systems, they have the capacity 

to generate large amounts of emissions. 

Also, they compete with wood-fired 

hydronic heaters, which we propose to 

regulate. Not regulating wood-fired, 

forced-air furnaces could create an 

adverse competitive imbalance with the 

wood-fired hydronic heater market 

segment of the residential wood heater 

source category. Both forced-air 

furnaces and hydronic heaters compete 

with oil and gas furnaces. Consumer 

choices vary with consideration of 

upfront sales price, financing costs, and 

operating costs, e.g., the cost of 

obtaining seasoned wood versus oil or 

gas. 

Wood-fired, forced-air furnaces are 

not currently regulated in the U.S. (with 

the exceptions of broader bans or use 

limits on wood-burning appliances), but 

they are beginning to be regulated in 

Canada. The main regulatory 

mechanisms are local and provincial 

regulations requiring listing per CSA 

B415.1–10, which is the CSA 

specification for emission performance 

of solid-fuel-burning heating 

appliances.58 All CSA standards are 

developed through a consensus 

standards development process 

approved by the Standards Council of 

Canada. This process brings together 

stakeholder volunteers representing 

varied viewpoints and interests to 

achieve consensus and develop a 

standard. The most recent B415.1–10 

Committee consisted of manufacturers, 

Environment Canada,59 provincial 

agency staff, test laboratories and the 

EPA. The current version of B415.1–10 

was published in March 2010, and it 

includes new requirements for indoor 

and outdoor central heating appliances, 

including wood-fired forced-air 

furnaces. In addition to establishing 

performance test requirements, B415.1– 

10 also includes emissions requirements 

for PM. Section 4.2.1(c) of the CSA 

standard establishes an average 

particulate emission rate of less than or 

equal to 0.40 g/MJ, which is equivalent 

to 0.93 lb/MMBtu. Manufacturers 

anticipate that CSA Standard B415.1–10 

will effectively establish the minimum 

requirements for future units sold in 

Canada. For example, the province of 

British Columbia has enacted 

regulations limiting the sale of woodburning appliances to those that comply 

with B415.1–10 (or the U.S. NSPS when 

the EPA issues such a standard), and 

other provinces and municipalities in 

Canada are in the process of amending 

their regulations to apply to central 

heating systems, including forced-air 

furnaces. 

In developing the B415.1–10 

emissions limit of 0.40 g/MJ (0.93 lb/

MMBtu) for solid-fuel central heating 

systems, the CSA committee thoroughly 

reviewed the best systems available, 

developed a test method for such 

systems and supported emission testing 

of candidate best systems. A B415.1–10 

validation-testing program performed by 

Intertek in Middleton, Wisconsin, 

included both a high-tech furnace and a 

conventional furnace. The high-tech 

furnace achieved average particulate 

emissions of 0.46 g/MJ output (1.067 lb/ 

MMBtu). The conventional furnace 

achieved average particulate emissions 

of 1.65 g/MJ (3.828 lb/MMBtu) output. 

Thus, the CSA limit of 0.40 g/MJ (0.93 

lb/MMBtu) output corresponds to a 75 

percent reduction in emissions when 

using the average particulate emissions 

of the conventional furnace tested by 

Intertek as part of the CSA B415.1–10 

validation program. 

We also investigated the performance 

of European production forced-air 

furnace models to determine whether 

their performance might be better than 

what CSA found in North America. 

However, forced-air furnaces are not 

commonly used in Europe because they 

are considered to be an inferior 

technology for home heating in Europe; 

thus we had no European candidate 

BSER to consider. 

Manufacturers are actively conducting 

R&D in response to both the current 

CSA standard and the anticipated NSPS 

we are proposing. For example, one 

company has recently had an EPAcertified laboratory test two of their 

newest models. These tests, using the 

test method in CSA B415.1–10, show 

particle emissions below 0.1 lb/MMBtu 

heat output. Considering all of the 

above, we believe that BSER for forcedair furnaces may be demonstrated at the 

same emission levels as for hydronic 

heaters. We have considered proposing 

standards for forced-air furnaces that 

match the Step 1 and Step 2 standards 

we are proposing for hydronic heaters, 

that is, a proposed Step 1 BSER of 0.32 

lb/MMBtu heat output and a cap of 18 

g/hr as determined by the test methods 

and procedures in CSA B415.1–10 upon 

the effective date of the final standard 

and a proposed Step 2 BSER of 0.06 lb/ 

MMBtu heat output as determined by 

the test methods and procedures in CSA 

B415.1–10, 5 years after the effective 

date of the final standard. However, we 

have concerns that only one U.S. 

manufacturer currently has models that 

have been tested by CSA B415.1–10 and 

shown to achieve these levels, and, 

thus, we are proposing that the Step 1 

BSER for forced-air furnaces match the 

current CSA B415.1–10 level of 0.93 lb/ 

MMBtu heat output. We are also 

proposing, however, that by 5 years after 

the effective date of the final standard, 

forced-air furnaces be subject to the 

same standards as hydronic heaters and 

be required to meet the proposed Step 

2 BSER of 0.06 lb/MMBtu that hydronic 

heaters must meet then under this 

proposal. 

Given that the largest U.S. forced-air 

furnace manufacturer already has a 

catalytic model meeting 0.06 lb/MMBtu, 

we think the 6 years of lead time is 

sufficient time in which to conduct R&D 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6361 

60See footnotes 37 and 38. 

61See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. 

to produce comparably lower emitting 

model lines, although we are seeking 

comment on an alternative 3-step 

approach with a longer lead time. Since 

there are limited emissions data 

available for forced-air furnaces that 

reflect hydronic heater proposed Step 1 

and proposed Step 2 BSER, we request 

specific comments and data on the 

proposed emission levels and 

compliance deadlines, as well as the 

environmental impacts and market 

implications for setting emission limits 

that match what we are proposing for 

hydronic heaters. 

The nationwide annualized total costs 

are based on the cost assumptions 

explained in section IV.C and in the 

background documentation.60 The 

average annual cost increase to 

manufacturers of forced air furnaces 

during the 2014 through 2022 period 

analyzed in the RIA is approximately 

$2.3 million. Estimated nationwide 

annual PM2.5 emissions, averaged over 

this same period (2014–2022), are 

projected to be 3,044 tons/year under 

the baseline (unregulated) condition 

versus 434 tons/year under the 

proposed two-step BSER, an average 

reduction of 2,610 tons/year, 

considering only the first year of 

emissions for each new heater sold. 

Given this limited snapshot for these 

cost and emission estimates, the average 

cost of reducing each ton of PM2.5

emissions during the 2014–2022 period 

is approximately $860 per ton annually, 

as compared to the monetized health 

benefits of $360,000 per ton to $810,000 

per ton of reducing direct PM2.5. The 

cost-to-sales ratio is 2.4 percent. 

However, when considering the total 

costs and cumulative emission 

reductions over the more representative 

full model design life span and 

appliance emitting life span, the overall 

cost effectiveness is approximately $40 

per ton (shown above in Table 11).61

Given the reasonable cost 

effectiveness of imposing the two-step 

BSER, and given the 6-year lead time 

(from the date of these proposed 

standards) until new model lines must 

come into compliance with the 

proposed Step 2 limit, we determined 

that the two-step phased-in limits 

represent BSER for these residential 

consumer appliances at this time. Thus, 

we are proposing a two-step standard 

for forced air furnaces, in which 

Proposed Step 1 is required upon the 

effective date of the final rule and 

Proposed Step 2 is required 5 years after 

the effective date of the final rule. 

Section V.B.5 discusses the three-step 

alternative approach that we also 

considered for forced air furnaces, and 

on which we are seeking comment. 

3. Masonry Heaters 

We are proposing subpart RRRR for 

new masonry heaters. With a few 

exceptions, masonry heater emissions 

are not subject to specific PM emission 

limits in North America or Europe. 

Some states and local areas do not allow 

any residential wood heaters that are 

not certified to meet the current 

residential wood heater NSPS. The 

states of Colorado and Washington have 

set 6 grams of particles emitted per 

kilogram of wood burned (g/kg) and 7.3 

g/kg limits, respectively (each of which 

is based on different test methods), and 

a small number of appliances have been 

tested and certified for those states. (The 

BSER level we are proposing below uses 

a different format but is commonly 

accepted to be only slightly more 

stringent than the Colorado and 

Washington limits.) We considered 

various forms for a masonry heater 

standard, and we believe that an 

appropriate format could be a daily 

average g/hr limit for the heating cycle 

coupled with a limit for emissions per 

heat output (lb/MMBtu output). The 

daily average over the heating cycle 

format seems to be well adapted to the 

nature of the technology of masonry 

heater operation, which involves one or 

two short high burn rate cycles where 

hot gases are generated during 

combustion of a fuel load in the firebox 

and then pass through the channels, 

saturating the masonry mass with heat. 

The masonry mass then radiates heat 

into the area around the masonry heater 

for 12 to 24 hours. Unfortunately, we 

lack sufficient data to set the level of a 

daily average data approach, so we are 

proposing instead a heat output format. 

The heat output format has the 

advantage of providing a good metric for 

consumers and regulatory agencies to 

compare emissions of competing 

residential heating appliances for an 

equivalent heat output. We ask for 

specific comments on whether a g/kg 

format would be better. 

We had numerous discussions with 

states, masonry heater manufacturers, 

and laboratories on heater designs, test 

methods and heater emissions and 

performance. The best performing 

improved combustion technology 

masonry heaters have well-engineered 

designs with long channels to maximize 

complete combustion and heat transfer. 

The manufacturers provided all 

available current emissions data. For 

example, one manufacturer provided an 

archive of available data. The data set 

included results from 31 tests 

(measuring emissions per heat output) 

that ranged from 0.07 g/MJ to 0.51 g/MJ 

(∼0.17 to 1.22 lb/MMBtu), with an 

average rate of 0.26 g/MJ (0.621 lb/

MMBtu). As we discussed earlier in this 

preamble, we do not have good 

information on how many heaters emit 

at each of these levels and thus have not 

developed a good estimate of baseline 

emissions and we ask for data that 

would help inform us. However, looking 

at this data set in more detail, we can 

see that the best ‘‘improved 

combustion’’ systems have an emission 

level of 0.13 g/MJ (0.32 lb/MMBtu) heat 

output. We note that this level is 

consistent with the proposed Step 1 

BSER for hydronic heaters. 

As discussed earlier in this preamble, 

the source categories to be regulated by 

the proposed subparts AAA, QQQQ, 

and RRRR are fundamentally different 

from the typical NSPS source category 

in that most NSPS regulate industrial 

processes whereas the source categories 

in subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR 

include mass-produced residential 

consumer products. Thus, additional 

factors are included in the analyses 

presented today as compared to typical 

NSPS. For example, we considered 

whether we should allow longer lead 

time over which small manufacturers/

builders could spread their R&D costs in 

order to stay in business. The Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act 

Panel strongly recommended that we 

consider allowing more time. See 

section V.C of this preamble for 

discussion of this topic. 

We estimated proposed Step 1 

improved combustion BSER emissions 

and cost and economic impacts based 

on four groups of costs. The first group 

of costs consisted of the two large 

manufacturers that we know have 

already developed potentially 

complying models and would only face 

the costs of certification tests. For the 

second group of costs, we estimated the 

costs incurred by an additional two 

large manufacturers that conduct R&D to 

develop a total of four new model lines. 

For the third group of costs, we 

estimated the cost of one of the 

manufacturers using the computer 

simulation approach to certify 

additional model lines. Finally, for the 

fourth group of costs, we estimated the 

cost for all of the small, custom-built 

manufacturers using the computer 

simulation approach to certify their 

model lines. We do not anticipate a 

large nationwide emission reduction 

resulting from requiring the proposed 

Step 1 BSER versus what most 

manufacturers would have done in the 

absence of a rule; however we believe 

there are some masonry heaters that do 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

62See footnotes 24, 36 and 38. 

63See footnote 38. 

64See footnote 24, 36 and 38. 

65See footnote 24. 

66See footnote 24, 36 and 38. 

not use current best designs and for 

those heaters there can be an emission 

reduction of 70 percent or more. We 

believe it is important to ensure that all 

new models achieve the BSER emission 

levels and avoid backsliding. 

The nationwide annualized total costs 

are based on the cost assumptions 

explained in section IV.C and in the 

background documentation.62 The 

average annual cost increase to 

manufacturers of masonry heaters 

during the 2014 through 2022 period 

analyzed in the RIA is approximately 

$294,000. The estimated cost-to-sales 

ratio is 4.8 percent. If one were to 

spread the costs over the much longer 

typical lifetimes of masonry heaters 

(over 40 years), the average annual costs 

would be much lower. We concluded 

that the proposed Step 1 BSER level of 

0.32 lb/MMBtu heat output is 

appropriate for these appliances. 

For masonry heaters, we are 

proposing that large manufacturers of 

masonry heaters (defined as those 

manufacturers constructing 15 or more 

masonry heaters per year) would be 

required to comply with these standards 

upon the effective date of the final rule. 

We are proposing that small 

manufacturers (defined as those 

manufacturers of less than 15 masonry 

heaters per year) would be required to 

comply with these standards 5 years 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

We are requesting specific comments on 

the proposed BSER option and data that 

might support alternative findings and 

enhance our impact analyses. For 

example, if we were to develop a g/hr 

average format in addition to the lb/

MMBtu heat output format, are there 

products that might meet a daily average 

over the heating period versus the 

averaging only over the combustion 

period, and if so, how would this affect 

levels of performance and impacts on 

the environment? Further, we are 

seeking comment on the degree to 

which these dates could be sooner. 

4. Alternative Approach for Comment 

As noted in section III, in addition to 

the proposed two-step standards 

described above for appliances 

regulated as ‘‘room heaters’’ under 

subpart AAA (currently catalytic and 

noncatalytic adjustable burn rate wood 

heaters, single burn rate wood heaters, 

and pellet heaters/stoves) and for 

appliances regulated as ‘‘central 

heaters’’ under subpart QQQQ 

(currently hydronic heaters and forcedair furnaces), we also considered a 

different approach, an ‘‘alternative 

three-step approach’’ for subparts AAA 

and QQQQ. We seek comments on 

whether the final rule should be our 

(preferred) proposed two-step approach 

or whether the final rule should be this 

alternative three-step approach. We do 

not intend for the final rule to allow a 

choice between the two approaches. We 

did not develop a three-step approach 

for masonry heaters under subpart 

RRRR, since it is a one-emission-level 

standard, but we are seeking comments 

on our proposed 5-year compliance 

extension for small volume masonry 

heater manufacturers. 

We compared unit cost increases,63

nationwide manufacturer cost 

estimates,64 emission reductions,65 and 

overall cost effectiveness of the two-step 

proposal to the three-step alternative 

approach considered.66 Table 12 

compares the unit cost increase, 

nationwide average cost to 

manufacturers and the annual 

particulate emission reductions, during 

the 2014 through 2022 period analyzed 

in the RIA, for appliances currently 

affected by this proposal, considering 

only the first year of emissions for each 

new heater sold. Based on the cost and 

emission reduction estimates presented 

in this table, the overall cost 

effectiveness for this proposal over the 

2014–2022 period is $3,250 per ton, but 

$5,800 per ton for the alternative 

approach considered (assuming no 

emission reductions for masonry 

heaters, for the sake of this analysis). 

Additional information on the impacts 

is included in the RIA in the docket. 

TABLE 12—COMPARISON OF PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH (2014–2022) 

Appliance type 

Unit cost increase from 

baseline 

(2010$) 

Nationwide average cost increase from baseline 

(2010$) 

Emission reduction from 

baseline 

(tons) 

Proposal Alternative Proposal Alternative Proposal Alternative 

Certified Wood Heaters ..................................... 24 ................ 48 ................ 4,212,303 8,090,026 163 .............. 136 

Single Burn Rate Heaters ................................. 226 .............. 337 .............. 901,732 1,540,600 754 .............. 756 

Pellet Heaters/Stoves ........................................ 24 ................ 47 ................ 3,460,489 6,255,536 49 ................ 24 

Forced-Air Furnaces .......................................... 3,262 ........... 4,891 ........... 2,252,284 3,813,898 2,610 ........... 2,712 

Hydronic Heating Systems ................................ 6,458 ........... 9,672 ........... 4,554,152 8,302,026 1,249 ........... 1,250 

Masonry Heaters ............................................... 300 (ave.) .... 300 (ave.) .... 307,511 293,776 Not estimated Not estimated. 

Total ............................................................ 10,294 ......... 15,295 ......... 15,688,471 28,295,862 4,825 ........... 4,878 

We are seeking comment and 

information on potential justifications 

for implementing such a three-step 

standard, instead of our proposed twostep standard for each of the appliances 

affected by this proposed rule, to 

provide additional flexibility for 

manufacturers that have different 

capabilities and resources to ultimately 

reach the most stringent BSER. The 

proposed two-step standards rely on the 

assumption that the proposed Step 2 

BSER, already demonstrated by various 

models in each appliance category 

affected by the proposed rule, is 

achievable within 5 years of the 

proposed Step 1 BSER. There is a 

significant emission reduction achieved 

by the proposed Step 2 BSER compared 

to the proposed Step 1 BSER in each 

appliance category discussed above in 

section V, but there are no proposed 

interim emission limits imposed during 

the transition from the proposed Step 1 

to the proposed Step 2. In the 

alternative approach considered, there 

is a longer transition period of 8 years 

between Step 1 and Step 3 (with the 

same significant emission reduction 

achieved between our proposed Step 1 

and proposed Step 2), but there is an 

interim Step 2 limit which 

manufacturers must meet 3 years after 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6363 

the proposed Step 1. If we were to give 

a longer timeframe to redesign across 

model lines to accommodate the best 

systems, test, field evaluate, and certify 

a wide range of model lines, we believe 

there would be benefit to establishing 

required interim limits to codify 

progress in reducing emissions and to 

focus positive attention on early 

achievers as they show compliance in 

the period between 2015 and 2023. 

We expect that the manufacturers that 

do not already meet the strongest 

emission limits would like the longer 

time to meet the Alternative Approach 

Step 3 but would prefer to not have an 

interim Step 2 requirement. However, 

we do not currently see adequate 

justification for allowing extra time 

without also requiring satisfactory 

progress, especially because numerous 

models already achieve the strongest 

emission levels. We also have concerns 

about the complexity of a 3-step 

approach and whether it would be 

harder for the EPA to enforce. Thus, we 

seek comment, including data and 

potential environmental and economic 

justifications, on whether the described 

Alternative Approach Step 2 emission 

limits represent BSER within 3 years of 

the effective date of the final rule. We 

also seek comment on whether an 

additional 5 years would be necessary to 

transition from the Alternative 

Approach Step 2 to the Alternative 

Approach Step 3 limit, or whether such 

a transition could be made in a shorter 

time period. Finally, for single burn rate 

wood heaters and forced-air furnaces, 

we are seeking comment on whether the 

alternative Step 1 limit should become 

effective upon the effective date of the 

final rule or after a 1-year ‘‘adjustment’’ 

period. The EPA seeks to encourage 

national achievement of the (proposed 

Step 2) BSER for each appliance 

category as soon as possible and as 

efficiently as possible, which is why we 

prefer the proposal over the alternative 

approach we considered. However, we 

also seek to balance industry’s R&D 

needs with timely and efficient 

standards, and so we are seeking 

comment on the alternative approach 

outlined immediately above and in 

section III. 

5. Other Proposed Emissions Testing 

and Reporting 

a. Efficiency Testing and Reporting 

While the CAA gives the EPA 

authority to set standards for emissions, 

and we have issued final rules that have 

used a variety of formats for such 

standards, including efficiency, we lack 

sufficient data to propose efficiency 

standards for residential wood heaters at 

this time. We are proposing only to 

require testing and reporting but not a 

minimum efficiency standard. Current 

data and other information from 

manufacturers and testing laboratories 

and the NYSERDA ‘‘European WoodHeating Technology Survey’’ discussed 

earlier in this preamble show that, in 

general, the same types of improved 

combustion BSER designs that tend to 

reduce PM2.5 emissions also tend to 

increase combustion efficiency, reduce 

CO emissions and improve efficiency. 

Current subpart AAA allows sources to 

either measure efficiency or report a 

default efficiency value. We believe 

these proposed subparts are an excellent 

opportunity to standardize the 

collection and reporting of such data. 

Most industry members support the 

collection and reporting of tested 

efficiency values, but some do not 

necessarily support an efficiency 

standard because they have concerns 

that efficiency standards would 

encourage a ‘‘ratings race’’ and worry 

that some manufacturers would sacrifice 

operational viability in the field for a 

higher efficiency rating. We agree that 

some heat loss is necessary to ensure 

adequate draft out the chimney/stack 

and not backdrafting into living areas. 

However, we do not expect 

manufacturers to jeopardize their 

reputation or operator safety for a higher 

rating, and we believe that competition 

among manufacturers to increase their 

heaters/stoves’ efficiencies is good for 

consumers and the environment. We 

request specific comments and 

supporting data that would help inform 

the need for and level of a possible 

efficiency standard. Also, we ask for 

specific comments on how, in the 

meantime, to best ensure consumers 

have access to the best information on 

efficiency performance, e.g., labels, 

owner’s manual, Burn Wise Web site 

and/or other means. 

b. CO Testing and Reporting 

We considered developing CO 

emission limits for all new residential 

wood heaters. However, our current 

data for CO emissions performance and 

methods of control are not sufficiently 

robust to support strong CO emission 

limits, and it would delay the NSPS if 

we were to seek additional data 

elsewhere at this time to support strong 

CO emission limits. We expect the CO 

emissions to be reduced as a result of 

the control of PM, because meeting the 

PM standards will be achieved 

primarily by BSER based on good 

combustion (and in some cases catalysts 

and hybrids) which will also result in 

good CO reductions without additional 

standards for CO. However, we are 

proposing that manufacturers measure 

and report CO. We believe this 

information will be useful to consumers 

and state and local regulators. Requiring 

manufacturers to measure and report CO 

emissions would also result in the 

collection of data that could be used in 

the future to establish a CO emissions 

limit. We are requesting specific 

comments and supporting data on the 

need for and level of a possible CO 

emissions standard. Also, we ask for 

comments on whether we should 

require CO monitors to help ensure 

proper operation of the heater and to 

reduce health and safety concerns for 

appliances that are installed in occupied 

areas. 

c. Pellet Fuel Requirements 

A wide variety of pellet fuels is 

available for purchase. However, in 

some cases, quality claims on the pellet 

fuel bag do not necessarily reflect what 

is in the bag and there can be variable 

performance. Manufacturers’ data show 

that some fuel qualities have worse 

burning characteristics and operational 

characteristics than others, which 

results not only in heater performance 

problems but also increased emissions 

of PM. The PFI, an industry trade 

organization, has had pellet fuel quality 

standards in place since 1995, with 

updated standards issued in 2005, and 

again, most recently in 2011 (http://

pelletheat.org/wp-content/uploads/

2011/11/PFI-Standard-SpecificationNovember-2011.pdf), in response to the 

EPA’s planned revisions to the 

residential wood heaters NSPS. We have 

reviewed the PFI program and believe it 

is a good program that obviates the need 

for the EPA to develop our own program 

at this time. Under the proposed NSPS, 

pellet burning appliances would be 

tested using PFI (or, upon request to the 

EPA Administrator, an equivalent 

organization’s) graded pellet fuel(s). 

Once certified, pellet burning 

appliances would only be allowed to 

burn the grade of fuel that the appliance 

manufacturer chose for the appliance 

certification test and the manufacturer 

specifies in their owner’s manual for the 

operator to use. As discussed above, use 

of inferior grades would cause heater 

operational problems and increase 

emissions. The overall intent of the 

certification process is to increase the 

consistency and quality of pelletized 

fuel throughout the industry, and, thus, 

reducing appliance operational 

problems and helping certified 

appliances perform at the emission 

levels to which they are certified. Heater 

manufacturers have indicated to us that 

market competition will compel them to 

specify the widest range of grades for 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6364 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

which their heaters will properly 

perform. 

The PFI is also implementing a 

quality assurance program to ensure that 

manufacturers reliably produce graded 

fuels. We propose to require adherence 

to this program (or equivalent) as a 

condition of producing graded pellet 

fuels to be used in obtaining 

certification under the NSPS. Similar to 

the NSPS quality assurance program, 

the PFI quality assurance program relies 

on use of accreditation and auditing 

bodies that: 

• Accredit auditing agencies and testing 

laboratories 

• Implement and enforce the program, 

including testing that the pellet fuels 

meet the grading specifications 

• Maintain the enforcement regulations 

• Administer a laboratory proficiency 

program 

• Pursue product complaints 

In addition, accredited auditing 

agencies perform the following tasks: 

• Certify the production of densified 

fuel manufacturers 

• Authorize production facilities to use 

PFI’s ‘‘grading mark’’ 

• Conduct regular audits and extracts 

samples for third party verification 

• Revoke authority to use the PFI mark, 

if necessary 

Accredited testing laboratories 

perform the following activities: 

• Provide QA/QC testing for fuel 

producers—‘‘as needed’’ 

• Provide testing for samples collected 

by auditing agencies 

• Participate in the accreditation body’s 

proficiency testing program 

Finally, the densified fuel producers 

perform the following activities: 

• Develop an in-house QA/QC program 

based on the PFI QA/QC handbook 

and the PFI standard specification 

• Select an auditing agency and test lab 

• Demonstrate compliance with grading 

system component 

• Maintain compliance through 

periodic audits, inspection and testing 

As noted earlier, we have reviewed 

the PFI program and believe it is a good 

program that obviates the need for the 

EPA to develop our own program at this 

time. We ask for specific comments on 

this decision and the PFI program. 

d. Prohibited Fuel Types 

As regulated in the current 1988 

subpart AAA standards for residential 

wood heaters/stoves, operation 

according to the owner’s manual 

requires operation with the appropriate 

fuels because the choice of fuels to burn 

in any appliance can have a major 

impact on emissions and efficient 

operation of the appliance. For clarity, 

we are proposing a list of prohibited 

fuel types (e.g., trash, plastics, yard 

waste) to emphasize the responsibility 

of owners and operators to use 

appropriate fuels that will result in the 

performance of the unit as certified, to 

avoid the creation of possibly hazardous 

fumes from burning inappropriate 

materials, and to ensure that appliance 

continues to operate as designed. Even 

with burning clean wood, one of the key 

factors affecting emissions is the 

moisture content. Some advocates have 

suggested that we only allow use of 

wood certified to a certain moisture 

level and that we include visible 

emission limits as a tool to help with 

practical enforceability of the 

requirements for proper operation and 

maintenance. Manufacturers typically 

include in their owner’s manuals 

information on proper maintenance and 

operation and state that the wood must 

be properly seasoned so that the 

moisture content is not too high for 

proper operation. Some manufacturers 

include moisture meters for the 

operators. We are proposing to require 

commercial owners (direct distribution 

manufacturers and retailers) to provide 

a moisture meter with the wood heater 

at the time of sale, along with the 

owner’s manual and a copy of the 

warranty. We request specific comments 

on whether we should include more 

specific requirements on proper 

operations, such as the moisture content 

of the wood and visible emission 

limitations. 

C. How did we establish the proposed 

compliance timelines? 

The following table summarizes the 

proposed compliance timelines for the 

appliances covered by the three 

subparts. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COMPLIANCE DATES

Appliance type Compliance date 

Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/Stoves with Current 

EPA Certification Issued Prior to the Effective Date of the Final Rule.

1988 requirements remain in effect for these heaters/stoves through 

the later of the effective date of the final revised rule or expiration of 

current certification (maximum of 5 years after certification and no renewal). 

All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/Stoves (includes currently certified heaters after the certification expires).Step 1: upon the effective date of the final rule. 

Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. 

Single Burn Rate Heaters ........................................................................ Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule. 

Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. 

Hydronic Heaters ...................................................................................... Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule. 

Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. 

Forced-Air Furnaces ................................................................................. Step 1: Upon the effective date of the final rule. 

Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. 

Masonry Heaters ...................................................................................... Large manufacturers: Upon the effective date of the final rule for large 

manufacturers. 

Small manufacturers: 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. 

The proposed compliance dates are 

tied to the effective date of the final 

standards. As stated earlier, an element 

of the BSER determination includes 

reasonable lead time for R&D to develop 

and certify cleaner units. We think 

limited or no R&D is needed to comply 

with the proposed Step 1 BSER 

standards. This allows manufacturers 

approximately 1 year between the date 

of this proposal and the date of the final 

rule to meet proposed compliance 

standards and limits. This 1-year period 

is in addition to the time that 

manufacturers have had leading up to 

this proposed rule. 

We allowed small producers of 

masonry heaters that do not have a 

history of federal or extensive state 

regulation, or experience with voluntary 

partnership programs, 5 years after the 

effective date of the final rule to come 

into compliance with the same emission 

standards as larger masonry heater 

manufacturers in order to ensure a 

reasonable lead-time. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6365 

Finally, we think our proposal for a 6- 

year lead time before the Step 2 BSER 

limits (i.e., 5 years after the effective 

date of the final rule) would allow 

manufacturers a reasonable time to 

develop complying models, access the 

necessary capital to develop them, and 

complete the certification process. 

We are proposing a 6-month ‘‘sold at 

retail’’ provision for adjustable burn rate 

wood heaters, single burn rate heaters/ 

stoves, and pellet heaters/stoves that 

were manufactured prior to the effective 

date of the final rule, but not yet sold. 

This ‘‘sold at retail’’ provision is similar 

to that provided in the current subpart 

AAA, and provides a reasonable 

transition for manufacturers to recoup 

their investment in their stock on hand. 

We believe this provision would have a 

nominal impact on air quality, because 

the majority of these appliances are 

already expected to achieve the Step 1 

emission limits. For small producers of 

masonry heaters, we are proposing an 

additional 5-year lead-time. We are not 

proposing to apply these extensions to 

other sources regulated by this proposal. 

We do not believe that an additional 

‘‘sold at retail’’ provision is needed for 

outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters 

and forced-air furnaces. In the case of 

hydronic heaters, we believe that any 

delay of the compliance deadline for 

sales would also result in the sale and 

long-term use of non-complying units, 

with a potentially adverse quality 

impact. We request specific comments 

on whether there are other factors we 

should consider regarding this ‘‘sold at 

retail’’ window and what length of time 

might be considered appropriate in 

specific circumstances. 

While the original subpart AAA 

created a 1-year compliance extension 

for wood heater manufacturers 

producing less than 2,000 heaters per 

year, this proposed rule does not 

include a compliance extension 

provision for single burn rate heaters. 

The purpose of the original NSPS 

compliance date extension was to 

reduce the potential for a testing logjam 

and to provide small manufacturers 

additional time to conduct R&D, obtain 

financing, or purchase complying 

designs likely to meet the proposed 

standards. We believe that 

manufacturers and testing facilities have 

now had sufficient time and have 

gained the expertise necessary to meet 

these standards as proposed and that 

meeting the proposed compliance dates 

will impose no undue imposition on 

manufacturers or testing facilities. We 

request comment on the need for such 

a compliance extension and the number 

of models that might qualify as a small 

single burn rate heater manufacturer. 

As stated above, we are proposing a 

5-year compliance date extension for 

masonry heater manufacturers that sell 

fewer than 15 units per year. We also 

seek comments on whether we should 

have a cap on the total units sold in the 

5 years, perhaps 50 units. Most of these 

manufacturers are very small 

companies. There are only a few major 

producers. According to one 

manufacturer, the Finnish firm, 

Tulikivi, manufactures and supplies 

about one-half of the U.S. masonry 

heater units installed yearly through its 

network of installing distributors. The 

second largest producer is a Canadian 

firm, Temp-Cast, which manufactures 

and exports a large percentage of the 

remainder as internal core components 

only to U.S. dealer/installers and 

homeowners. This manufacturer states 

that the remainder of the industry is 

dozens of small producers and installers 

who produce only a few units, most of 

which are custom and individually 

designed. This manufacturer also stated 

that over 80 percent of U.S. masonry 

heater installations use manufactured 

core product installation and are not 

custom site built (brick-by-brick). 

Because of the resources required to 

develop, test, and certify masonry 

heaters (estimated by industry to be 

approximately $250,000 per model, 

although our cost analysis used a larger 

estimate), we have concluded that a 

manufacturer of a small number of 

custom site-built model(s) of masonry 

heaters would likely be unable to 

recover the total cost of R&D and 

certification testing costs in a reasonable 

timeframe. Similarly, a company that 

makes core components or sells design 

kits would be unable to recover total 

costs if only a few such components or 

kits are sold per year. We estimated that 

the annualized cost for developing, 

testing and certifying a single model is 

approximately $60,000, most of which 

is the cost of R&D. If a seller makes 

$5,000 of profit on each model sold, he 

or she would need to sell 12 units per 

year to break even. The masonry heater 

industry recognized concerns about 

these costs, and it has developed an 

alternative compliance method based on 

computer simulations. The industry 

expects that this alternative will allow 

sharing licensing of cleaner designs 

such that the initial software purchase 

would cost approximately $1,500 but 

ongoing annual licensing cost will be 

approximately $450 per manufacturer. 

We believe the 5-year compliance date 

extension discussed above for masonry 

heater manufacturers that sell fewer 

than 15 units per year will allow 

sufficient time for manufacturers to 

become comfortable with this 

alternative, and use it to demonstrate 

compliance. 

We considered proposing a 

compliance exemption for small 

manufacturers of masonry heaters 

because of the overall small size of the 

market. However, we were concerned 

that this might encourage installation of 

cheaper, low-performing models, which 

would place complying models at a 

potential disadvantage. We request 

comment on the need for either a 

compliance date extension or a 

compliance date exemption for masonry 

heaters and the length of time that we 

should allow. 

We are not proposing any extensions 

or exemptions for small manufacturers 

of adjustable burn rate wood heaters or 

pellet heaters/stoves. Adjustable burn 

rate wood heaters are already subject to 

the NSPS, and we have estimated that 

they should not face any R&D expenses 

to comply with the Step 1 standards. To 

reduce unnecessary certification costs, 

we are proposing to allow a one-time 

waiver from performance testing for the 

first certification period for any 

manufacturer that has previously 

conducted a valid certification test that 

demonstrates the wood heaters in the 

model line meet the proposed 

standards. We also believe that pellet 

heaters/stoves would not face any R&D 

costs to comply with the proposed Step 

1 standards, and we estimate that 

certification costs will only pose a 

minor impact. We request comment on 

whether there are other factors we 

should consider regarding a small 

manufacturer compliance extension for 

these appliances. 

We also are not proposing a small 

manufacturer compliance extension for 

the Step 1 standards for new residential 

hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces. 

There are currently 36 hydronic heater 

models built by 17 U.S. manufacturers 

that have already been qualified to meet 

the Phase 2 voluntary partnership 

program level of 0.32 lb/MM BTU. 

Manufacturers of hydronic heaters and 

forced-air furnaces have known for 

several years that we were drafting this 

proposal and that the states have been 

very concerned about emissions from 

the models that may not meet the 

proposed standards; and we do not want 

to perpetuate sales and use of models 

unless they demonstrate they do meet 

the standards. Once again, we request 

comment on whether there are other 

factors we should consider regarding a 

small manufacturer compliance 

extension for these appliances and what 

number of appliances sold would 

constitute a small volume manufacturer. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6366 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

As discussed above, we recognize 

there is some concern, as there was with 

the initial NSPS compliance dates, that 

testing laboratories capacity may not be 

able to meet the demand for certification 

tests in the first few years. However, we 

believe that the steps we have already 

proposed, the availability of additional 

ISO-accredited labs, the advance notice 

that industry has had concerning the 

NSPS prior to this proposal, and the 

time between this proposal and the 

proposed compliance date of the final 

rule, should ensure that adequate 

compliance certification resources are 

available. The logjam provisions of the 

current 1988 NSPS were never invoked, 

and we do not think they are needed at 

this time. However, we are taking 

comment on this issue. We also request 

comment on whether these compliance 

timelines strike the right balance 

between avoiding undue economic 

burdens and the need to get better 

performing models on the market as 

soon as possible to reduce emissions, 

and whether other compliance dates 

would be appropriate. 

D. How are we proposing to streamline 

the requirements for certification, 

quality assurance and laboratory 

accreditation? 

As part of the NSPS review process, 

several stakeholders stated the need to 

improve the current certification and 

quality assurance requirements. For 

example, some pellet heaters/stove 

manufacturers said one reason they 

avoid certifying their heaters/stoves is 

because they are concerned that the 

current process is a barrier to rapid 

product development and making 

changes to respond to market demand. 

Many manufacturers were also 

concerned that, as the scope of the 

NSPS program expands to include 

multiple appliance types, the 

certification program would act as a 

logjam. Some states are concerned, 

however, that moving away from the 

EPA certification might result in less 

effective oversight. At the EPA, we are 

also looking for ways to use our 

enforcement resources more effectively. 

We believe that the proposed changes, 

described in section III.A regarding a 

third-party certification program by an 

ISO-accredited certifying body and 

testing at ISO-accredited labs, will 

facilitate the development of improved 

designs by providing a faster approval 

process and reducing redundancies in 

quality assurance for emissions testing 

and safety testing, and will improve 

enforcement by providing for more 

frequent on-site inspections of 

manufacturing facilities and 

laboratories. For example, safety 

certification audits take place quarterly 

and include the random inspection of 

manufactured units for compliance with 

design and safety factors. The 

experience of the voluntary partnership 

programs’ ISO process has shown that 

the third-party approach can work. 

We also reviewed the list of design 

changes (the ‘‘k’’ list; See 40 CFR, 

subpart AAA, § 60.633(k)) that would 

result in a need to recertify a model line 

when certain tolerances are exceeded. 

We reviewed this list based on the 

experience we have to date on the types 

of changes that are significant and 

knowledge about current manufacturing 

processes that help prevent these 

changes from occurring. The resulting 

list focuses on the following key 

tolerances: 

• Firebox dimensions 

• Air introduction systems 

• Dimensions and locations of the 

baffle, catalyst, refractory/insulation, 

flue gas exit, and the outer shielding 

and covering 

• Dimensions and fit of the gaskets for 

the door and catalyst bypass 

• Fuel feed system 

• Forced air combustion system 

We believe these changes will focus 

resources on the significant changes that 

could affect emissions performance of 

the model in question. We ask for 

specific comments on this list and the 

level of appropriate tolerances. 

We propose to revise the requirement 

for manufacturers to conduct quality 

assurance emission tests once a 

specified number of units are sold. 

Instead, we propose to replace this 

numerical trigger with a requirement to 

retest when manufacturer-specific 

quality assurance criteria (e.g., multiple 

errors in safety tests) are exceeded. We 

believe that development of a 

manufacturer-specific quality assurance 

plan with specific criteria and approval 

by an ISO-accredited certifying body (or 

EPA-approved equivalent) and required 

follow-up by that certifying body is a 

more direct measure of possible 

performance issues, but we request 

comment on the exact event(s) that 

should be used as the trigger(s) to retest 

and whether the triggering event(s) 

should vary by appliance type. 

We are proposing to retain final EPA 

approval of the certification, and we 

also propose to require the manufacturer 

to submit with the application for 

certification a statement signed by a 

responsible official that the 

manufacturer has complied with all 

requirements of the subpart and that the 

manufacturer understands that he or she 

remains responsible for compliance 

regardless of noncompliance by the 

certifying body. We believe this 

combination of requirements would 

provide meaningful EPA oversight, 

assign clear lines of responsibility, and 

free up resources to do more on-site 

inspections and other quality assurance 

activities, such as addressing issues of 

counterfeit certificates or absence of 

certificates. 

The current random compliance audit 

testing of the certification testing 

program is considered underused by 

many. The EPA recognized this and has 

recently initiated such testing. 

A key element of the current 1988 

NSPS laboratory audit program is the 

‘‘round robin’’ test program. In this 

program, the EPA purchases a wood 

heater and sends it to each of the 

accredited laboratories to conduct 

emissions tests (two runs at each burn 

rate for a total of eight runs). The EPA 

then compares the results to determine 

inter-laboratory performance. The EPA 

recognizes that we have not given this 

program as much attention as was 

envisioned in 1988. Thus, we propose to 

strengthen this program by specifying 

that every laboratory conducting 

certification tests under the NSPS must 

participate in the round robin tests 

every other year. If a lab’s results are not 

within ±10 percent of the value at which 

the heater was certified, then the lab 

must conduct another 8 runs. Also, we 

will remind the manufacturers that, as 

always, the EPA may potentially use 

this information to help determine the 

need for manufacturer audits and 

potential enforcement actions. We think 

that these requirements and reminders, 

combined with the proposed changes in 

test methods (described in greater detail 

in the test methods discussion in this 

preamble) and implementation of the 

ISO process will help improve interlaboratory repeatability and 

reproducibility. 

E. What changes and additions to the 

allowed test methods are we proposing? 

As described earlier in this preamble, 

we are proposing changes to the test 

methods required by subpart AAA. We 

are also proposing test methods for the 

new subparts QQQQ and RRRR (as 

described earlier). In addition, we are 

proposing new requirements for testing 

and ultimately certifying using cord 

wood, which is what the consumer 

burns. All affected devices required to 

be tested using Method 28 or Method 28 

WHH would now be required to 

conduct such tests using crib wood and 

cord wood. Under Proposed Step 1, 

manufacturers would have the option of 

selecting which of these test results to 

use to show compliance with the 

emissions standards. In other words, we 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6367 

are proposing to require manufacturers 

to conduct two separate tests, one with 

crib wood and one with cord wood. We 

are also proposing that manufacturers be 

required to report the results of both 

tests to the EPA, but manufacturers can 

choose to certify with either crib or cord 

wood under Proposed Step 1. Under 

Proposed Step 2, manufacturers would 

be required to show compliance testing 

with cord wood. 

We are also proposing to revise the 

test methods to require the addition of 

1-hour filters for each test run to gather 

data regarding startup and anticipated 

peaks. Further, we are proposing new 

compliance requirements for Step 2 

with emissions limits at the lowest burn 

rate (Category 1) and the maximum burn 

rate (Category 4), not a weighted average 

of the four burn rates, as in the current 

1988 NSPS. 

Based on the extensive consensus 

development process, history of the 

subpart AAA NSPS and hydronic heater 

voluntary partnership program emission 

test experience, and review of similar 

international standards, we believe the 

proposed methods reflect state-of-the-art 

test methods. However, we request 

specific comment on test method related 

issues and any data supporting such 

issues or concerns. 

F. What other changes and additions to 

the administrative requirements are we 

proposing? 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Relief, we reviewed the 

entire current subpart AAA to identify 

information that is no longer relevant or 

useful and removed associated reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. For 

example, because of the changes in the 

audit procedures, we do not believe it 

is necessary for manufacturers to keep 

records of the number of affected 

appliances that are sold each year, by 

certified model lines, for purposes of 

these subparts. 

The prohibitions section in each of 

the proposed subparts (§ § 60.538, 

60.5480, 60.5492) is based substantially 

on the current prohibitions section in 

subpart AAA. Similarly, the delegation 

section in each proposed subpart 

(§ § 60.539a, 60.5482, 60.5494) is based 

primarily on the current delegation 

section in subpart AAA. In general, we 

believe these delegations have worked 

well and are still appropriate with some 

clarifications and additions. The intent 

of the prohibitions section is to clarify 

the responsibility of owners and 

operators and manufacturers to comply 

with the proposed subparts. Key 

provisions for owners and operators 

emphasize that appliances must be 

operated in accordance with the owner’s 

manual and the appliances must not be 

altered in any way to circumvent the 

design and operation of a certified 

appliance. Key provisions for 

manufacturers emphasize the 

importance of complying with the label 

requirements and the need to maintain 

current certification for all heaters that 

are offered for sale. The intent of the 

delegation section is to clarify the 

regulatory provisions for which the EPA 

has retained sole enforcement authority 

(definitions, compliance and 

certification, test methods and 

procedures, laboratory accreditation, 

reporting and recordkeeping, revocation 

of certification, and hearings and 

appeals procedures). However, we have 

proposed to include the ability to 

delegate provisions to state, local or 

tribal agencies where local enforcement 

is essential, such as enforcement of 

permanent labels and owner’s manual 

content, and presentation of false or 

misleading information. Note that when 

the EPA ‘‘delegates’’ enforcement 

authority, we retain our authority to 

enforce while allowing the delegatees 

also to be able to enforce the delegated 

provisions. Also note that the 

delegations are upon request, not a 

requirement by the EPA. 

We are proposing to replace the 

current subpart AAA hearing and 

appeal procedures with a streamlined 

Petition for Review process and also use 

this process in subparts QQQQ and 

RRRR. This process would allow 

accredited laboratories and 

manufacturers to contest audit test 

findings, laboratory accreditations, 

certification denials, and certification 

revocations by submitting a written 

request and supporting documentation 

to the EPA. This process would allow 

for expedited review and resolution. We 

request specific comments on this 

proposed process and other ways to 

improve or streamline procedures while 

preserving the integrity of the program. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

state, local, or tribal governments or 

communities. The $100 million 

threshold can be triggered by either 

costs or benefits, or a combination of 

them. Accordingly, the EPA submitted 

this action to OMB for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

In addition, the EPA prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. 

This analysis is contained in the RIA for 

this proposed rule. A copy of the 

analysis is available in the docket for 

this action. 

A summary of the monetized benefits 

and net benefits for the proposed rule at 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent is in Table 8 of this preamble, 

and a more detailed discussion of the 

benefits is found in section IV.B of this 

preamble. For more information on the 

benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA 

for this rulemaking, which is available 

in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Information 

Collection Request (ICR) documents 

have been prepared for each proposed 

subpart. The subpart AAA ICR has been 

assigned the EPA ICR number 1176.10, 

which is a revision of the currently 

approved ICR number 1176.09. The 

subpart QQQQ ICR is a new collection, 

which has been assigned the EPA ICR 

number 2442.01. The subpart RRRR ICR 

also is a new collection, which has been 

assigned the EPA ICR number 2443.01. 

The new information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

The proposed rules would require 

manufacturers of new residential wood 

heating devices to submit applications 

for certification of model lines, to 

submit results of emissions tests 

conducted to demonstrate that the 

model lines would comply with the 

standards and produce certified units 

according to a quality control plan 

approved by an independent certifying 

body. Manufacturers must submit a 

notification of the initial test and 

biennial reports that each certified 

model line remains unchanged. They 

must also maintain records of all 

certification data, maintain results of 

quality assurance program inspections 

and emissions test data, and seal and 

store the tested appliance. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6368 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Consistent with the current ICR for 

subpart AAA, we have included costs to 

manufacture and apply permanent 

labels (for all models) on each 

applicable unit prior to sale. These 

labels provide important compliance 

information to enforcement officials. 

Test laboratories that want to conduct 

NSPS certification testing would need to 

apply for accreditation, conduct initial 

and biennial proficiency testing and 

report the results of all such testing. 

Accredited test laboratories would also 

be required to participate in an audit 

compliance program. Finally, the 

accredited laboratories must maintain 

records of all certification tests, 

proficiency tests and compliance audit 

test data. 

The required notifications are used to 

inform the agency when a new model 

line is expected to be tested. The EPA 

may then observe the testing operation, 

if desired. Emissions test reports are 

needed as these are the agency’s record 

of a model line’s initial capability to 

comply with the emission standard, and 

serve as a record of the operating 

conditions under which compliance 

was achieved. 

Adequate recordkeeping and 

reporting are necessary to ensure 

compliance with these standards as 

required by the CAA. The information 

collected from recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements is also used for 

targeting inspections and is of sufficient 

quality to be used as evidence in court. 

As discussed earlier, we have reviewed 

all the current requirements and are 

proposing to remove the portions of the 

recordkeeping that are not necessary. 

The estimated burden for proposed 

subpart AAA is based on an estimated 

72 respondents (66 manufacturers and 6 

testing laboratories) that would be 

subject to the rule. The number of total 

annual responses for subpart AAA is 

estimated at 265. The annual burden for 

this information collection averaged 

over the first 3 years of this ICR is 

estimated to be a total of 6,489 labor 

hours per year at a total labor cost of 

$516,188 per year. The ICR estimates 

that capital and the associated operation 

and maintenance (O&M) costs for these 

systems would be $1,452,177 per year. 

The average annual labor burden per 

response is 24 hours. 

The estimated burden for proposed 

subpart QQQQ is based on an estimated 

41 respondents (37 manufacturers and 4 

testing laboratories) that would be 

subject to the rule. The number of total 

annual responses for subpart QQQQ is 

estimated at 67. The annual burden for 

this information collection averaged 

over the first 3 years of this ICR is 

estimated to be a total of 2,134 labor 

hours per year at a total labor cost of 

$169,745 per year. The ICR estimates 

that capital and operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs would be 

$715,796 per year. The average annual 

labor burden per response is 32 hours. 

The estimated burden for proposed 

subpart RRRR is based on an estimated 

48 respondents (45 manufacturers and 3 

testing laboratories) that would be 

subject to the rule. The number of total 

annual responses for subpart RRRR is 

estimated at 108. The annual burden for 

this information collection averaged 

over the first 3 years of this ICR is 

estimated to be a total of 2,044 labor 

hours per year at a total labor cost of 

$162,589 per year. The ICR estimates 

that capital and operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs would be 

$89,037 per year. The average annual 

labor burden per response is 19 hours. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0734. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to the 

EPA. Send ICR-related comments to 

OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after February 3, 2014, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by March 5, 

2014. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that is primarily engaged in 

manufacturing heating equipment 

(except electric and warm air furnaces), 

such as heating boilers (heaters), heating 

stoves, floor and wall furnaces, and wall 

and baseboard heating units, as defined 

by NAICS code 333414 with fewer than 

500 employees, or is primarily engaged 

in manufacturing air-conditioning and 

warm air heating equipment as defined 

by NAICS code 333415 with fewer than 

750 employees, or is primarily engaged 

in masonry contracting, as defined by 

NAICS code 238140 with annual 

receipts less than 14 million dollars 

(based on Small Business 

Administration size standards); (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, 

the EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines 

the impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities along with regulatory 

alternatives that could reduce that 

impact. The IRFA contained within the 

RIA for this proposed rule is available 

for review in the docket and is 

summarized below: 

• Reason Why Action Is Being 

Considered. As discussed earlier in this 

preamble, this proposal was developed 

following CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) 

review of the existing residential wood 

heater NSPS. 

• Statement of Objectives and Legal 

Basis of Proposed Rule. As discussed 

earlier in this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing to amend 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 would 

achieve several objectives, including 

applying updated emission limits that 

reflect BSER; improving coverage of the 

broad suite of residential wood heaters; 

improving the test methods; and 

streamlining the certification process. 

This proposal does not include any 

requirements on heaters that are solely 

fired by gas or oil. This proposal does 

not affect existing heaters. This proposal 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6369 

67Also, as noted in this preamble in the 

discussion of development of the hydronic heater 

emission limits, the EPA worked with the hydronic 

heater industry in 2006 to develop a voluntary 

partnership program to encourage manufacture of 

cleaner models, www.epa.gov/burnwise/

participation. 

was developed under the authority of 

CAA section 111. 

• Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities. As discussed 

earlier in this preamble, small entities 

that the EPA anticipates being affected 

by this proposal would include almost 

all manufacturers of residential wood 

heaters. We estimate that roughly 250– 

300 U.S. companies manufacture 

residential wood heaters. We believe 

that approximately 90 percent of these 

manufacturers meet the SBA smallentity definition of having fewer than 

500 employees. 

• Description of reporting, 

recordkeeping and other compliance 

requirements. The reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements are 

described in the section immediately 

above (B. Paperwork Reduction Act). As 

discussed there, the information 

collection requirements (ICR), including 

reporting and recordkeeping, in this 

proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

For subpart AAA, we estimated the 

potential annual burden averaged over 

the first 3 years of the ICR to be a total 

of 6,489 labor hours per year at a total 

labor cost of $516,188 per year and an 

average annual labor burden per 

response of 24 hours. For subpart 

QQQQ, we estimated 2,134 labor hours 

per year at a total labor cost of $169,745 

per year and an average annual labor 

burden per response of 32 hours. For 

subpart RRRR, we estimated 2,044 labor 

hours per year at a total labor cost of 

$162,589 per year and an average 

annual labor burden per response of 19 

hours. 

• Description of other compliance 

requirements. As described earlier in 

this preamble, this proposal would 

apply updated emission limits that 

reflect the current best systems of 

emission reduction and improve the 

coverage of the expanded variety of 

types of residential wood heaters. We 

estimate 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 passthrough. We estimate that small entities 

will have annualized costs of greater 

than 1 percent of their sales in all 

industries except NAICS 332510, 

333414 and 423720 with fewer than 20 

employees, and NAICS 236115, 238140 

and 442299 with receipts less than $10 

million. Those establishments in NAICS 

332510, 333414 and 423720 with costto-receipt ratios higher than 1 percent 

account for 80 percent of small entities 

affected in these industries. 

Establishments in NAICS 236115, 

238140 and 442299 with cost-to-receipt 

ratios higher than 1 percent account for 

99 percent of small entities affected in 

these industries. 

• Relevant federal rules that may 

overlap or conflict with this proposal. 

There are no other relevant federal 

rules. 

• Significant alternatives. The 

significant alternatives to this proposal, 

especially those that might minimize 

potential impacts on small entities, are 

presented in the remainder of this 

section. 

As required by section 609(b) of the 

RFA, as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA), the EPA also convened a 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

(Panel) to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of 

the small entities that potentially would 

be subject to the rule’s requirements. 

The following paragraphs describe the 

process, the type of small entity 

representatives, the outreach efforts and 

the Panel members. 

Well before beginning the formal 

SBREFA process, the EPA actively 

engaged in outreach with HPBA, the 

Masonry Heater Association (MHA) and 

PFI and many of their member 

companies to discuss the rule under 

development and to provide these 

contacts with an early opportunity to 

ask questions and discuss their 

concerns.67 The EPA provided each 

small business with general information 

on the SBREFA process and background 

information on the NSPS rulemaking 

process and current schedule. 

Based on consultations with the Small 

Business Administration, and resulting 

from solicited self-nominations, we 

prepared a list of 30 potential Small 

Entity Representatives (SERs), from 

residential wood heating appliance 

manufacturers (wood heaters, pellet 

heaters/stoves, hydronic heaters, forcedair furnaces and masonry heaters), other 

wood-burning appliance manufacturers 

(fireplaces, cook stoves), equipment 

suppliers, chimney sweeps, test 

laboratories, masons and trade 

associations. Once the official pre-Panel 

process began and potential SERs were 

identified, the EPA held an outreach 

meeting with the potential SERs and 

invited representatives from the Office 

of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (OA/SBA) and the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs within the Office of Management 

and Budget (OIRA/OMB) on June 29, 

2010, to solicit their feedback on the 

upcoming proposed rulemaking. 

Representatives from 26 of the 30 

companies and organizations that we 

selected as potential SERs for this 

SBREFA process participated in the 

meeting (in person and by phone). At 

that meeting, the EPA solicited written 

comments from the potential SERs, 

which were later summarized and 

shared with the Panel as part of the 

convening document. 

The SBAR Panel convened on August 

4, 2010. The Panel consisted of 

representatives of the EPA, OA/SBA and 

OIRA/OMB. The Panel held a formal 

outreach meeting/teleconference with 

the SERs on August 25, 2010. To help 

the SERs prepare for this meeting, on 

August 11, 2010, the Panel sent a list of 

questions, preliminary cost information 

and other materials to each of the SERs 

via email. Additional materials were 

emailed to the SERs on August 19, 2010. 

The Panel provided the opportunity for 

questions and comment during the 

meeting on various aspects of the 

proposal being developed, including the 

expanded scope of the rule, changes to 

the current requirements under 

consideration, preliminary cost 

information and follow up from the June 

29, 2010, meeting on the SERs’ ideas for 

regulatory flexibility. During the August 

25 meeting, SERs voiced general 

support for the planned proposed rule 

and shared specific concerns with the 

Panel members. As a result of this 

meeting, the EPA received many useful 

verbal comments, and the EPA received 

many helpful written comments by 

September 10, 2010. 

Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA 

requirements, the Panel evaluated the 

assembled materials and small-entity 

comments on issues related to elements 

of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel final 

full report is included in the docket for 

this proposed rule. We invite comments 

on the report. A summary of the Panel 

recommendations is presented below. 

We have attempted to follow the Panel’s 

recommendations to the degree we can 

while also ensuring that the options are 

practicable, enforceable, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6370 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

environmentally sound and consistent 

with the CAA. For those 

recommendations not adopted by the 

EPA, we have included an explanation 

for why we rejected them. 

Many of the SERs and the Panel had 

concerns about the breadth of this 

rulemaking and the challenges the EPA 

faces in conducting rulemaking for all of 

these source categories at one time and 

the challenges that the small businesses 

will face in having to comply with 

standards for all of these source 

categories at one time. The Panel 

recommended that the EPA should 

consider focusing efforts first on 

emissions sources that have the greatest 

potential to impact public health 

through the magnitude of emissions and 

population exposure. We have focused 

our efforts. The Panel noted the adverse 

effects of the 1988 NSPS on numerous 

wood heater/stove manufacturers, and 

the need to carefully develop a rule that 

will minimize business closures, while 

still achieving significant emission 

reductions. All Panel members believed 

that the EPA had adequate information 

to move forward with developing 

revisions that apply to the residential 

wood heater categories that are already 

regulated by the 1988 NSPS. However, 

two Panel members recommended that 

the EPA Administrator consider taking 

more time to collect additional 

information to better determine BSER 

for the certified wood heater category. 

They concluded that the EPA did 

present to the Panel enough information 

to justify regulation of this subcategory, 

but the EPA did not adequately inform 

the SERs about the other categories. 

These two Panel members believed it 

was unclear whether adoption of a more 

stringent standard for new sources 

would slow the adoption of new, 

cleaner burning heaters, potentially 

delaying improvements in air quality. 

The two Panel members further 

believed, based on the information 

available from the EPA and the SERs at 

that time, that they could not conclude 

that a nationwide NSPS limit on the 

other categories would be the preferred 

approach for reducing wood heater 

emissions. 

Following the Panel’s convening on 

August 4, 2010, the EPA collected 

additional information, and we refined 

the economic and technical analyses 

based, in part, on input from the SERs 

as the basis for this proposal. The Panel 

recommended that the EPA 

Administrator consider assessing the 

availability of data to better characterize 

each source category prior to 

considering proposal of standards. In 

particular, the Panel recommended that 

the EPA consider characterizing the 

emissions per unit, operating hours per 

year, and the distribution of emissions 

across the unit types within each 

category under discussion at that time to 

better understand the magnitude of 

emissions reductions that may or may 

not be reduced through alternative 

regulatory and non-regulatory 

mechanisms. As discussed earlier, the 

EPA has considered such 

characterizations and alternatives. 

The following is a list of Panel 

recommendations and how we 

incorporated them into this proposal: 

• The Panel recommended that the 

EPA should consider focusing efforts 

first on emissions sources that have the 

greatest potential to impact public 

health through the magnitude of 

emissions and population exposure. 

This proposal focuses on those sources. 

• The Panel encouraged the EPA to 

consider flexibilities that will most 

directly minimize the small business 

burdens, for example delayed 

compliance dates for low volume 

production. The delayed compliance 

approach was predicated on the concept 

that it will take a number of years for 

manufacturers to recover the costs of the 

R&D investment in order to achieve 

compliance. This proposal has 

incorporated a stepped approach for 

emission limits and asks for comments 

on other alternative approaches. 

• The Panel recommended that the 

EPA consider the availability and 

feasibility of certification, testing labs, 

testing standards and other 

requirements. In particular, the Panel 

recommended that the EPA consider 

ways to streamline compliance 

certification, identifying flexible 

approaches and procedures that will 

reduce the burden and time for 

manufacturers to complete the 

application, testing and approval 

process for new model lines. For 

example, the Panel recommended that 

the EPA consider allowing the use of 

International Standards Organization 

(ISO)-accredited laboratories and 

certifying bodies to expand the number 

of facilities that would be required for 

testing and certification of the new 

residential solid biomass combustion 

appliances. Additionally, the Panel 

recommended that the EPA consider 

different compliance time frames for 

different product categories to reduce 

the potential for logjams at test labs and 

the overall impact on companies that 

manufacture multiple categories. This 

proposal includes stepped emission 

limits for different categories and adds 

ISO-accredited laboratories and ISOaccredited certifying bodies to increase 

the availability of laboratories and 

certifiers. Further, this proposal asks for 

specific comments on the schedules. 

• The Panel recommended that the 

EPA continue to allow manufacturers to 

test a representative unit for a model 

line rather than testing and reporting 

results for each individual unit. This 

proposal continues to allow that. 

• The Panel recommended that the 

EPA consider emphasizing that the 

NSPS will address only new units. This 

proposal emphasizes that it does not 

affect existing units. 

• In the Panel Report, SBA and OMB 

recommended that the EPA not move 

forward with proposed emission limits 

for pellet stoves, indoor hydronic 

heaters, biomass pellet stoves, masonry 

heaters, masonry fireplace kits, site-built 

masonry fireplaces, coal stoves, cook 

stoves, bake ovens (including Native 

American Traditional Bake Ovens), 

camp stoves, outdoor fireplaces and 

chimineas. This proposal establishes 

emission limits for pellet stoves/heaters, 

which compete with adjustable burn 

rate wood stoves/heaters in the ‘‘room 

heaters’’ consumer marketplace. There 

is confusion in the marketplace as to 

why some pellet stoves are regulated 

and why some are not. As discussed 

earlier in this preamble, the potential 

exclusion of pellet stoves with greater 

than 35-to-1 air-to-fuel ratio is an 

unintended consequence of the 1988 

actual intention of not setting emission 

limits for open fireplaces with high 

excess combustion air that do not 

operate as effective heaters. We believe 

that not moving forward on pellet stoves 

now would contribute to further 

confusion and an uneven playing field 

in the marketplace. Further, the 

emission levels we are proposing for 

pellet stoves/heaters are at the same 

level as the proposed wood stove/heater 

standards and are already achieved by 

most pellet stove/heater models and 

thus do not impose substantial 

compliance costs. Similarly, masonry 

heaters compete in the residential wood 

heaters consumer marketplace and 

there is confusion as to why they are 

regulated by some states, but not the 

EPA, and are even banned by some air 

districts because masonry heaters are 

not EPA-certified. Most masonry heaters 

are effective heaters and relatively clean 

and efficient, especially compared to 

pre-NSPS wood stoves. Requiring valid 

certification testing and reporting and 

providing that information to regulators 

and consumers and the public will help 

inform all as they strive to make 

appropriate choices on wood heating 

and air quality. That is, the masonry 

heaters can be an excellent emission 

reduction choice for replacing higher 

emission pre-NSPS wood stoves and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6371 

should be encouraged over old wood 

stoves in most air sheds. Further, the 

emission levels we are proposing are 

already achieved by most masonry 

heater designs and we allow extra time 

for small manufacturers. This proposal 

addresses indoor hydronic heaters 

because they compete with outdoor 

hydronic heaters and forced-air 

furnaces in the ‘‘central heaters’’ 

consumer marketplace and there 

already is confusion as to why some are 

regulated by some states and some are 

not. Further, the magnitude of their 

emissions is of great concern and BSER 

controls are highly justified on costbenefit grounds. The remainder of the 

appliances listed above are not included 

in this proposal. 

• In the Panel report, SBA and OMB 

recommended that ‘‘where EPA 

estimates that the nationwide emissions 

are less than 300 tons per year (or some 

other value) . . . the EPA Administrator 

should consider options of not issuing 

an NSPS but rather consider allowing 

Regions and States to control such 

sources and consider other efforts, 

including voluntary standards to lower 

emissions.’’ We considered this 

recommendation but we could not find 

a legal or policy justification for an 

arbitrary cutoff and it is not included in 

this proposal. Also, we note that many 

states are prohibited from setting 

control requirements more stringent 

than the EPA requirements and all 

states have concerns about the lack of 

resources necessary to develop and 

adopt and implement state standards or 

voluntary programs, especially when 

most believe it is the EPA’s 

responsibility, and some have sued the 

EPA for failure to review and 

promulgate national standards on time 

as statutorily required. Further, the EPA 

does not agree with this 

recommendation, especially considering 

the strong recommendations by many 

states that the EPA regulate all 

residential wood heaters as soon as 

possible to provide another tool to help 

them with their efforts to reduce wood 

smoke emissions. As stated elsewhere in 

this proposal, the EPA is not proposing 

standards at this time for biomass pellet 

heater/stoves that are designed to only 

combust biomass other than wood, bake 

ovens, fireplaces, coal-only stoves, 

chimineas, ceremonial fires and 

commercial pizza ovens. 

• Two Panel members recommended 

that if the EPA decides to later pursue 

regulation of categories other than 

certified wood heaters, the EPA should 

convene another Panel to address those 

subcategories at the appropriate time. 

The EPA does not agree with this 

recommendation for residential wood 

heaters because the EPA believes that 

the SERs already have had multiple 

opportunities to address those 

subcategories. Furthermore, the EPA has 

conducted numerous meetings after the 

Panel process was completed to provide 

much additional information (e.g., 

technical discussions of refined 

alternatives) and updates to 

stakeholders including the SERs and 

other small businesses and other 

interested parties. We emphasize that 

this proposal is not a final rule but 

rather it is a proposal for public review 

and comment. We welcome comments 

and data on all aspects of this proposal 

that will help us prepare the final 

rulemaking. 

As noted earlier, a copy of the Panel 

final full report is included in the 

docket for this proposed rule. We invite 

comments on the report and on all 

aspects of the proposal and its impacts 

on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local or tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or to the private sector in 

any 1 year. This proposed action 

imposes no enforceable duty on any 

state, local or tribal governments. The 

nationwide annualized average 

compliance cost of this proposed rule 

for directly affected appliances is $15.7 

million/yr in the 2014–2022 timeframe 

(2010$). Therefore, this proposed rule 

would not be subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the UMRA. 

This proposed rule would also not be 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The proposed rule would 

not apply to such governments and 

would impose no obligations upon 

them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires the EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

state and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ are 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It would not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The proposed 

rule would not impose any 

requirements on state and local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. Although section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

proposed action, the EPA did consult 

with representatives of state and local 

governments in developing this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed rule from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). This proposed rule 

would not impose any requirements on 

tribal governments; thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. Although Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action, we 

recognize that the air quality and public 

health benefits to be achieved by this 

rule would benefit tribes, and we 

conducted outreach to tribal 

environmental staff and consulted with 

representatives of tribal officials in 

developing this action. 

During the development of this 

proposed rulemaking, the EPA 

conducted outreach with numerous 

tribal representatives to provide 

opportunities for input prior to 

development of the proposed rule. We 

provided information at the July 2010, 

National Tribal Forum/National Tribal 

Air Association (NTAA) meeting in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the 

November 2010, EPA Region 10 Tribal 

Leaders Summit in Juneau, Alaska. We 

also presented information on this 

proposed rulemaking in the April 2010, 

issue of Tribal Air News and during the 

EPA/NTAA tribal workgroup conference 

calls (April 2010, July 2010, August 

2010, and May 2013). Specifically, we 

received input from the EPA/NTAA 

tribal workgroup members on culturally 

relevant exclusions from the proposed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6372 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

68 ‘‘Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood 

Combustion Emissions for Different SocioEconomic Groups, Revised Draft Report.’’ Prepared 

for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

NC. Prepared by EC/R Inc., EPA Contract No. EP– 

D–05–085, Work Assignment No. 4–3. April 22, 

2010. 

standards. We agreed with their input, 

clarified that we do not intend to 

regulate ceremonial fires, and added a 

definition to the rule to exclude 

traditional Native American bake ovens. 

On February 18, 2011, the EPA mailed 

letters to about 600 elected tribal leaders 

in the U.S. offering an opportunity for 

consultation on this proposal. We 

received requests from six tribes. These 

tribes agreed to discuss this proposal 

with us in a conference call held on 

March 22, 2011. The tribes were very 

supportive of this proposal and 

provided some helpful clarifications of 

definitions (e.g., Native American bake 

ovens) that we have incorporated in this 

proposal. 

We plan to continue to provide 

updates on the rule on the EPA/NTAA 

conference calls and to offer 

opportunities to tribal leaders for 

consultation. The EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant,’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

the EPA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the EPA must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because the agency does 

not believe the environmental health 

risks or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. The report, ‘‘Analysis of 

Exposure to Residential Wood 

Combustion Emissions for Different 

Socio-Economic Groups,’’ 68 shows that 

on a nationwide basis, cancer risks due 

to residential wood smoke emissions 

among disadvantaged population groups 

generally are lower than the risks for the 

general population due to residential 

wood smoke emissions. One of the 

demographic variables examined for 

this report was that of children 18 years 

and younger. 

This proposed rule is expected to 

reduce environmental impacts for 

everyone, including children. This 

action proposes emissions limits at the 

levels based on BSER, as required by the 

CAA. Based on our analysis, we believe 

this rule would not have a 

disproportionate impact on children, 

and, in fact, will result in improvements 

to children’s health. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to smoke from 

residential wood heaters. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Further, we have concluded that 

this rule is not likely to have any 

significant adverse energy effects. In 

general, we expect the NSPS to improve 

technology, including energy efficiency. 

Reducing emissions and increasing 

efficiency might increase the use of 

wood fuel, which would relieve 

pressure on traditional coal or 

petroleum based energy sources. 

However, as described in section IV.E, 

it is difficult to determine the precise 

energy impacts that might result from 

this rule. This is because wood-fueled 

appliances compete with other biomass 

forms as well as more traditional oil, 

electricity and natural gas. We have not 

determined the potential conversion to 

other types of fuels and their associated 

appliances if the consumer costs of 

wood-fueled appliances increase and at 

what level that increase would drive 

consumer choice. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to use several VCS test methods, in full 

or in part, including the following 

methods available for review at the 

ASTM Web site www.astm.org/EPAreview: E2515–10 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Particulate 

Matter Emissions Collected by a 

Dilution Tunnel’’ (See also ASTM 

WK20442 proposed revision and ASTM 

WK31433 proposed revision); E2779–10 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Determining 

Particulate Matter Emissions from Pellet 

Heaters;’’ E2780–10 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determining Particulate 

Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters;’’ 

E2618–13 ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Measurement of Particulate Matter 

Emissions and Heating Efficiency of 

Outdoor Solid Fuel-Fired Hydronic 

Heating Appliances;’’ ASTM E2817–11 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Test Fueling 

Masonry Heaters;’’ ASTM WK26558 

‘‘Specification for Calculation Method 

for Custom Designed, Site Built 

Masonry Heaters.’’ Also, we propose to 

use, in part, the following test method 

available for review at the CSA Web site 

http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/fuelburning-equipment/b4151-10/invt/

27013322010/: CSA B415.1–10 

‘‘Performance Testing of Solid-fuelburning Heating Appliances.’’ Finally, 

we propose to use, in part, the following 

test method prepared by the European 

Union: EN 303–5 ‘‘Heating boilers for 

solid fuels, hand and automatically 

stoked nominal heat output of up to 

1025 MBtu—Terminology, 

requirements, testing, and marketing.’’ 

We believe that all the methods listed 

above have some positive aspects that 

can help stakeholders determine 

emissions under various operation 

conditions. For more details on each 

method, please refer to the discussions 

in Section III of this preamble. 

In addition, we determined that the 

VCS ASTM E871–82 (2006), ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Moisture Analysis of 

Particulate Wood Fuels’’ is acceptable as 

an alternative to Methods 5H and 28. 

The search identified five other VCS 

that were potentially applicable for this 

rule in lieu of the EPA reference 

methods. However, the EPA determined 

that the five candidate VCS would not 

be practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and 

other important technical and policy 

considerations. The five VCS and other 

information and conclusion, including 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6373 

69 ‘‘Analysis of Exposure to Residential Wood 

Combustion Emissions for Different SocioEconomic Groups, Revised Draft Report.’’ Prepared 

for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

NC. Prepared by EC/R Inc., EPA Contract No. EP– 

D–05–085, Work Assignment No. 4–3. April 22, 

2010. 

the search and review results, are in the 

docket for this proposed rule. The EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

the proposed rulemaking. Specifically, 

we invite the public to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards, in whole or in part, 

should or should not be used in this 

regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the U.S. The EPA defines 

‘‘Environmental Justice’’ to include 

meaning involvement of all people 

regardless of race, color, national origin 

or income with respect to the 

development, implementation and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations and policies. 

As discussed earlier, the report, 

‘‘Analysis of Exposure to Residential 

Wood Combustion Emissions for 

Different Socio-Economic Groups,’’ 

shows that on a nationwide basis, 

cancer risks due to residential wood 

smoke emissions among disadvantaged 

population groups generally are lower 

than the risks for the general population 

due to residential wood smoke 

emissions. Thus, we have determined 

that this proposed rule would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority low-income or indigenous 

population.69 This proposed rule 

establishes national standards that 

would reduce primarily PM emissions 

from new residential wood heaters and, 

thus, would decrease the amount of 

these emissions to which all affected 

populations are exposed. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 3, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 2. Section 60.17 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding paragraphs (a)(109) through 

(a)(115); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (p) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(109) ASTM E871–82 (2006), 

Standard Test Methods for Moisture 

Analysis of Particulate Wood Fuels, IBR 

approved for appendix A: Method 5H 

and Method 28. 

(110) ASTM E2515–10, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Particulate 

Matter Emissions Collected by a 

Dilution Tunnel, IBR approved for 

§ 60.534(c), § 60.5476(b) and 

§ 60.5488(b). 

(111) ASTM E2779–10, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Particulate 

Matter Emissions from Pellet Heaters, 

IBR approved for § 60.534(a)(2). 

(112) ASTM E2618–13 Standard Test 

Method for Measurement of Particulate 

Matter Emissions and Heating Efficiency 

of Outdoor Solid Fuel-Fired Hydronic 

Heating Appliances, IBR approved for 

§ 60.5476(a)(2). 

(113) ASTM E2780–10, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Particulate 

Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters, 

IBR approved for § 60.534(a)(2). 

(114) ASTM E2817–11, Standard Test 

Method for Test Fueling Masonry 

Heaters, IBR approved for § 60.5488(a). 

(115) ASTM WK26558, New 

Specification for Calculation Method for 

Custom Designed, Site Built Masonry 

Heaters, IBR approved for 

§ 60.5488(c)(1). 

* * * * * 

(p) This material is available for 

purchase from the Canadian Standards 

Association (CSA) at http://shop.csa.ca/ 

en/canada/fuel-burning-equipment/

b4151-10/invt/27013322010/. 

(1) CSA B415.1–10, Performance 

Testing of Solid-fuel-burning Heating 

Appliances, IBR approved for 

§ 60.534(d) and § 60.5476(c) and (d). 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 3. Revise subpart AAA to read as 

follows: 

Subpart AAA—Standards of Performance 

for New Residential Wood Heaters 

Sec. 

60.530 Am I subject to this subpart? 

60.531 What definitions must I know? 

60.532 What standards and associated 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

60.533 What compliance and certification 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

60.534 What test methods and procedures 

must I use to determine compliance with 

the standards and requirements for 

certification? 

60.535 What procedures must I use for 

laboratory accreditation or certifying 

body accreditation? 

60.536 What requirements must I meet for 

permanent labels and owner’s manuals? 

60.537 What records must I keep and what 

reports must I submit? 

60.538 What activities are prohibited under 

this subpart? 

60.539 What Petition for Review procedures 

apply to me? 

60.539a Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

60.539b What parts of the General 

Provisions do not apply? 

Subpart AAA—Standards of 

Performance for New Residential 

Wood Heaters 

§ 60.530 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you operate, manufacture, sell, offer for 

sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to 

distribute, introduce, or deliver for 

introduction, into commerce in the 

United States, an affected wood heater 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 

this section: 

(1) Each adjustable burn rate wood 

heater with a current EPA certificate of 

compliance, single burn rate wood 

heaters with a current EPA certificate of 

compliance, and each pellet stove with 

a current EPA certificate of compliance 

issued prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] according to the 

certification procedures in effect in this 

subpart at the time of certification that 

are manufactured on or after July 1, 

1988 are affected wood heaters. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6374 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(2) All other residential wood heaters 

under this subpart manufactured or sold 

on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] are affected wood heaters. 

(b) Each affected wood heater must 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart unless exempted under 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this 

section. 

(1) Affected wood heaters 

manufactured in the United States for 

export are exempt from the applicable 

emission limits of § 60.532 and the 

requirements of § 60.533. 

(2) Affected wood heaters used for 

research and development purposes that 

are never offered for sale or sold and 

that are not used for the purpose of 

providing heat are exempt from the 

applicable emission limits of § 60.532 

and the requirements of § 60.533. No 

more than 50 wood heaters 

manufactured per model line can be 

exempted for this purpose. 

(3) Appliances that do not burn wood 

or wood pellets (such as coal-only 

heaters that meet the definition in 

§ 60.531 or corn-only pellet stoves) are 

exempt from the applicable emission 

limits of § 60.532 and the requirements 

of § 60.533. 

(4) Cook stoves that meet the 

definition in § 60.531 are exempt from 

the applicable emission limits of 

§ 60.532 and the requirements of 

§ 60.533. 

(5) Camp stoves that meet the 

definition in § 60.531 are exempt from 

the applicable emission limits of 

§ 60.532 and the requirements of 

§ 60.533. 

(6) Modification or reconstruction, as 

defined in § 60.14 and § 60.15 of 

Subpart A will not, by itself, make a 

wood heater an affected facility under 

this subpart. 

(c) The following are not affected 

wood heaters and are not subject to this 

subpart: 

(1) Residential hydronic heaters and 

residential forced-air furnaces subject to 

subpart QQQQ of this part. 

(2) Residential masonry heaters 

subject to subpart RRRR of this part. 

(3) Appliances that are not residential 

heating devices (for example, 

manufactured or site-built masonry 

fireplaces). 

(4) Traditional Native American bake 

ovens that meet the definition in 

§ 60.531. 

§ 60.531 What definitions must I know? 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein have the meaning given 

them in the Clean Air Act and subpart 

A of this part. 

Adjustable burn rate wood heater 

means an enclosed, wood-burning 

appliance capable of and intended for 

residential space heating or domestic 

water heating that is equipped with or 

installed with a damper or other 

mechanism to allow the operator to vary 

burn rate conditions, regardless of 

whether it is internal or external to the 

appliance. This definition does not 

distinguish between heaters that are free 

standing or fireplace inserts. 

Accredited test laboratory means a 

test laboratory that is accredited for 

wood heater certification testing under 

§ 60.535 or is an independent thirdparty test laboratory that is accredited 

by a nationally recognized accrediting 

entity under ISO–IEC Standard 17025 to 

perform testing using the test methods 

specified in § 60.534 and approved by 

the EPA for conducting testing under 

this subpart. 

At retail means the sale by a 

commercial owner of a wood heater to 

the ultimate purchaser. 

Camp stove (sometimes also called 

cylinder stove or wall tent stove) means 

a portable stove equipped with a pipe or 

chimney exhaust capable of burning 

wood or coal intended for use in a tent 

or other temporary structure used for 

hunting, camping, fishing, or other 

outdoor recreation. The primary 

purpose of the stove is to provide space 

heating, although cooking and heating 

water may be additional functions. 

Catalytic combustor means a device 

coated with a noble metal used in a 

wood heater to lower the temperature 

required for combustion. 

Certifying entity means an 

independent third party that is 

accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting entity under ISO–IEC 

Standard 17020 to perform 

certifications, inspections and audits 

under ISO–IEC Guide 17065 and 

approved by the EPA for conducting 

certifications, inspections and audits 

under this subpart. 

Coal-only heater means an enclosed, 

coal-burning appliance capable of space 

heating, or domestic water heating, 

which has all of the following 

characteristics: 

(1) An opening for emptying ash that 

is located near the bottom or the side of 

the appliance; 

(2) A system that admits air primarily 

up and through the fuel bed; 

(3) A grate or other similar device for 

shaking or disturbing the fuel bed or 

power-driven mechanical stoker; 

(4) Installation instructions that state 

that the use of wood in the stove, except 

for coal ignition purposes, is prohibited 

by law; and 

(5) The model is listed by a nationally 

recognized safety-testing laboratory for 

use of coal only, except for coal ignition 

purposes. 

Commercial owner means any person 

who owns or controls a wood heater in 

the course of the business of the 

manufacture, importation, distribution 

(including shipping and storage), or sale 

of the wood heater. 

Cookstove means a wood-fired 

appliance that is designed primarily for 

cooking food and that has the following 

characteristics: 

(1) An oven, with volume of 0.028 

cubic meters (1 cubic foot) or greater, 

and an oven rack; 

(2) A device for measuring oven 

temperatures; 

(3) A flame path that is routed around 

the oven; 

(4) An ash pan; 

(5) An ash clean-out door below the 

oven; 

(6) The absence of a fan or heat 

channels to dissipate heat from the 

appliance; 

(7) A cooking surface measured in 

square inches or square feet that is 1.5 

times greater than the firebox, which is 

measured in cubic inches or cubic feet. 

Example: A firebox of 2 cubic feet 

would have a cooking surface of at least 

3 square feet; 

(8) A portion of at least four sides of 

the oven is exposed to the flame path 

during the heating cycle of the oven. A 

flue gas bypass may exist for 

temperature control. 

Manufactured means completed and 

ready for shipment (whether or not 

packaged). 

Manufacturer means any person who 

constructs or imports into the United 

States a wood heater. 

Model line means all wood heaters 

offered for sale by a single manufacturer 

that are similar in all material respects. 

Particulate matter (PM) means total 

particulate matter including coarse PM 

(PM10) and fine PM (PM2.5). 

Pellet stove means an enclosed, solid 

fuel burning device capable of and 

intended for residential space heating or 

domestic water heating that is designed 

specifically to burn wood pellet fuel 

that incorporates induced air flow, is 

installed with an automatic pellet 

feeder, and is a free standing room 

heater or fireplace insert. 

Representative affected wood heater 

means an individual wood heater that is 

similar in all material respects to other 

wood heaters within the model line it 

represents. 

Room heater means an enclosed, 

wood-burning appliance capable of and 

intended for residential space heating. 

Unless otherwise specified, these 

devices include adjustable burn rate 

wood heaters, single burn rate wood 

heaters and pellet stoves. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6375 

Sale means the transfer of ownership 

or control, except that a transfer of 

control of an affected wood heater for 

research and development purposes 

within the scope of § 60.530(b)(2) is not 

a sale. 

Seasoned wood means wood with a 

moisture content of 20 percent or less. 

Similar in all material respects means 

that the construction materials, exhaust 

and inlet air system, and other design 

features are within the allowed 

tolerances for components identified in 

§ 60.533(k). 

Single burn rate wood heater means 

an enclosed, wood-burning appliance 

capable of and intended for residential 

space heating or domestic water heating 

that is not equipped with or installed 

with a damper to allow the operator to 

vary burn rate conditions. 

Traditional Native American bake 

oven means a wood or other solid fuel 

burning appliance that is designed 

primarily for use by Native Americans 

for food preparation, cooking, warming, 

or for instructional, recreational, 

cultural or ceremonial purposes. 

Valid certification test means a test 

that meets the following criteria: 

(1) The Administrator was notified 

about the test in accordance with 

§ 60.534(f); 

(2) The test was conducted by an 

accredited test laboratory; 

(3) The test was conducted on a wood 

heater similar in all material respects to 

other wood heaters of the model line 

that is to be certified; and 

(4) The test was conducted in 

accordance with the test methods and 

procedures specified in § 60.534. 

Wood heater means an enclosed, 

wood burning-appliance capable of and 

intended for residential space heating or 

domestic water heating. Unless 

otherwise specified, these devices 

include adjustable burn rate wood 

heaters, single burn rate wood heaters 

and pellet stoves. 

Wood pellet fuel means refined and 

densified wood shaped into small 

pellets or briquettes that are uniform in 

size, shape, moisture, density and 

energy content. 

§ 60.532 What standards and associated 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

(a) 1990 Particulate Matter Standards. 

Unless exempted under § 60.530, each 

adjustable burn rate wood heater and 

pellet stove with a current EPA 

certification issued prior to [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], according to 

the certification procedures in effect in 

this subpart at the time of certification, 

must comply with the following 

particulate matter emission limits as 

determined by the applicable test 

methods and procedures in § 60.534(a) 

through (c) until the current 

certification expires as specified in 

§ 60.533(h)(1), or it is revoked by the 

Administrator as specified in 

§ 60.533(l), whichever is first. After the 

certificate expires or is revoked, 

individual wood heaters in that model 

line can no longer be manufactured or 

sold unless the manufacturer receives a 

new certificate of compliance from the 

Administrator. 

(1) An affected wood heater equipped 

with a catalytic combustor must not 

discharge into the atmosphere any gases 

that contain particulate matter in excess 

of a weighted average of 4.1 g/hr (0.009 

lb/hr) as specified in the applicable test 

method. Particulate matter emissions 

during any test run at any burn rate that 

is required to be used in the weighted 

average as specified in the applicable 

test method must not exceed the value 

calculated for ‘‘C’’ (rounded to 2 

significant figures) calculated using the 

following equation: 

(i) At burn rates less than or equal to 

2.82 kg/hr (6.2 lb/hr), 

C=K1BR+K2

Where: 

BR = Burn rate in kg/hr (lb/hr) 

C = Actual particulate matter emission rate 

in g/hr (lb/hr) per burn rate in a given 

test run 

K1= 3.55 g/kg (0.00355 lb/lb) 

K2= 4.98 g/hr (0.0.011 lb/hr) 

(ii) At burn rates greater than 2.82 kg/ 

hr (6.2 lb/hr), C = 15 g/hr (0.033 lb/hr). 

(2) An affected wood heater not 

equipped with a catalytic combustor 

must not discharge into the atmosphere 

any gases that contain particulate matter 

in excess of a weighted average of 7.5 

g/hr (0.017 lb/hr) as specified in the 

applicable test method. Particulate 

matter emissions must not exceed 15 g/ 

hr (0.033 lb/hr) during any test run at 

a burn rate less than or equal to 1.5 kg/ 

hr (3.3 lb/hr) that is required to be used 

in the weighted average as specified in 

the applicable test method and 

particulate matter emissions must not 

exceed 18 g/hr (0.040 lb/hr) during any 

test run at a burn rate greater than 1.5 

kg/hr (3.3 lb/hr) that is required to be 

used in the weighted average as 

specified in the applicable test method. 

(3) As an alternative, an affected wood 

heater subject to paragraph (a) of this 

section may elect to comply with the 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(b) 2015 Particulate Matter Standards. 

Unless exempted under § 60.530 or 

subject to the standards specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, each 

adjustable burn rate wood heater or 

pellet stove manufactured on or after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] or 

sold at retail for use in the United States 

on or after [6 MONTHS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

must comply with the emission limits 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of 

this section, as applicable. Unless 

exempted under § 60.530, each single 

burn rate wood heater manufactured on 

or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE] or sold at retail on or after [6 

MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] must comply with the 

emission limit specified in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section. Compliance for all 

sources must be determined by the test 

methods and procedures in § 60.534. 

(1) An adjustable burn rate wood 

heater or pellet stove that is an affected 

wood heater equipped with a catalytic 

combustor must not discharge into the 

atmosphere any gases that contain 

particulate matter in excess of a 

weighted average of 4.5 g/hr (0.01 lb/hr). 

(2) An adjustable burn rate wood 

heater or pellet stove that is an affected 

wood heater not equipped with a 

catalytic combustor and capable of 

making burn rate adjustments must not 

discharge into the atmosphere any gases 

that contain particulate matter in excess 

of a weighted average of 4.5 g/hr (0.01 

lb/hr). 

(3) A single burn rate wood heater 

that is an affected wood heater must not 

discharge into the atmosphere any gases 

that contain particulate matter in excess 

of 4.5 g/hr (0.01 lb/hr). 

(c) 2020 Particulate Matter Standards. 

Unless exempted under § 60.530 or 

subject to the standards specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section, each 

adjustable burn rate wood heater, pellet 

stove or single burn rate wood heater 

manufactured or sold at retail for use in 

the United States on or after [5 YEARS 

AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE] must not discharge into the 

atmosphere any gases that contain 

particulate matter in excess of 1.3 g/hr 

(0.003 lb/hr) for any burn rate. 

Compliance for all sources must be 

determined by the test methods and 

procedures in § 60.534. 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) Pellet Fuel Requirements. 

Operators of wood heaters that are 

certified to burn pellet fuels may only 

burn pellets that have been produced 

under a licensing agreement with the 

Pellet Fuels Institute or an equivalent 

organization approved by the EPA. The 

pellet fuel must meet the following 

minimum requirements: 

(1) Density: consistent hardness and 

energy content with a minimum density 

of 38 pounds/cubic foot; 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6376 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Dimensions: maximum length of 

1.5 inches and diameter between 0.230 

and 0.285 inches; 

(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal 

to 1 percent; 

(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300 

parts per million by weight; 

(5) Ash content: no more than 2 

percent; and 

(6) A quality assurance process 

licensed by the Pellet Fuels Institute or 

equivalent organization approved by 

EPA. 

(f) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person 

is permitted to burn any of the following 

materials in an affected wood heater: 

(1) Residential or commercial garbage; 

(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste; 

(3) Materials containing rubber, 

including tires; 

(4) Materials containing plastic; 

(5) Waste petroleum products, paints 

or paint thinners, or asphalt products; 

(6) Materials containing asbestos; 

(7) Construction or demolition debris; 

(8) Paper products, cardboard, 

plywood, or particleboard. The 

prohibition against burning these 

materials does not prohibit the use of 

fire starters made from paper, 

cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar 

substances for the purpose of starting a 

fire in an affected wood heater; 

(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated 

wood; 

(10) Manure or animal remains; or 

(11) Salt water driftwood or other 

previously salt water saturated 

materials. 

(g) Owner’s Manual. A person must 

not operate an affected residential wood 

heater in a manner inconsistent with the 

owner’s manual. The owner’s manual 

must clearly specify that operation in a 

manner inconsistent with the owner’s 

manual would violate the warranty. 

(h) Temperature Sensor Requirement. 

An affected wood heater equipped with 

a catalytic combustor must be equipped 

with a temperature sensor that can 

monitor combustor gas stream 

temperatures within or immediately 

downstream [within 2.54 centimeters (1 

inch)] of the catalytic combustor 

surface. 

§ 60.533 What compliance and certification 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

(a) Certification Requirement. Each 

affected wood heater must be certified 

to bein compliance with the applicable 

emission standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. For each 

model line manufactured or sold by a 

single entity, e.g., company or 

manufacturer, compliance with 

applicable emission standards of 

§ 60.532 may be determined based on 

testing of representative affected wood 

heaters within the model line. If one 

entity, licenses a model line to another 

entity, each entity’s model line must be 

certified. If an entity changes the name 

of the entity or the name of the model, 

the manufacturer must apply for a new 

certification. 

(1) Prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], the manufacturer must 

submit to the EPA the information 

required in paragraph (b) of this section 

and follow either the certification 

process in paragraphs (b) through (e) of 

this section or the certifying entity 

based application process specified in 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(2) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], the manufacturer must 

submit the information required in 

paragraph (b) of this section and follow 

the certifying entity based application 

process specified in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(b) Application for Certificate of 

Compliance. Any manufacturer of an 

affected wood heater must apply to the 

Administrator for a certificate of 

compliance for each model line. The 

application must be submitted to: Wood 

Heater NSPS Compliance Program at 

www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_NSPS_

Compliance_Program. The application 

must be signed by a responsible 

representative of the manufacturer or an 

authorized representative and must 

contain the following: 

(1) The model name and/or design 

number and responsible contact 

information for the manufacturer and all 

authorized representatives, including 

name, affiliation, physical address, 

telephone number, and email address. 

(2) Engineering drawings and 

specifications of components that may 

affect emissions (including 

specifications for each component listed 

in paragraph (k) of this section). 

Manufacturers may use complete 

assembly or design drawings that have 

been prepared for other purposes, but 

must designate on the drawings the 

dimensions of each component listed in 

paragraph (k) of this section. 

Manufacturers must identify tolerances 

of components of the tested unit listed 

in paragraph (k)(2) of this section that 

are different from those specified in that 

paragraph, and show that such 

tolerances may not reasonably be 

anticipated to cause wood heaters in the 

model line to exceed the applicable 

emission limits. The drawings must 

identify how the emission critical parts, 

such as air tubes and catalyst, can be 

readily inspected and replaced. The 

drawings may be submitted either in 

hard copy or electronic format. 

(3) A statement whether the firebox or 

any firebox component (including the 

materials listed in paragraph (k)(3) of 

this section) will be composed of 

material different from the material used 

for the firebox or firebox component in 

the wood heater on which certification 

testing was performed and a description 

of any such differences. 

(4) Clear identification of any 

confidential business information. 

Submit such information under separate 

cover to the EPA CBI Office; Attn: 

Residential Wood Heater Compliance 

Program. Note that emissions data, 

including information necessary to 

determine emission rates in the format 

of the standard, cannot be claimed as 

confidential business information. 

(5) All documentation pertaining to a 

valid certification test, including the 

complete test report and, for all test 

runs: raw data sheets, laboratory 

technician notes, calculations, and test 

results. Documentation must include 

the items specified in the applicable test 

methods. The test report must include a 

summary table that clearly presents the 

individual and overall emission rates, 

efficiencies, and heat output range. 

Submit the test report and all associated 

required information according to the 

procedures for electronic reporting 

specified in § 60.537(f). 

(6) A copy of the warranties for the 

model line, including a statement that 

the warranties are void if the unit is 

used to burn materials for which the 

unit is not certified by the EPA. 

(7) A statement that the manufacturer 

or certifying entity will conduct a 

quality assurance program for the model 

line that satisfies the requirements of 

paragraph (m) of this section. 

(8) A statement describing how the 

tested unit was sealed by the laboratory 

after the completion of certification 

testing and that such unit will be stored 

by the manufacturer in the sealed state 

until 1 year after the certification 

expires. 

(9) Statements that the wood heaters 

manufactured under this certificate will 

be— 

(i) Similar in all material respects as 

defined in this subpart to the wood 

heater submitted for certification 

testing, and 

(ii) Labeled as prescribed in § 60.536. 

(iii) Accompanied by an owner’s 

manual that meets the requirements in 

§ 60.536. In addition, a copy of the 

owner’s manual must be submitted to 

the EPA and be available on the 

manufacturer’s Web site. 

(10) A statement that the 

manufacturer has entered into a contract 

with an accredited laboratory that 

satisfies the requirements of paragraph 

(e) of this section. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6377 

(11) A statement that the accredited 

certifying body is allowed to submit 

information on behalf of the 

manufacturer. 

(c)(1) Administrator Approval 

Process. The Administrator will 

electronically issue a certificate of 

compliance for a model line if the 

Administrator determines, based on all 

information submitted by the applicant 

and any other relevant information 

available, that: 

(i) A valid certification test 

demonstrates that the representative 

affected wood heater complies with the 

applicable emission standards in 

§ 60.532, 

(ii) Any tolerances for components 

listed in paragraph (k)(2) of this section 

that are different from those specified in 

those paragraphs may not reasonably be 

anticipated to cause wood heaters in the 

model line to exceed the applicable 

emission limits; and 

(iii) The requirements of paragraph (b) 

of this section have been met. 

(2) The Administrator will deny 

certification if the Administrator 

determines that the criteria in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section have not been 

satisfied. Upon denying certification 

under this paragraph, the Administrator 

will give written notice to the 

manufacturer setting forth the basis for 

this determination. 

(d) Prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

THE FINAL RULE], the Administrator 

will issue the certificate for the most 

stringent particulate matter emission 

standard that the unit meets under 

§ 60.532(a) or (b), as applicable. 

(e) To receive EPA certification, a 

manufacturer must enter into a contract 

with the accredited laboratory that 

performed the certification test, under 

which the laboratory will: 

(1) Conduct the compliance audit test 

at no additional cost to the 

manufacturer if the EPA selects that 

laboratory to conduct the test; or 

(2) Pay the manufacturer the cost of a 

compliance audit test (as determined by 

the EPA) if the EPA selects any other 

laboratory to conduct the test. 

(f) Certifying Entity-Based Application 

Process. 

(1) Any manufacturer of an affected 

wood heater must apply to the 

Administrator for a certificate of 

compliance for each model line. The 

manufacturer must meet the following 

requirements: 

(i) The manufacturer must contract 

with a certifying entity for certification 

services. 

(ii) The manufacturer must submit the 

materials specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section and a quality control plan 

that meets the requirements of 

paragraph (m)(4) of this section to the 

certifying entity. The quality control 

plan must ensure that units within a 

model line accurately reflect emissioncritical components of the model line 

design, and it must include design 

drawings for the model line. 

(iii) The manufacturer must apply to 

the certifying entity for a certification of 

conformity with the applicable 

requirements of this subpart for the 

model line. 

(A) After testing by an accredited test 

laboratory is complete, certification of 

conformity with the emission standards 

in § 60.532 must be performed by the 

manufacturer’s contracted certifying 

entity. 

(B) The certifying entity can certify 

conformity if the emission tests have 

been conducted per the appropriate 

guidelines and the test report is 

complete and accurate and the 

instrumentation is properly calibrated 

and the test report shows that the 

representative affected wood heater 

meets the applicable emission limits 

specified in § 60.532 and the quality 

control plan is adequate to ensure that 

units within the model line will be 

similar in all material respects to the 

wood heater submitted for certification 

testing. 

(iv) The manufacturer must then 

request that the certifying entity 

electronically submit, on behalf of the 

manufacturer, an application for EPA 

certification that includes the 

certification of conformity, quality 

control plan, test report and supporting 

documentation. 

(v) The submission must include a 

statement signed by a responsible 

official of the manufacturer that the 

manufacturer has complied with all 

requirements of this subpart and that 

the manufacturer remains responsible 

for compliance regardless of any error 

by the certifying entity. 

(2) The Administrator will 

electronically issue to the manufacturer 

a certificate of compliance for a model 

line if it is determined, based on all of 

the information submitted in the 

application for certification and any 

other relevant information, that: 

(i) A valid certification of conformity 

has demonstrated that the representative 

affected wood heater complies with the 

applicable emission standards in 

§ 60.532; and 

(ii) Any tolerances or materials for 

components listed in paragraph (k)(2) or 

(3) of this section that are different from 

those specified in those paragraphs may 

not be reasonably anticipated to cause 

wood heaters in the model line to 

exceed the applicable emission limits. 

(iii) The requirements of paragraphs 

(b) of this section have been met. 

(iv) A valid certificate of conformity 

for the model line has been prepared 

and submitted. 

(3) The Administrator will deny 

certification if the Administrator 

determines that the criteria in paragraph 

(f)(2) of this section have not been 

satisfied. Upon denying certification 

under this paragraph, the Administrator 

will give written notice to the 

manufacturer setting forth the basis for 

the determination. 

(g) Waiver from Submitting Test 

Results. An applicant for certification 

may apply for a potential waiver of the 

requirement to submit the results of a 

certification test pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, if the wood heater 

meets either of the following conditions: 

(1) The wood heaters of the model 

line are similar in all material respects, 

as defined in this subpart, to another 

model line that has already been issued 

a certificate of compliance. A 

manufacturer that seeks a waiver of 

certification testing must identify the 

model line that has been certified, and 

must submit a copy of an agreement 

with the owner of the design permitting 

the applicant to produce wood heaters 

of that design. 

(2) The manufacturer has previously 

conducted a valid certification test to 

demonstrate that the wood heaters of 

the model line meet the applicable 

standard specified in § 60.532(a), and 

that test also demonstrates that the 

wood heaters of the model line meet the 

applicable standard specified in 

§ 60.532(b). This option is only 

potentially available a maximum of one 

time per model line. 

(h) Certification Period. Unless 

revoked sooner by the Administrator, a 

certificate of compliance will be valid 

for the following periods as applicable: 

(1) For a model line certified as 

meeting the emission standards in 

§ 60.532(a), a certificate of compliance 

will be valid for 5 years from the date 

of issuance. 

(2) For a model line certified as 

meeting emission standards in 

§ 60.532(b), a certificate of compliance 

will be valid for 5 years from the date 

of issuance. 

(3) For a model line certified as 

meeting emission standards in 

§ 60.532(c), a certificate of compliance 

will be valid for 5 years from the date 

of issuance. 

(i) Renewal of Certification. 

(1) The certificate must be recertified 

or renewed every 5 years or the 

manufacture may choose to no longer 

manufacture or sell that model. If the 

manufacturer chooses to no longer 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

manufacture or sell that model, then the 

manufacturer must submit a statement 

to EPA for that model. A manufacturer 

of an affected wood heater may apply to 

the Administrator for potential renewal 

of their certificate by submitting the 

material specified in § 60.533(b) and 

following the procedures specified in 

§ 60.533(f) or by affirming in writing 

that the wood heater has been subject to 

no changes that would impact emissions 

and requesting a potential waiver from 

certification testing. 

(2) If the Administrator grants a 

renewal of certification, the 

Administrator will give written notice to 

the manufacturer setting forth the basis 

for the determination and issue a 

certification renewal. 

(3) If the Administrator denies the 

request for a renewal of certification, the 

Administrator will give written notice to 

the manufacturer setting forth the basis 

for the determination. 

(j) [Reserved] 

(k) Recertification. 

(1) The manufacturer must recertify a 

model line whenever any change is 

made in the design submitted pursuant 

to paragraph (b)(2) of this section that is 

presumed to affect the particulate matter 

emission rate for that model line. The 

manufacturer of an affected wood heater 

must apply to the Administrator for 

potential recertification by submitting 

the material specified in § 60.533(b) and 

following the procedures specified in 

§ 60.533(f) or by affirming in writing 

that the wood heater has been subject to 

no changes that would impact emissions 

and requesting a potential waiver from 

certification testing. The Administrator 

may potentially waive this requirement 

upon written request by the 

manufacturer, if it is determined that 

the change may not reasonably be 

anticipated to cause wood heaters in the 

model line to exceed the applicable 

emission limits. The granting of such a 

waiver does not relieve the 

manufacturer of any compliance 

obligations under this subpart. 

(2) Any change in the design 

tolerances of any of the following 

components (where such components 

are applicable) is presumed to affect 

particulate matter and carbon monoxide 

emissions and efficiency if that change 

exceeds ±0.64 cm (±1⁄4 inch) for any 

linear dimension and ±5 percent for any 

cross-sectional area relating to air 

introduction systems and catalyst 

bypass gaps unless other dimensions 

and cross-sectional areas are previously 

approved by the Administrator under 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section: 

(i) Firebox: Dimensions; 

(ii) Air introduction systems: Crosssectional area of restrictive air inlets and 

outlets, location and method of control; 

(iii) Baffles: Dimensions and 

locations; 

(iv) Refractory/insulation: Dimensions 

and location; 

(v) Catalyst: Dimensions and location; 

(vi) Catalyst bypass mechanism and 

catalyst bypass gap tolerances (when 

bypass mechanism is in closed 

position): Dimensions, cross-sectional 

area, and location; 

(vii) Flue gas exit: Dimensions and 

location; 

(viii) Door and catalyst bypass 

gaskets: Dimensions and fit; 

(ix) Outer shielding and coverings: 

Dimensions and location; 

(x) Fuel feed system: For wood 

heaters that are designed primarily to 

burn wood pellets and other wood 

heaters equipped with a fuel feed 

system, the fuel feed rate, auger motor 

design and power rating, and the angle 

of the auger to the firebox; and 

(xi) Forced air combustion system: 

For wood heaters so equipped, the 

location and horsepower of blower 

motors and the fan blade size. 

(3) Any change in the materials used 

for the following components is 

presumed to affect particulate matter 

emissions and efficiency: 

(i) Refractory/insulation; or 

(ii) Door and catalyst bypass gaskets. 

(4) A change in the make, model, or 

composition of a catalyst is presumed to 

affect particulate matter and carbon 

monoxide emissions and efficiency, 

unless the change has been approved in 

advance by the Administrator, based on 

test data in the same model stove that 

demonstrate that the replacement 

catalyst is equivalent to or better than 

the original catalyst in terms of 

particulate matter emission reduction. 

(l) Criteria for Revocation of 

Certification. 

(1) The Administrator may revoke 

certification if it is determined that the 

wood heaters being manufactured or 

sold in that model line do not comply 

with the requirements of this subpart. 

Such a determination will be based on 

all available evidence, including but not 

limited to: 

(i) Test data from a retesting of the 

original unit on which the certification 

test was conducted or a similar unit; 

(ii) A finding that the certification test 

was not valid. (iii) A finding that the 

labeling of the wood heater model line 

or the owner’s manual or marketing 

information does not comply with the 

requirements of § 60.536; 

(iii) Failure by the manufacturer to 

comply with reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements under 

§ 60.537; 

(iv) Physical examination showing 

that a significant percentage (as defined 

in the quality assurance plan, but no 

larger than 1 percent) of production 

units inspected is not similar in all 

material respects to the representative 

affected wood heater submitted for 

testing; or 

(v) Failure of the manufacturer to 

conduct a quality assurance program in 

conformity with paragraph (m) of this 

section. 

(2) Revocation of certification under 

this paragraph will not take effect until 

the manufacturer concerned has been 

given written notice by the 

Administrator setting forth the basis for 

the proposed determination and an 

opportunity to request a review under 

§ 60.539. 

(m) Quality Assurance Program. 

(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], for each certified model 

line, the manufacturer must conduct a 

quality assurance program that satisfies 

the requirements of this section The 

quality assurance program requirements 

of this section supersede the quality 

assurance plan requirements specified 

in § 60.533(o) of the 1988 rule. By [60 

DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], for model lines that had 

a valid EPA certification on [60 DAYS 

AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE], manufacturers must submit the 

quality assurance plan to the EPA 

Administrator for review and approval. 

(i) The manufacturer must prepare 

and operate according to a quality 

assurance plan for each certified model 

line that has specific inspection and 

testing requirements for ensuring that 

units within a model line accurately 

reflect emission-critical components of 

the model line design and meet the 

emissions standards in § 60.532. 

(ii) The quality assurance plan must 

be approved within 30 days by the 

certifying entity as part of the 

certification of conformity process 

specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(iii) Within 30 days after approval by 

the certifying entity, the quality control 

plan must also be submitted to EPA for 

review and approval. 

(iv) The certifying entity must 

conduct quarterly unannounced audits 

under ISO–IEC Guide 17065 and ISO– 

EC Standard 17020 to ensure that the 

manufacturer’s quality control plan is 

being implemented. 

(v) The certifying entity must prepare 

a report for each audit under ISO–IEC 

Guide 17065 and ISO–EC Standard 

17020 that fully documents the results 

of the audit, and the manufacturer must 

include in their contract with the 

certifying entity the authorization and 

requirement to submit all such reports 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6379 

to the EPA within 30 days. In the audit 

report, the certifying entity must 

identify deviations from the 

manufacturer’s quality control plan and 

specify the corrective actions that need 

to be taken to address each identified 

deficiency. 

(vi) The manufacturer must report 

within 30 days to the certifying entity 

and to the EPA its responses to any 

deficiencies identified in an audit 

report. 

(n) EPA Compliance Audit Testing. 

(1)(i) The Administrator may select by 

written notice wood heaters for 

compliance audit testing to determine 

compliance with the emission standards 

in § 60.532. 

(ii) The written notification shall be 

forwarded to the manufacturer by the 

Administrator and shall include the 

name and address of the laboratory 

selected to perform the audit test and 

the model name and serial number of 

the wood heater(s) selected to undergo 

audit testing. 

(2)(i) The Administrator may test, or 

direct the manufacturer to have tested, 

the wood heater(s) selected under 

paragraph (n)(1)(i) of this section in a 

laboratory accredited under § 60.535 

that is selected pursuant to paragraph 

(n)(3) of this section. 

(ii) The expense of the compliance 

audit test is the responsibility of the 

wood heater manufacturer. A 

manufacturer may require the laboratory 

that performed the certification test to 

bear the expense of an audit test by 

means of the contract required under 

paragraph (e) of this section. The 

manufacturer will bear the cost of audit 

testing if the laboratory with which the 

manufacturer had a contract has ceased 

business or is otherwise legally unable 

to honor the contract. The manufacturer 

will also bear the cost of audit testing if 

the manufacturer has not entered into 

contract with an accredited test 

laboratory to perform audit testing. 

(iii) The test must be conducted using 

the same test method and procedure 

used to obtain certification or a new test 

method approved by the EPA 

Administrator. If the certification test 

consisted of more than one particulate 

matter sampling test method, the 

Administrator may direct the test 

laboratory as to which of these methods 

to use for the purpose of audit testing. 

The Administrator will notify the 

manufacturer at least 1 week prior to 

any test under this paragraph, and allow 

the manufacturer and/or his authorized 

representatives to observe the test. 

(3) The Administrator may select any 

accredited test laboratory or federal 

laboratory for audit testing. 

(4) Revocation of Certification. 

(i) If emissions from a wood heater 

tested under paragraph (n)(2) of this 

section exceed the certification emission 

values limit by more than 50 percent, 

the Administrator will notify the 

manufacturer that certification for that 

model line is suspended effective 72 

hours from the receipt of the notice, 

unless the suspension notice is 

withdrawn by the Administrator. The 

suspension will remain in effect until 

withdrawn by the Administrator, or 30 

days from its effective date (if a 

revocation notice under paragraph 

(n)(5)(ii) of this section is not issued 

within that period), or the date of final 

agency action on revocation, whichever 

occurs earlier. 

(ii)(A) If emissions from a wood 

heater tested under paragraph (n)(2) of 

this section exceed the applicable 

emission limit, the Administrator will 

notify the manufacturer that 

certification is revoked for that model 

line. 

(B) A suspension under paragraph 

(n)(4)(i) or a revocation notice under 

paragraph (n)(4)(ii)(A) of this section 

will become final and effective 60 days 

after receipt by the manufacturer, unless 

it is withdrawn, a supplemental review 

is requested under § 60.539, or the 

deadline for requesting a supplemental 

review is extended. 

(C) The Administrator may extend the 

deadline for requesting a supplemental 

review for up to 60 days for good cause. 

(D) A manufacturer may extend the 

deadline for requesting a supplemental 

review for up to 6 months, by agreeing 

to a voluntary suspension of 

certification. 

(iii) Any notification under paragraph 

(n)(4)(i) or (n)(4)(ii) of this section will 

include a copy of a preliminary test 

report from the accredited test 

laboratory or federal test laboratory. The 

test laboratory must provide a 

preliminary test report to the 

Administrator within 10 days of the 

completion of testing, if a wood heater 

exceeds the applicable emission limit in 

§ 60.532. The test laboratory must 

provide the Administrator and the 

manufacturer, within 30 days of the 

completion of testing, all documentation 

pertaining to the test, including the 

complete test report and raw data 

sheets, laboratory technician notes, and 

test results for all test runs. 

(iv) Upon receiving notification of a 

test failure under paragraph (n)(4)(ii) of 

this section, the manufacturer may 

request up to four additional wood 

heaters from the same model line be 

selected under paragraph (n)(1) of this 

section for testing at the manufacturer’s 

expense, at the test laboratory that 

performed the emissions test for the 

Administrator. 

(v) Whether or not the manufacturer 

proceeds under paragraph (n)(4)(iv) of 

this section, the manufacturer may 

submit any relevant information to the 

Administrator, including any other test 

data generated pursuant to this subpart. 

The manufacturer must pay the expense 

of any additional testing. 

(vi) The Administrator will withdraw 

any notice issued under paragraph 

(n)(4)(ii) of this section if tests under 

paragraph (n)(4)(iv) of this section show 

either— 

(A) That all wood heaters tested for 

the manufacturer met the applicable 

emission limits; or 

(B) That the second and third wood 

heaters selected met the applicable 

emission limits and the average of all 

three (including the original audit test) 

was below the applicable emission 

limits. 

(C) The Administrator will revise the 

certification values based on the test 

data and other relevant information and 

the manufacturer must revise the labels 

and marketing information accordingly. 

(vii) The Administrator may withdraw 

any proposed revocation, if the 

Administrator finds that an audit test 

failure has been rebutted by information 

submitted by the manufacturer under 

paragraph (n)(4)(iv) of this section and/ 

or (n)(4)(v) of this section or by any 

other relevant information available to 

the Administrator. 

§ 60.534 What test methods and 

procedures must I use to determine 

compliance with the standards and 

requirements for certification? 

Test methods and procedures 

specified in this section or in 

appendices of this part, except as 

provided under § 60.8(b), must be used 

to determine compliance with the 

standards and requirements for 

certification under § § 60.532 and 60.533 

as follows: 

(a)(1) Method 28 of appendix A–8 of 

this part must be used to establish the 

certification test conditions and the 

particulate matter emission values for 

affected wood heaters subject to the 

1990 particulate matter standards 

specified in § 60.532(a). 

(2) For affected wood heaters subject 

to the 2015 particulate matter standards 

specified in § 60.532(b), you must 

conduct testing according to paragraphs 

§ 60.534(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section 

and submit the full test reports. You 

have the option of submitting the test 

results of either (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of this 

section to the Administrator as specified 

under § 60.537 for certification 

compliance. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6380 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Conduct testing with crib wood 

using EPA Method 28R of appendix A– 

8 of this part to establish the 

certification test conditions and the 

particulate matter emission values. 

(ii) Conduct testing with cord wood 

using EPA Method 28R of appendix A– 

8 of this part to establish the 

certification test conditions and the 

particulate matter emission values. 

(3) For affected wood heaters subject 

to the 2020 particulate matter standards 

specified in § 60.532(c), you must 

conduct testing with cord wood using 

EPA Method 28R of appendix A–8 of 

this part to establish the certification 

test conditions, except that you should 

first test Burn Rate Categories 1 and 4 

and then test 2 more times for 

whichever burn rate category is worse 

and then report the results separately 

per burn rate category. 

(b) For affected wood heaters subject 

to the 1990 particulate matter standards 

specified in § 60.532(a), emission 

concentrations must be measured with 

Method 5G of appendix A–3 of this part, 

i.e., using a dilution tunnel sampling 

location. Method 5H is no longer 

allowed for certification testing. 

(c) For affected wood heaters subject 

to the 2015 and 2020 particulate matter 

standards specified in § 60.532(b) and 

(c), emission concentrations must be 

measured with ASTM E2515–10. 

(d) Canadian Standards 

Administration Method B415.1–10, 

section 13.7, must be used to measure 

the efficiency and carbon monoxide 

output of the tested appliance. 

(e) [Reserved] 

(f) The manufacturer of an affected 

wood heater must notify the 

Administrator of the date that 

certification testing is scheduled to 

begin by email to Wood Heater NSPS 

Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/

Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_

Program. This notice must be received 

by the EPA at least 30 days before the 

start of testing. The notification of 

testing must include the manufacturer’s 

name and physical and email addresses, 

the accredited test laboratory’s name 

and physical and email addresses, 

certifying entity name, the model name 

and number (or, if unavailable, some 

other way to distinguish between 

models), and the dates of testing. 

(g) The accredited test laboratory must 

allow the manufacturer, the EPA and 

delegated states to observe certification 

testing. However, manufacturers must 

not involve themselves in the conduct 

of the test after the pretest burn has 

begun. Communications between the 

manufacturer and laboratory or 

certifying entity personnel regarding 

operation of the wood heater must be 

limited to written communications 

transmitted prior to the first pretest burn 

of the certification series. Written 

communications between the 

manufacturer and laboratory personnel 

may be exchanged during the 

certification test only if deviations from 

the test procedures are observed that 

constitute improper conduct of the test. 

All communications must be included 

in the test documentation required to be 

submitted pursuant to § 60.533(b)(3) and 

must be consistent with instructions 

provided in the owner’s manual 

required under § 60.536(f), except to the 

extent that they address details of the 

certification tests that would not be 

relevant to owners or regulators. 

§ 60.535 What procedures must I use for 

laboratory accreditation or certifying body 

accreditation? 

(a)(1) A laboratory must apply to the 

Administrator for accreditation as an 

EPA accredited test laboratory by 

submitting documentation that the 

laboratory is accredited by a nationally 

recognized accrediting entity under 

ISO–IEC Standard 17025 to perform 

testing using the test methods specified 

under § 60.534. 

(2) As part of the application, the test 

laboratory must: 

(i) Agree to enter into a contract as 

described in § 60.533(e) with each wood 

heater manufacturer for whom a 

certification test has been performed; 

(ii) Agree to participate biennially in 

a proficiency testing program conducted 

by the Administrator; 

(iii) Agree to allow the Administrator 

and delegated states and certifying 

bodies access to observe certification 

testing; 

(iv) Agree to comply with reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements that 

affect testing laboratories; and 

(v) Agree to perform a compliance 

audit test (as determined by the 

Administrator) at the cost normally 

charged to manufacturers if it is selected 

to conduct the compliance audit test of 

a model line originally tested for 

certification at another laboratory. 

(vi) Have no conflict of interest and 

receive no financial benefit from the 

outcome of certification testing 

conducted pursuant to § 60.533. 

(vii) Agree to not perform initial 

certification tests on any models 

manufactured by a manufacturer for 

which the laboratory has conducted 

research and development tests within 

the last 5 years. 

(3) If the EPA approves the 

accreditation, the Administrator will 

provide the test laboratory with a 

certificate of accreditation. If the EPA 

denies the accreditation, the 

Administrator will give written notice to 

the laboratory setting forth the basis for 

the determination. 

(b)(1) The Administrator may revoke 

the EPA laboratory accreditation if it is 

determined that the laboratory: 

(i) Is no longer is accredited by the 

nationally recognized ISO certifying 

entity; 

(ii) Does not follow required 

procedures or practices; 

(iii) Has falsified data or otherwise 

misrepresented emission data; 

(iv) Failed to participate in a 

proficiency testing program, in 

accordance with its commitment under 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section; or 

(v) Failed to seal the wood heater in 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(2) Revocation of accreditation under 

this paragraph will not take effect until 

the laboratory concerned has been given 

written notice by the Administrator 

setting forth the basis for the proposed 

determination and an opportunity for a 

Petition for Supplemental Review under 

§ 60.539. However, if revocation is 

ultimately upheld, all tests conducted 

by the laboratory after written notice 

was given will, at the discretion of the 

Administrator, be declared invalid. 

(c)(1) With the exception of 

laboratories meeting the provisions of 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and 

unless revoked sooner, a certificate of 

accreditation as an accredited test 

laboratory granted by the Administrator 

is valid for 5 years from the date of 

issuance. 

(2) Laboratories accredited by the EPA 

by February 3, 2014 under the 

provisions of § 60.535 in effect prior to 

that date may continue to be accredited 

until [1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE], at which time 

the accreditation ends unless the 

laboratory has obtained accreditation 

under § 60.535 as in effect beginning on 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(d) A laboratory accredited by the 

Administrator must seal any wood 

heater on which it performed 

certification tests, immediately upon 

completion or suspension of 

certification testing, by using a 

laboratory-specific seal. For any tests 

that are suspended, the laboratory must 

email the EPA immediately with the 

date suspended, the reason(s) why, and 

the projected date for re-starting. The 

laboratory must submit the operation 

and test data obtained, even if the test 

is not completed. 

(e)(1) A Certifying Entity may apply to 

the Administrator for approval to be an 

EPA-approved certifying entity by 

submitting credentials demonstrating 

that they have been accredited by a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6381 

nationally recognized accrediting entity 

to perform certifications and inspections 

under ISO–17025, ISO–IEC Standard 

17065 and ISO–IEC Standard 10720. 

(2) As part of the application, the 

certifying entity must: 

(i) Agree to enter into a contract as 

described in § 60.533(e) with each wood 

heater manufacturer for whom a 

certification test has been performed 

and a test report has been received and 

reviewed; 

(ii) Agree to periodically conduct 

audits as described in § 60.534 and 

manufacturer’s QA/QC Plan; 

(iii) Agree to participate biennially in 

a proficiency testing program conducted 

by the Administrator; 

(iv) Agree to comply with reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements that 

affect accredited wood heater testing 

laboratories and certifying entities; 

(v) Have no conflict of interest and 

receive no financial benefit from the 

outcome of certification testing 

conducted pursuant to § 60.533; 

(vi) Agree to make available to the 

EPA supporting documentation for each 

wood heater certification and audit; and 

(vii) Agree to not perform initial 

certification reviews on any models 

manufactured by a manufacturer for 

which the certifying entity has 

conducted research and development 

within the last 5 years. 

(3) If approved, the Administrator will 

provide the certifying entity with a 

certificate of accreditation. The 

accreditation will expire 5 years after 

being issued unless renewed by the 

certifying entity. If the EPA denies the 

accreditation, the Administrator will 

give written notice to the certifying 

entity for the basis for the 

determination. 

(f)(1) The Administrator will revoke 

the EPA certifying entity accreditation if 

it is determined that the certifying 

entity; 

(i) Is no longer accredited by the 

nationally recognized ISO certifying 

entity 

(ii) Does not follow required 

procedures or practices; 

(iii) Has falsified certification data or 

otherwise misrepresented emission 

data; or 

(iv) Failed to participate in the EPA 

proficiency testing program. 

(2) Revocation of accreditation under 

this paragraph will not take effect until 

the certifying entity concerned is given 

written notice by the Administrator 

setting forth the basis for the proposed 

determination and an opportunity for a 

Petition for Supplemental Review under 

§ 60.539. However, if revocation is 

upheld, all tests reviewed by the 

certifying entity will, at the discretion of 

the Administrator, be declared invalid. 

§ 60.536 What requirements must I meet 

for permanent labels and owner’s manuals? 

(a) Permanent Label Requirements. (1) 

Each affected wood heater 

manufactured on or after the date the 

applicable standards come into effect as 

specified in § 60.532, must have a 

permanent label affixed to it that meets 

the requirements of this section. 

(2) Except for wood heaters subject to 

§ 60.530(b)(1) through (b)(5), the 

permanent label must contain the 

following information: 

(i) Month and year of manufacture of 

the individual unit; 

(ii) Model name or number; and 

(iii) Serial number. 

(3) The permanent label must: 

(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or 

accessible location in such a manner 

that it can be easily viewed before and 

after the appliance is installed; 

(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm 

wide (31⁄2 inches long and 2 inches 

wide); 

(iii) Be made of a material expected to 

last the lifetime of the wood heater; 

(iv) Present required information in a 

manner so that it is likely to remain 

legible for the lifetime of the wood 

heater; and 

(v) Be affixed in such a manner that 

it cannot be removed from the appliance 

without damage to the label. 

(4) The permanent label may be 

combined with any other label, as long 

as the required information is displayed, 

the integrity of the permanent label is 

not compromised, and the permanent 

label still meets the requirements in 

§ 60.536(a)(3). 

(5) Any label statement under 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section 

constitutes a representation by the 

manufacturer as to any wood heater that 

bears it: 

(i) That certification of compliance 

was in effect at the time the wood heater 

left the possession of the manufacturer; 

(ii) That the manufacturer was, at the 

time the label was affixed, conducting a 

quality assurance program in conformity 

with § 60.533(o); and 

(iii) That any wood heater 

individually tested for emissions by the 

manufacturer under § 60.533(o)(2) or 

(o)(4) met the applicable emissions 

limits. 

(b) If the adjustable burn rate wood 

heater or pellet stove belongs to a model 

line certified under § 60.533, and it has 

been found to meet the applicable 

emission limits or tolerances through 

quality assurance testing, one of the 

following statements, as appropriate, 

must appear on the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Certified to comply with 

1990 particulate emission standards. 

Not approved for sale or operation 

after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] or 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Certified to comply with 

2015 particulate emission standards. 

Not approved for sale or operation 

after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] or 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Certified to comply with 

2020 particulate emission standards. 

(c) If the single burn rate wood heater 

belongs to a model line certified under 

§ 60.533, and it has been found to meet 

the applicable emission limits or 

tolerances through quality assurance 

testing, the following statements must 

appear on the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Certified to comply with 

2015 particulate emission standards. 

Not approved for sale or operation 

after [5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] or 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Certified to comply with 

2020 particulate emission standards. 

(d)(1) If an affected wood heater is 

manufactured in the United States for 

export as provided in § 60.530(b)(1), the 

following statement must appear on the 

permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Export stove. May not be 

sold or operated within the United 

States. 

(2) If an affected wood heater is 

manufactured for use for research and 

development purposes as provided in 

§ 60.530(b)(2), the following statement 

must appear on the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Not certified. Research 

Stove. Not approved for sale or for 

operation other than research. 

(3) If an affected wood heater is 

exclusively a non wood-burning heater 

as provided § 60.530(b)(3) the following 

statement must appear on the 

permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY This heater is not certified 

for wood burning. Use of any wood 

fuel is a violation of federal law. 

(4) If an affected wood heater is a 

cookstove that meets the applicable 

definition in § 60.531, the following 

statement must appear on the 

permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY This unit is not a certified 

residential wood heater. The primary 

use for this unit is for cooking or 

baking. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6382 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(5) If an affected wood heater is a 

camp stove that meets the applicable 

definition in § 60.531, the following 

statement must appear on the 

permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY This unit is not a certified 

residential wood heater. For portable 

and temporary use only. 

(e) The permanent label for all 

certified wood heaters must also contain 

the following statement: 

‘‘This wood heater needs periodic 

inspection and repair for proper 

operation. Consult owner’s manual for 

further information. It is against the law 

to operate this wood heater in a manner 

inconsistent with operating instructions 

in the owner’s manual.’’ 

(f) Owner’s Manual. 

(1) Each affected wood heater offered 

for sale by a commercial owner must be 

accompanied by an owner’s manual that 

must contain the information listed in 

paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this 

section. Such information must be 

adequate to enable consumers to 

achieve optimal emissions performance. 

Such information must be consistent 

with the operating instructions provided 

by the manufacturer to the accredited 

test laboratory for operating the wood 

heater during certification testing, 

except for details of the certification test 

that would not be relevant to the 

ultimate purchaser. The commercial 

owner must also make current and 

historical owner’s manuals available on 

the company Web site and upon request 

to the EPA. 

(2) Installation information: 

Requirements for achieving proper draft. 

(3) Operation and maintenance 

information: 

(i) Fuel loading procedures, 

recommendations on fuel selection, and 

warnings on what fuels not to use, such 

as treated wood, colored paper, 

cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage. 

(ii) Fire starting procedures 

(iii) Proper use of air controls 

(iv) Ash removal procedures 

(v) Instructions for replacement of 

gaskets, air tubes and other parts that 

are critical to the emissions performance 

of the unit and other maintenance and 

repair instructions 

(vi) For catalytic models, information 

on the following pertaining to the 

catalytic combustor: Procedures for 

achieving and maintaining catalyst 

activity, maintenance procedures, 

procedures for determining 

deterioration or failure, procedures for 

replacement, and information on how to 

exercise warranty rights 

(vii) For catalytic models, the 

following statement: 

‘‘This wood heater contains a catalytic 

combustor, which needs periodic 

inspection and replacement for proper 

operation. It is against federal law to 

operate this wood heater in a manner 

inconsistent with operating instructions 

in this manual, or if the catalytic 

element is deactivated or removed.’’ 

(viii) For noncatalytic models, the 

following statement: 

‘‘This wood heater needs periodic 

inspection and repair for proper 

operation. It is against federal law to 

operate this wood heater in a manner 

inconsistent with operating instructions 

in this manual.’’ 

(4) Any manufacturer using the EPArecommended language contained in 

appendix I of this part to satisfy any 

requirement of this paragraph (f) will be 

considered to be in compliance with 

that requirement, provided that the 

particular language is printed in full, 

with only such changes as are necessary 

to ensure accuracy for the particular 

wood heater model line. 

(5) Wood heaters that are affected by 

this subpart, but that have been owned 

and operated by a noncommercial 

owner, are not subject to paragraphs (f) 

of this section when offered for resale. 

§ 60.537 What records must I keep and 

what reports must I submit? 

(a)(1) Each manufacturer who holds a 

certificate of compliance under 

§ 60.533(c) or (f) for a model line must 

maintain records containing the 

information required by paragraph (a) of 

this section with respect to that model 

line. 

(2) All documentation pertaining to 

the certification test used to obtain 

certification, including the full test 

report and raw data sheets, laboratory 

technician notes, calculations, and the 

test results for all test runs. 

(3) Results of the quality assurance 

program inspections required by 

§ 60.533(m). 

(4) For emissions tests conducted 

pursuant to the quality assurance 

program required by § 60.533(o), all test 

reports, data sheets, laboratory 

technician notes, calculations, and test 

results for all test runs, the remedial 

actions taken, if any, and any follow-up 

actions such as additional testing. 

(b) Each accredited test laboratory and 

certifying entity must maintain records 

consisting of all documentation 

pertaining to each certification test, QA/ 

QC inspection and audit test, including 

the full test report and raw data sheets, 

technician notes, calculations, and the 

test results for all test runs. Each 

accredited test laboratory must submit 

initial and biennial proficiency test 

results to the Administrator. Each 

certifying entity must submit each 

certification test, QA/QC inspection 

report and ISO IEC accreditation 

credentials to the Administrator. 

(c) Each manufacturer must retain 

each wood heater upon which 

certification tests were performed based 

upon which certification was granted 

under § 60.533(c) or (f) at the 

manufacturer’s facility for as long as the 

model line in question is manufactured. 

Each heater or furnace must remain 

sealed and unaltered. Any such wood 

heater must be made available to the 

Administrator upon request for 

inspection and testing. 

(d) Each manufacturer of an affected 

wood heater certified under § 60.533(c) 

or (f) must submit a report to the 

Administrator every 2 years following 

issuance of a certificate of compliance 

for each model line. This report must 

include the sales for each model by state 

and certify that no changes in the design 

or manufacture of this model line have 

been made that require recertification 

under § 60.533(k). 

(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all 

records required under this section must 

be maintained by the manufacturer, 

commercial owner of the affected wood 

heater, accredited test laboratory or 

certifying entity for a period of no less 

than 5 years. 

(2) Unless otherwise specified, all 

reports to the Administrator required 

under this subpart must be made to: 

Wood Heater NSPS Compliance 

Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_

NSPS_Compliance_Program. 

(f) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test, each 

manufacturer or accredited test 

laboratory or certifying entity must 

submit performance test data 

electronically to the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT) (http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). 

Only data collected using test methods 

compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted 

electronically to the EPA’s CDX. 

Manufacturers may submit compliance 

reports to the EPA via regular mail at 

the address listed below if the test 

methods they use are not compatible 

with ERT or if ERT is not available to 

accept reports at the time the final rule 

is published. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a completed ERT file, 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives), to the EPA, and the same ERT 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6383 

file, with the CBI omitted, to the EPA 

via CDX as described earlier in this 

paragraph. The compact disk must be 

clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 

Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD 

C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, 

NC 27703. Emission data, including all 

information necessary to determine 

compliance, except sensitive 

engineering drawings and sensitive 

detailed material specifications, may not 

be claimed as CBI. 

§ 60.538 What activities are prohibited 

under this subpart? 

(a) No person is permitted to operate 

an affected wood heater that does not 

have affixed to it a permanent label 

pursuant to § 60.536 (b), (c), or (d)(2) 

through (d)(5). 

(b) No commercial owner is permitted 

to advertise for sale, offer for sale, or sell 

an affected wood heater labeled under 

§ 60.536(d)(1) except for export. 

(c)(1) No commercial owner is 

permitted to advertise for sale, offer for 

sale or sell an affected wood heater 

permanently labeled under § 60.536 (b) 

or (c) unless: 

(i) The affected wood heater has been 

certified to comply with 2020 

particulate emission standards. This 

prohibition does not apply to wood 

heaters affected by this subpart that 

have been previously owned and 

operated by a noncommercial owner; 

and 

(ii) The commercial owner provides 

any purchaser or transferee with an 

owner’s manual that meets the 

requirements of § 60.536(f), a copy of 

the warranty and a moisture meter. 

(2) No commercial owner is permitted 

to advertise for sale, offer for sale, or sell 

an affected wood heater permanently 

labeled under § 60.536(d)(3), unless the 

affected wood heater has been certified 

to comply with 2020 particulate 

emission. This prohibition does not 

apply to wood heaters affected by this 

subpart that have been previously 

owned and operated by a 

noncommercial owner. 

(3) A commercial owner other than a 

manufacturer complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section if the commercial owner: 

(i) Receives the required 

documentation from the manufacturer 

or a previous commercial owner; and 

(ii) Provides that documentation 

unaltered to any person to whom the 

wood heater that it covers is sold or 

transferred. 

(d)(1) In any case in which the 

Administrator revokes a certificate of 

compliance either for the knowing 

submission of false or inaccurate 

information or other fraudulent acts, or 

based on a finding under 

§ 60.533(l)(1)(ii) that the certification 

test was not valid, the Administrator 

may give notice of that revocation and 

the grounds for it to all commercial 

owners. 

(2) On and after the date of receipt of 

the notice given under paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section, no commercial owner is 

permitted to sell any wood heater 

covered by the revoked certificate (other 

than to the manufacturer) unless the 

model line has been recertified in 

accordance with this subpart. 

(e) No person is permitted to install or 

operate an affected wood heater except 

in a manner consistent with the 

instructions on its permanent label and 

in the owner’s manual pursuant to 

§ 60.536(f). 

(f) No person is permitted to operate 

an affected wood heater that was 

originally equipped with a catalytic 

combustor if the catalytic element is 

deactivated or removed. 

(g) No person is permitted to operate 

an affected wood heater that has been 

physically altered to exceed the 

tolerance limits of its certificate of 

compliance. 

(h) No person is permitted to alter, 

deface, or remove any permanent label 

required to be affixed pursuant to 

§ 60.536. 

(i) No certifying entity is permitted to 

certify its own certification test report. 

§ 60.539 What Petition for Review 

procedures apply to me? 

(a)(1) In any case where the 

Administrator— 

(i) Denies an application under 

§ 60.530(c) or § 60.533(f); 

(ii) Issues a notice of revocation of 

certification under § 60.533(l); 

(iii) Denies an application for 

laboratory accreditation under 

§ 60.535(a); or 

(iv) Issues a notice of revocation of 

laboratory accreditation under 

§ 60.535(b), the manufacturer or 

laboratory affected may submit to the 

EPA, a Petition for Review request 

under this section within 30 days 

following receipt of the required 

notification of the action in question. 

(2) In any case where the 

Administrator issues a notice of 

revocation under § 60.533(p), the 

manufacturer may submit to the EPA a 

Petition for Review request under this 

section with the time limits set out in 

§ 60.533(p)(4). 

(b) Any Petition for Review request 

must be in writing, must be signed by 

an authorized representative of the 

petitioning manufacturer or laboratory, 

and must include a statement and 

supporting documentation setting forth 

with particularity the petitioner’s 

objection to the Administrator’s 

determination or proposed 

determination. 

(c) Upon receipt of a Petition for 

Review under paragraph (a) of this 

section, the Administrator shall provide 

a written response within 45 days. 

§ 60.539a Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority to a state under 

section 111(c) of the Act, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (b) of this 

section must be retained by the 

Administrator and not transferred to a 

state. 

(b) Authorities that must not be 

delegated to states: 

(1) Section 60.531, Definitions; 

(2) Section 60.533, Compliance and 

certification; 

(3) Section 60.534, Test methods and 

procedures; and 

(4) Section 60.535, Laboratory 

accreditation. 

§ 60.539b What parts of the General 

Provisions do not apply to me? 

The following provisions of subpart A 

of part 60 do not apply to this subpart: 

(a) Section 60.7; 

(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and 

(g); and 

(c) Section 60.15(d). 

■ 4. Add subpart QQQQ to read as 

follows: 

Subpart QQQQ—Standards of Performance 

for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and 

Forced-Air Furnaces 

Sec. 

60.5472 Am I subject to this subpart? 

60.5473 What definitions must I know? 

60.5474 What standards and requirements 

must I meet and by when? 

60.5475 What compliance and certification 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

60.5476 What test methods and procedures 

must I use to determine compliance with 

the standards and requirements for 

certification? 

60.5477 What procedures must I use for 

laboratory accreditation? 

60.5478 What requirements must I meet for 

permanent labels and owner’s manuals? 

60.5479 What records must I keep and what 

reports must I submit? 

60.5480 What activities are prohibited 

under this subpart? 

60.5481 What Petition for Review 

procedures apply to me? 

60.5482 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

60.5483 What parts of the General 

Provisions do not apply to me? 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6384 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart QQQQ—Standards of 

Performance for New Residential 

Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air 

Furnaces 

§ 60.5472 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you operate, manufacture, sell, offer for 

sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to 

distribute, introduce, or deliver for 

introduction, into commerce in the 

United States, residential hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace 

manufactured on or after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(b) Each residential hydronic heater or 

forced-air furnace must comply with the 

provisions of this subpart unless 

exempted under paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(3) of this section. 

(1) Affected residential hydronic 

heaters or forced-air furnaces 

manufactured in the United States for 

export are exempt from the applicable 

emission limits of § 60.5474 and the 

requirements of § 60.5475. 

(2) Affected residential hydronic 

heaters or forced-air furnaces used for 

research and development purposes that 

are never offered for sale or sold and 

that are not used to provide heat are 

exempt from the applicable emission 

limits of § 60.5474 and the requirements 

of § 60.5475. No more than 12 affected 

residential hydronic heaters or forcedair furnaces manufactured per model 

line may be exempted for this purpose. 

(3) Appliances that do not burn wood 

or wood pellets (such as coal-only 

hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces 

that meet the definition in § 60.5473 or 

corn-only hydronic heaters or forced-air 

furnaces) are exempt from the 

applicable emission limits of § 60.5474 

and the requirements of § 60.5475. 

(c) The following are not affected 

residential hydronic heaters or forcedair furnaces and are not subject to this 

subpart: 

(1) Residential wood heaters subject 

to subpart AAA of this part. 

(2) Residential masonry heaters 

subject to subpart RRRR of this part. 

§ 60.5473 What definitions must I know? 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein have the same meaning 

given them in the Clean Air Act and 

subpart A of this part. 

Accredited test laboratory means a 

test laboratory that is accredited for 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace certification testing under 

§ 60.5477 and is an independent thirdparty test laboratory that is accredited 

by a nationally recognized accrediting 

entity under ISO–IEC Standard 17025 to 

perform testing using the test methods 

specified in § 60.5476 and approved by 

the EPA for conducting certification 

tests under this subpart. 

At retail means the sale by a 

commercial owner of a residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace to 

the ultimate purchaser. 

Central heater means a fuel-burning 

device designed to burn wood or wood 

pellet fuel that warms spaces other than 

the space where the device is located, 

by the distribution of air heated by the 

furnace through ducts or liquid heated 

in the device and distributed typically 

through pipes. Unless otherwise 

specified, these devices include 

residential forced-air furnaces and 

residential hydronic heaters. 

Certifying entity means an 

independent third party that is 

accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting entity under ISO–IEC 

Standard 17020 to perform 

certifications, inspections and audits 

under ISO–IEC Guide 17065 and 

approved by the EPA for conducting 

certifications, inspections and audits 

under this subpart. 

Coal-only hydronic heater or forcedair furnace means an enclosed, coalburning appliance capable of space 

heating or domestic water heating that 

has all of the following characteristics: 

(1) Installation instructions that state 

that the use of wood in the appliance, 

except for coal ignition purposes, is 

prohibited by law; and 

(2) The model is listed by a nationally 

recognized safety-testing laboratory for 

coal use only, except for coal ignition 

purposes. 

Commercial owner means any person 

who owns or controls a residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace in 

the course of the business of the 

manufacture, importation, distribution, 

or sale of the unit. 

Manufactured means completed and 

ready for shipment (whether or not 

packaged) for purposes of determining 

the date of manufacture. 

Manufacturer means any person who 

constructs or imports into the United 

States a residential hydronic heater or 

forced-air furnace. 

Model line means all residential 

hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces 

offered for sale by a single manufacturer 

that are similar in all material respects 

as defined in this section. 

Particulate matter (PM) means total 

particulate matter including PM10 and 

PM2.5.

Pellet fuel means refined and 

densified solid wood shaped into small 

pellets or briquettes that are uniform in 

size, shape, moisture, density and 

energy content. 

Representative residential hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace means an 

individual residential hydronic heater 

or forced-air furnace that is similar in all 

material respects as defined in this 

section to other residential hydronic 

heaters or forced-air furnaces within the 

model line it represents. 

Residential forced-air furnace means 

a fuel burning device designed to burn 

wood or wood pellet fuel that warms 

spaces other than the space where the 

furnace is located, by the distribution of 

air heated by the furnace through ducts. 

Residential hydronic heater means a 

fuel burning device designed to burn 

wood or wood pellet fuel for the 

purpose of heating building space and/ 

or water through the distribution, 

typically through pipes, of a fluid 

heated in the device, typically water or 

a water and antifreeze mixture. 

Sale means the transfer of ownership 

or control, except that a transfer of 

control of an affected residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace for 

research and development purposes 

within the scope of § 60.5472(b)(2) is 

not a sale. 

Seasoned wood means wood with a 

moisture content of 20 percent or less. 

Similar in all material respects means 

that the construction materials, exhaust 

and inlet air system, and other design 

features are within the allowed 

tolerances for components identified in 

§ 60.533(k). 

Valid certification test means a test 

that meets the following criteria: 

(1) The Administrator was notified 

about the test in accordance with 

§ 60.5476(f); 

(2) The test was conducted by an 

accredited test laboratory as defined in 

this section; 

(3) The test was conducted on a 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace similar in all material respects 

as defined in this section to other 

residential hydronic heaters or forcedair furnaces of the model line that is to 

be certified; and 

(4) The test was conducted in 

accordance with the test methods and 

procedures specified in § 60.5476. 

§ 60.5474 What standards and 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

(a) Particulate Matter Standards. 

Unless exempted under § 60.5472, no 

person is permitted to: 

(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], manufacture or sell at 

retail a residential hydronic heater 

unless it has been certified to meet the 

2015 particulate matter emission limits 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(2) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

manufacture or sell at retail a residential 

hydronic heater unless it has been 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6385 

certified to meet the 2020 particulate 

matter emission limit in paragraph (b)(2) 

of this section. 

(3) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], manufacture or sell at 

retail a residential forced-air furnace 

unless it has been certified to meet the 

2015 particulate matter emission limits 

in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

(4) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] 

manufacture or sell at retail a residential 

forced-air furnace unless it has been 

certified to meet the 2020 particulate 

matter emission limit in paragraph (b)(4) 

of this section. 

(b)(1) 2015 residential hydronic heater 

particulate matter emission limit: 0.32 

lb/million Btu (0.137 g/megajoule) heat 

output and 7.5 g/hr (0.017 lb/hr) as 

determined by the test methods and 

procedures in § 60.5476. 

(2) 2020 residential hydronic heater 

particulate matter emission limit: 0.06 

lb/million Btu (0.026 g/megajoule) heat 

output as determined by the test 

methods and procedures in § 60.5476. 

(3) 2015 forced-air furnace particulate 

matter emission limit: 0.93 lb/million 

Btu (0.40 g/megajoule) heat output and 

7.5 g/hr (0.017 lb/hr) as determined by 

the test methods and procedures in 

§ 60.5476. 

(4) 2020 forced-air furnace particulate 

matter emission limit: 0.06 lb/million 

Btu (0.026 g/megajoule) heat output as 

determined by the test methods and 

procedures in § 60.5476. 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) Pellet Fuel Requirements. 

Operators of outdoor residential 

hydronic heaters, indoor residential 

hydronic heaters, or residential forcedair furnaces that are certified to burn 

pellet fuels may only burn pellets that 

have been produced under a licensing 

agreement with the Pellet Fuels Institute 

or an equivalent organization approved 

by the EPA. The pellet fuel must meet 

the following minimum requirements: 

(1) Density: consistent hardness and 

energy content with a minimum density 

of 38 pounds/cubic foot; 

(2) Dimensions: maximum length of 

1.5 inches and diameter between 0.230 

and 0.285 inches; 

(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal 

to 1 percent; 

(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300 

parts per million by weight; and 

(5) Ash content: no more than 2 

percent. 

(6) A quality assurance process 

licensed by the Pellet Fuel Institute or 

equivalent organization approved by 

EPA. 

(f) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person 

is permitted to burn any of the following 

materials in an outdoor residential 

hydronic heater, indoor residential 

hydronic heater, or residential forced-air 

furnace: 

(1) Residential or commercial garbage; 

(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste; 

(3) Materials containing rubber, 

including tires; 

(4) Materials containing plastic; 

(5) Waste petroleum products, paints 

or paint thinners, or asphalt products; 

(6) Materials containing asbestos; 

(7) Construction or demolition debris; 

(8) Paper products; cardboard, 

plywood or particleboard. The 

prohibition against burning these 

materials does not prohibit the use of 

fire starters made from paper, 

cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar 

substances for the purpose of starting a 

fire in an affected residential hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace; 

(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated 

lumber; 

(10) Manure or animal remains; 

(11) Salt water driftwood or other or 

other previously salt water saturated 

materials; 

(12) Unseasoned wood; or 

(13) Any materials that were not 

included in the certification tests for the 

subject heater or furnace. 

(g) Owner’s Manual. A person must 

not operate an outdoor residential 

hydronic heater, indoor residential 

hydronic heater, or residential forced-air 

furnace in a manner inconsistent with 

the owner’s manual. The owner’s 

manual must clearly specify that 

operation in a manner inconsistent with 

the owner’s manual would violate the 

warranty. 

§ 60.5475 What compliance and 

certification requirements must I meet and 

by when? 

(a)(1) Certification Requirement. Each 

affected residential hydronic heater and 

forced-air furnace must be certified to be 

in compliance with the applicable 

emission standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. For each 

model line manufactured or sold by a 

single entity, e.g., company or 

manufacturer, compliance with 

applicable emission standards of 

§ 60.5474(b) must be determined based 

on testing of representative affected 

residential hydronic heaters and forcedair furnaces within the model line. If 

one entity licenses a model line to 

another entity, each entity’s model line 

must be certified. If a entity changes the 

name of the entity or the name of the 

model, the manufacturer must apply for 

a new certification. 

(2) The manufacturer of each model 

line must submit the information 

required in § 60.533(b) and follow the 

certification procedure specified in 

§ 60.533(f) except that, for the purposes 

of this paragraph, the references in 

§ 60.533(f) to the ‘‘emission standards’’ 

in § 60.532 must be understood to refer 

to the emission limits in § 60.5474(b). 

(b) Waiver from Submitting Test 

Results. An applicant for certification 

may apply for a potential waiver of the 

requirements to submit the results of a 

certification test pursuant to the 

certification procedures specified in 

§ 60.533(f) according to the procedure 

specified in § 60.533(g)(1). 

(c) Certification Period. Unless 

revoked sooner by the Administrator, a 

certificate of compliance will be valid 5 

years from the date of issuance. 

(d) Renewal of Certification. (1) Any 

manufacturer of an affected residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace 

may apply to the Administrator for 

potential renewal of a certificate of 

compliance by submitting the material 

specified in § 60.533(b) and following 

the procedures specified in § 60.533(f). 

(2) The certificate must be recertified 

or renewed every 5 years or the 

manufacture may choose to no longer 

manufacture or sell that model. If the 

manufacturer chooses to no longer 

manufacture or sell that model, then the 

manufacturer must submit a statement 

to the EPA for that model. A 

manufacturer may apply for potential 

renewal of their certificate by 

submitting certification information in 

accordance with § 60.533(b) or by 

affirming in writing that the wood 

heater has been subject to no changes 

that would impact emissions and 

request a potential waiver from 

certification testing. 

(3) If the Administrator grants or 

waives certification testing under 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the 

Administrator will give written notice to 

the manufacturer setting forth the basis 

for the determination and issue a 

certification renewal. 

(4) If the Administrator denies the 

request for a renewal of certification, the 

Administrator will give written notice to 

the manufacturer setting forth the basis 

for the determination. 

(e) Recertification. The procedure 

specified in § 60.533(k) must be used to 

determine when a product line must be 

recertified. 

(f) Criteria for Revocation of 

Certification. (1) The Administrator may 

revoke certification of a product line if 

it is determined that the residential 

hydronic heaters or forced-air furnaces 

being manufactured or sold in that 

model line do not comply with the 

requirements of this subpart. Such a 

determination will be based on all 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6386 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

available evidence, including but not 

limited to: 

(i) Test data from retesting of the 

original unit on which the certification 

was conducted or a similar unit; 

(ii) A finding that the certification test 

was not valid. The finding will be based 

on problems or irregularities with the 

certification test or its documentation, 

but may be supplemented by other 

information; 

(iii) A finding that the labeling of the 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace model line or the owner’s 

manual or marketing information does 

not comply with the requirements of 

§ 60.5478; 

(iv) Failure by the manufacturer to 

comply with the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of 

§ 60.5479; 

(v) Physical examination showing that 

a significant percentage (as defined in 

the quality assurance plan, but no larger 

than 1 percent) of production units 

inspected is not similar in all material 

respects as defined in this subpart to the 

representative affected hydronic heater 

or forced-air furnace submitted for 

testing; or 

(vi) Failure of the manufacturer to 

conduct a quality assurance program in 

conformity with paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

(2) Revocation of certification under 

this paragraph will not take effect until 

the manufacturer concerned has been 

given written notice by the 

Administrator setting forth the basis for 

the proposed determination and an 

opportunity to request a review under 

§ 60.5481. 

(g) Quality Assurance Program. For 

each certified model line, the 

manufacturer must conduct a quality 

assurance program according to the 

requirements of § 60.533(m). 

(h) EPA Compliance Audit Testing. 

The Administrator will conduct 

compliance audit testing according to 

the requirements of § 60.533(n). For the 

purposes of this paragraph, references in 

§ 60.533(n) to § § 60.532 through 60.535 

must be understood to refer to the 

comparable paragraphs in §§ 60.5474 

through 60.5477 and the associated test 

methods specified in this subpart. 

§ 60.5476 What test methods and 

procedures must I use to determine 

compliance with the standards and 

requirements for certification? 

Test methods and procedures 

specified in this section or in appendix 

A of this part, except as provided under 

§ 60.8(b), must be used to determine 

compliance with the standards and 

requirements for certification under 

§§ 60.5474 and 60.5475 as follows: 

(a)(1) Method 28 WHH must be used 

to measure the heat output (million Btu/ 

hr) of outdoor and indoor residential 

hydronic heaters. 

(2) If the model is subject to the 2015 

particulate matter standards specified in 

§ 60.5474(a)(1) and is equipped with an 

external heat storage unit, you must 

conduct testing according to paragraph 

§ 60.5476(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

You have the option of submitting the 

test results of either (a)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section to the Administrator as 

specified under § 60.5479 for 

certification compliance. 

(i) Conduct testing using crib wood as 

specified in Method 28 WHH. The heat 

input and heat output measurements 

must be performed according to ASTM 

method E2618–13 entitled ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Determining Particulate 

Matter Emissions and Heating of 

Outdoor Solid Fuel-fired Hydronic 

Heating Appliances.’’ Testing conducted 

with continuously fed biomass as the 

fuel(s) must be conducted according to 

the relevant section of the ASTM 

method. 

(ii) Conduct testing using cord wood 

as specified in ‘‘A Test Method for 

Certification of Cord Wood-Fired 

Hydronic Heating Appliances with 

Partial Thermal Storage: Measurement 

of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Emissions and Heating 

Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic 

Heating Appliances with Partial 

Thermal Storage.’’ 

(3) If the model is subject to the 2020 

particulate matter standards specified in 

§ 60.5474(a)(2) and is equipped with an 

external partial heat storage unit, you 

must conduct cord wood testing 

according to the test methods and 

procedures of ‘‘A Test Method for 

Certification of Cord Wood-Fired 

Hydronic Heating Appliances with 

Partial Thermal Storage: Measurement 

of Particulate Matter (PM) and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Emissions and Heating 

Efficiency of Wood-Fired Hydronic 

Heating Appliances with Partial 

Thermal Storage.’’ 

(b) Method 28 WHH in conjunction 

with ASTM E2515–10 must be used to 

measure the particulate matter emission 

rate (lb/million Btu heat output) of 

outdoor and indoor residential hydronic 

heaters, except that for the 2020 

standards, you should first test Burn 

Rate Categories 1 and 4 and then test 2 

more times for whichever burn rate 

category is worse on a lb/million BTU 

heat output basis and report the results 

separately per burn rate category. 

(c) Canadian Standards 

Administration (CSA) Method B415.1– 

10 must be used to measure the heat 

output (million Btu/hr) and particulate 

matter emission rate (lb/million Btu 

heat output) of forced-air furnaces, 

except that for the 2020 standards, you 

should first test Burn Rate Categories 1 

and 4 and then test 2 more times for 

whichever burn rate category is worse 

on a lb/million BTU heat output basis 

and report the results separately per 

burn rate category. 

(d) CSA Method B415.1–10, section 

13.7, must be used to measure the 

thermal efficiency of outdoor and 

indoor residential hydronic heaters. 

(e) [Reserved] 

(f) The manufacturer of an affected 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace must notify the Administrator of 

the date that certification testing is to 

begin, by email, to Wood Heater NSPS 

Compliance Program at www.epa.gov/

Wood_Heater_NSPS_Compliance_

Program. This notice must be at least 30 

days before the start of testing. The 

notification of testing must include the 

manufacturer’s name and address, the 

accredited test laboratory’s name and 

address, certifying entity name, the 

model name and number (or, if 

unavailable, some other way to 

distinguish between models), and the 

dates of testing. 

(g) The accredited test laboratory must 

allow the manufacturer, the EPA and 

delegated states to observe certification 

testing. However, manufacturers must 

not involve themselves in the conduct 

of the test after the pretest burn (as 

defined by EPA Method 28 WHH) has 

begun. Communications between the 

manufacturer and laboratory or 

certifying entity personnel regarding 

operation of the hydronic heater must 

be limited to written communications 

transmitted prior to the first pretest burn 

of the certification series. Written 

communications between the 

manufacturer and laboratory personnel 

may be exchanged during the 

certification test only if deviations from 

the test procedures are observed that 

constitute improper conduct of the test. 

All communications must be included 

in the test documentation required to be 

submitted pursuant to § 60.533(b)(3) and 

must be consistent with instructions 

provided in the owner’s manual 

required under § 60.5478(f), except to 

the extent that they address details of 

the certification tests that would not be 

relevant to owners. 

§ 60.5477 What procedures must I use for 

laboratory accreditation? 

The accreditation procedure specified 

in § 60.535 must be used to certify test 

laboratories under this subpart. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6387 

§ 60.5478 What requirements must I meet 

for permanent labels and owner’s manuals? 

(a) Permanent Label Requirements. 

(1) Each affected residential hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace 

manufactured or sold on or after the 

date the applicable standards come into 

effect as specified in § 60.5474, must 

have a permanent label affixed to it that 

meets the requirements of this section. 

(2) The permanent label must contain 

the following information: 

(i) Month and year of manufacture of 

the individual unit; 

(ii) Model name or number; and 

(iii) Serial number. 

(3) The permanent label must: 

(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or 

accessible location in such a manner 

that it can be easily viewed before and 

after the appliance is installed; 

(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm 

wide (3 1/2 inches long and 2 inches 

wide); 

(iii) Be made of a material expected to 

last the lifetime of the residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace; 

(iv) Present required information in a 

manner so that it is likely to remain 

legible for the lifetime of the residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace; 

and 

(v) Be affixed in such a manner that 

it cannot be removed without damage to 

the label. 

(4) The permanent label may be 

combined with any other label, as long 

as the required information is displayed, 

the integrity of the permanent label is 

not compromised, and the requirements 

of § 60.5478(a)(3) are still met. 

(b) If the residential hydronic heater 

or forced-air furnace belongs to a model 

line certified under § 60.5475, and it has 

been found to meet the applicable 

emission limits or tolerances through 

quality assurance testing, one of the 

following statements, as appropriate, 

must appear on the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Certified to comply with 

2015 particulate emission standards. 

or 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Certified to comply with 

2020 particulate emission standards. 

(c) The label under paragraph (b) of 

this section must also contain the 

following statement on the permanent 

label: 

‘‘This appliance needs periodic 

inspection and repair for proper 

operation. Consult owner’s manual for 

further information. It is against the law 

to operate this appliance in a manner 

inconsistent with operating instructions 

in the owner’s manual.’’ 

(d) Any label statement under 

paragraph (b) of this section constitutes 

a representation by the manufacturer as 

to any residential hydronic heater or 

forced-air furnace that bears it: 

(1) That the certification of 

compliance was in effect at the time the 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace left the possession of the 

manufacturer; 

(2) That the manufacturer was, at the 

time the label was affixed, conducting a 

quality assurance program in conformity 

with the manufacturer’s quality 

assurance program; and 

(3) That as to any residential hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace individually 

tested for emissions by the manufacturer 

under § 60.5475(f), it met the applicable 

emission limit. 

(e)(1) If an affected residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace is 

manufactured in the United States for 

export as provided in § 60.5472(b)(1), 

the following statement must appear on 

the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Export appliance. May not 

be operated in the United States. 

(2) If an affected residential hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace is 

manufactured for use for research and 

development purposes as provided in 

§ 60.5472(b)(2), the following statement 

must appear on the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Not certified. Research 

Appliance. Not approved for sale. 

(3) If an affected residential hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace is a non 

wood-burning hydronic heater or 

forced-air furnace exclusively as 

provided in § 60.5472(b)(3) the 

following statement must appear on the 

permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY This appliance is not 

certified for wood burning. Use of any 

wood fuel is a violation of federal law. 

(f) Owner’s Manual. (1) Each affected 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace offered for sale by a commercial 

owner must be accompanied by an 

owner’s manual that must contain the 

information listed in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section (pertaining to installation), 

and paragraph (f)(3) of this section 

(pertaining to operation and 

maintenance). Such information must 

be adequate to enable consumers to 

achieve optimal emissions performance. 

Such information must be consistent 

with the operating instructions provided 

by the manufacturer to the accredited 

test laboratory for operating the 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace during certification testing, 

except for details of the certification test 

that would not be relevant to the 

ultimate purchaser. The commercial 

owner must also make current and 

historical owner’s manuals available on 

the company Web site. 

(2) Installation information: 

Requirements for achieving proper draft. 

(3) Operation and maintenance 

information: 

(i) Fuel loading procedures, 

recommendations on fuel selection, and 

warnings on what fuels not to use, such 

as treated wood, colored paper, 

cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage. 

(ii) Fire starting procedures 

(iii) Proper use of air controls 

(iv) Ash removal procedures 

(v) Instructions for replacement of 

gaskets and other parts that are critical 

to the emissions performance of the unit 

and other maintenance and repair 

instructions 

(vi) The following statement: ‘‘This 

wood heating appliance needs periodic 

inspection and repair for proper 

operation. It is against federal law to 

operate this wood heating appliance in 

a manner inconsistent with operating 

instructions in the manual.’’ 

(4) Any manufacturer using the EPA 

model language contained in appendix 

I of this part to satisfy any requirement 

of this paragraph (f) will be considered 

to be in compliance with that 

requirement, provided that the 

particular model language is printed in 

full, with only such changes as are 

necessary to ensure accuracy for the 

particular model line. 

(5) Residential hydronic heaters and 

forced-air furnaces that are affected by 

this subpart but have been operated by 

a noncommercial owner are not subject 

to paragraph (f) of this section when 

offered for resale. 

§ 60.5479 What records must I keep and 

what reports must I submit? 

(a) Each manufacturer who holds a 

certificate of compliance pursuant to 

§ 60.5475(a)(2) for a model line must 

maintain records containing the 

following information with respect to 

that model line. 

(1) All documentation pertaining to 

the certification test used to obtain 

certification, including the full test 

report and raw data sheets, laboratory 

technician notes, calculations, and the 

test results for all test runs. 

(2) Results of the quality assurance 

program inspections required pursuant 

to § 60.5475(g). 

(3) For emissions tests conducted 

pursuant to the quality assurance 

program required by § 60.5475(g), all 

test reports, data sheets, laboratory 

technician notes, calculations, and test 

results for all test runs, the corrective 

actions taken, if any, and any follow-up 

actions such as additional testing. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6388 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Each accredited test laboratory 

must maintain records consisting of all 

documentation pertaining to each 

certification test and audit test, 

including the full test report and raw 

data sheets, laboratory technician notes, 

calculations, and the test results for all 

test runs. Each accredited test laboratory 

must submit initial and biennial 

proficiency test results to the 

Administrator. 

(c) Each manufacturer must retain 

each residential hydronic heater and 

forced-air furnace upon which 

certification tests were performed and 

certification granted under 

§ 60.5475(a)(2) at the manufacturer’s 

facility for as long as the model line is 

manufactured. Each heater or furnace 

must remain sealed and unaltered. Any 

such residential hydronic heater or 

forced-air furnace must be made 

available upon request to the 

Administrator for inspection and 

testing. 

(d) Each manufacturer of an affected 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace certified pursuant to 

§ 60.5475(a)(2) must submit a report to 

the Administrator every 2 years 

following issuance of a certificate of 

compliance for each model line. This 

report must include the sales for each 

model by state and certify that no 

changes in the design or manufacture of 

the model line have been made that 

require recertification pursuant to 

§ 60.5475(e). 

(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all 

records required under this section must 

be maintained by the manufacturer, 

commercial owner of the affected 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace, accredited test laboratory or 

certifying entity for a period of no less 

than 5 years. 

(2) Unless otherwise specified, all 

reports to the Administrator required 

under this subpart must be made to: 

Wood Heater NSPS Compliance 

Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_

NSPS_Compliance_Program. 

(f) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test, each 

manufacturer or accredited test 

laboratory or certifying entity must 

submit performance test data 

electronically to the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT) (http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html). 

Only data collected using test methods 

compatible with ERT are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted 

electronically to EPA’s CDX. 

Manufacturers may submit compliance 

reports to the EPA via regular mail at 

the address listed below if the test 

methods they use are not compatible 

with ERT or if ERT is not available to 

accept reports at the time the final rule 

is published. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a completed ERT file, 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives), to the EPA and the same ERT 

file, with the CBI omitted, to the EPA 

via CDX as described earlier in this 

paragraph. The compact disk must be 

clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 

Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD 

C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, 

NC 27703. Emission data and all 

information necessary to determine 

compliance, except sensitive 

engineering drawings and sensitive 

detailed material specifications, may not 

be claimed as CBI. 

§ 60.5480 What activities are prohibited 

under this subpart? 

(a) No person is permitted to operate 

an affected residential hydronic heater 

or forced-air furnace that does not have 

affixed to it a permanent label pursuant 

to § 60.5478(b) or (c). 

(b)(1) No commercial owner is 

permitted to advertise for sale, offer for 

sale, or sell an affected residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace 

that does not have affixed to it a 

permanent label pursuant to 

§ 60.5478(b) or (e)(3). 

(2) No commercial owner is permitted 

to advertise for sale, offer for sale, or sell 

an affected residential hydronic heater 

or forced-air furnace labeled under 

§ 60.5478(e)(1) except for export. 

(c)(1) No commercial owner is 

permitted to advertise for sale, offer for 

sale, or sell an affected residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace 

permanently labeled under § 60.5478(b) 

or (e)(3) unless: 

(i) The affected appliance has been 

certified to comply with 2020 

particulate emission standards. This 

prohibition does not apply to affected 

residential hydronic heaters or forcedair furnaces regulated under this subpart 

that have been previously owned and 

operated by a noncommercial owner; 

and 

(ii) The commercial owner provides 

any purchaser or transferee with an 

owner’s manual that meets the 

requirements of § 60.5478(f), a copy of 

the warranty and a moisture meter. 

(2) A commercial owner other than a 

manufacturer complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section if the commercial owner: 

(i) Receives the required 

documentation from the manufacturer 

or a previous commercial owner; and 

(ii) Provides that documentation 

unaltered to any person to whom the 

residential hydronic heater or forced-air 

furnace that it covers is sold or 

transferred. 

(d)(1) In any case in which the 

Administrator revokes a certificate of 

compliance either for the knowing 

submission of false or inaccurate 

information or other fraudulent acts, or 

based on a finding under 

§ 60.5475(e)(1)(ii) that the certification 

test was not valid, the Administrator 

may give notice of that revocation and 

the grounds for it to all commercial 

owners. 

(2) On and after the date of receipt of 

the notice given under paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section, no commercial owner is 

permitted to sell any residential 

hydronic heater or forced-air furnace 

covered by the revoked certificate (other 

than to the manufacturer) unless the 

model line has been recertified in 

accordance with this subpart. 

(e) No person is permitted to install or 

operate an affected residential hydronic 

heater or forced-air furnace except in a 

manner consistent with the instructions 

on its permanent label and in the 

owner’s manual pursuant to 

§ 60.5478(f), including only using fuels 

for which the unit is certified. 

(f) No person is permitted to operate 

an affected residential hydronic heater 

or forced-air furnace that has been 

physically altered to exceed the 

tolerance limits of its certificate of 

compliance. 

(g) No person is permitted to alter, 

deface, or remove any permanent label 

required to be affixed pursuant to 

§ 60.5478. 

(h) No certifying entity is permitted to 

certify its own certification test report. 

§ 60.5481 What Petition for Review 

procedures apply to me? 

(a) In any case where the 

Administrator: 

(1) Denies an application under 

§ 60.5475(a)(2); 

(2) Issues a notice of revocation of 

certification pursuant to § 60.5475(e); 

(3) Denies an application for 

laboratory accreditation pursuant to 

§ 60.5477; or 

(4) Issues a notice of revocation of 

laboratory accreditation pursuant to 

§ 60.5477, the manufacturer or 

laboratory affected may submit to the 

EPA a request for review under this 

section pursuant to the procedures 

specified in § 60.539 within 30 days 

following receipt of the required 

notification of the action in question. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6389 

(b) In any case where the 

Administrator issues a notice of 

revocation pursuant to § 60.5475(g), the 

manufacturer may submit to the EPA a 

Petition for Review request under this 

section with the time limits set out in 

§ 60.533(p)(4). 

§ 60.5482 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority to a state under 

section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, the 

authorities contained in paragraph (b) of 

this section must be retained by the 

Administrator and not transferred to a 

state. 

(b) Authorities that must not be 

delegated to states: 

(1) Section 60.5473, Definitions; 

(2) Section 60.5475, Compliance and 

certification; 

(3) Section 60.5476, Test methods and 

procedures; and 

(4) Section 60.5477, Laboratory 

accreditation. 

§ 60.5483 What parts of the General 

Provisions do not apply to me? 

The following provisions of subpart A 

of part 60 do not apply to this subpart: 

(a) Section 60.7; 

(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and 

(g); and 

(c) Section 60.15(d). 

■ 5. Add subpart RRRR to read as 

follows: 

Subpart RRRR—Standards of Performance 

for New Residential Masonry Heaters 

Sec. 

60.5484 Am I subject to this subpart? 

60.5485 What definitions must I know? 

60.5486 What standards and requirements 

must I meet and by when? 

60.5487 What compliance and certification 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

60.5488 What test methods and procedures 

must I use to determine compliance with 

the standards and requirements for 

certification? 

60.5489 What procedures must I use for 

laboratory accreditation? 

60.5490 What requirements must I meet for 

permanent labels and owner’s manuals? 

60.5491 What records must I keep and what 

reports must I submit? 

60.5492 What activities are prohibited 

under this subpart? 

60.5493 What Petition for Review 

procedures apply to me? 

60.5494 Who implements and enforces this 

subpart? 

60.5495 What parts of the General 

Provisions do not apply to me? 

Subpart RRRR—Standards of 

Performance for New Residential 

Masonry Heaters 

§ 60.5484 Am I subject to this subpart? 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you operate, manufacture, sell, offer for 

sale, import for sale, distribute, offer to 

distribute, introduce, or deliver for 

introduction, into commerce in the 

United States, a residential masonry 

heater manufactured on or after 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. 

(b) Each affected masonry heater must 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart unless exempted under 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(1) Affected masonry heaters 

manufactured in the United States for 

export are exempt from the applicable 

emission limits of § 60.5486 and the 

requirements of § 60.5487. 

(2) Affected masonry heaters used for 

research and development purposes that 

are never offered for sale or sold and 

that are not used to provide heat are 

exempt from the applicable emission 

limits of § 60.5486 and the requirements 

of § 60.5487. No more than six affected 

masonry heaters manufactured per 

model line may be exempted for this 

purpose. 

(3) Affected masonry heaters that do 

not burn wood or wood pellets (such as 

coal-only heaters that meet the 

definition in § 60.5485 or corn-only 

heaters) are exempt from the applicable 

emission limits of § 60.5486 and the 

requirements of § 60.5487. 

(c) The following are not affected 

masonry heaters and are not subject to 

this subpart: 

(1) Residential wood heaters subject 

to subpart AAA of this part. 

(2) Residential hydronic heaters and 

forced-air furnaces subject to subpart 

QQQQ of this part. 

§ 60.5485 What definitions must I know? 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein have the same meaning 

given them in the Clean Air Act and 

subpart A of this part. 

Accredited test laboratory means a 

test laboratory that is accredited for 

masonry heater certification testing 

under § 60.5489 or is an independent 

third party test laboratory that is 

accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting entity under ISO–IEC 

Standard 17025 to perform testing using 

the test methods specified in § 60.5488 

and approved by the EPA for 

conducting certification tests under this 

subpart. 

At retail means the sale by a 

commercial owner of a residential 

masonry heater to the ultimate 

purchaser. 

Certifying entity means an 

independent third party that is 

accredited by a nationally recognized 

accrediting entity under ISO–IEC 

Standard 17020 to perform certifications 

and inspections under ISO–IEC Guide 

17065 and approved by the EPA for 

conducting certifications, inspections 

and audits under this subpart. 

Coal-only heater means an enclosed, 

coal-burning appliance capable of space 

heating or domestic water heating 

which has all of the following 

characteristics: 

(1) Installation instructions that state 

that the use of wood in the heater, 

except for coal ignition purposes, is 

prohibited by law; and 

(2) The model is listed by a nationally 

recognized safety-testing laboratory for 

coal use only, except for coal ignition 

purposes. 

Commercial owner means any person 

who owns or controls a residential 

masonry heater in the course of the 

business of the manufacture, 

importation, distribution, or sale of the 

unit. 

Manufactured means completed and 

ready for shipment (whether or not 

packaged) or installed in a residence in 

the case of custom-built masonry 

heaters for purposes of determining the 

date of manufacture. 

Manufacturer means any person who 

constructs or imports into the United 

States a residential masonry heater. 

Model line means all residential 

masonry heaters offered for sale by a 

single manufacturer that are similar in 

all material respects as defined in this 

section. 

Particulate matter (PM) means total 

particulate matter including PM10 and 

PM2.5.

Pellet fuel means refined and 

densified wood shaped into small 

pellets or briquettes that are uniform in 

size, shape, moisture, density and 

energy content. 

Representative affected masonry 

heater means an individual residential 

masonry heater that is similar in all 

material respects as defined in this 

section to other residential masonry 

heaters within the model line it 

represents. 

Residential masonry heater means a 

factory-built or site-built wood-burning 

device that has the following 

characteristics: 

(1) The device has a core constructed 

primarily of manufacturer-built, 

supplied, or specified masonry 

materials (such as stone, cemented 

aggregate, clay, tile, or other noncombustible, non-metallic solid 

materials) that weighs at least 1700 

pounds; 

(2) The firebox effluent of the 

masonry heater travels horizontally and/ 

or downward through one or more heat 

absorbing masonry duct(s) for a distance 

at least the length of the largest single 

internal firebox dimension before 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6390 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

leaving the masonry heater. These 

parameters are determined as follows: 

(i) Horizontal or downward travel 

distance is defined as the net horizontal 

and/or downward internal duct length, 

measured from the top of the uppermost 

firebox door opening(s) to the exit of the 

masonry heater as traveled by any 

effluent on a single pathway through 

duct channel(s) within the heater (or 

average of net internal duct lengths for 

multiple pathways of different lengths, 

if applicable). Net internal duct length 

is measured from the center of the 

internal side or top surface of a duct, 

horizontally or vertically to the center of 

the opposite side or the bottom surface 

of the same duct, and summed for 

multiple ducts or directions on a single 

pathway, if applicable. For duct 

channel(s) traversing horizontal angles 

of less than ninety degrees from vertical, 

only the net actual horizontal distance 

traveled is included in the total duct 

length; and 

(ii) The largest single internal firebox 

dimensions is defined as the longest of 

either the length or the width of the 

firebox hearth and the height of the 

firebox, measured from the hearth to the 

top of the uppermost firebox door 

opening(s); 

(3) The device has one or more aircontrolling doors for fuel-loading that 

are designed to be closed during the 

combustion of fuel loads, and that 

control the entry of combustion air 

(beyond simple spark arresting screens) 

to one or more inlets as prescribed by 

the masonry heater manufacturer; and 

(4) The device is assembled in 

conformance with Underwriters 

Laboratories’ and/or manufacturer’s 

specifications for its assembly and, if 

the core is constructed with a 

substantial portion of materials not 

supplied by the manufacturer, is 

certified by a representative of the 

manufacturer to be substantially in 

conformance with those specifications. 

Sale means the transfer of ownership 

or control, except that a transfer of 

control of an affected heater for research 

and development purposes within the 

scope of § 60.5484(b)(2) is not a sale. 

Seasoned wood means wood with a 

moisture content of 20 percent or less. 

Similar in all material respects means 

that the construction materials, exhaust 

and inlet air system, and other design 

features are within the allowed 

tolerances for components identified in 

§ 60.533(k). 

Valid certification test means a test 

that meets the following criteria: 

(1) The Administrator was notified 

about the test in accordance with 

§ 60.5488(d) 

(2) The test was conducted by an 

accredited test laboratory as defined in 

this section; 

(3) The test was conducted on a 

residential masonry heater similar in all 

material respects as defined in this 

section to other residential masonry 

heaters of the model line that is to be 

certified; and 

(4) The test was conducted in 

accordance with the test methods and 

procedures specified in § 60.5488. 

§ 60.5486 What standards and 

requirements must I meet and by when? 

(a) Particulate Matter Standard. 

Unless exempted under § 60.5484: 

(1) On or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], no person is permitted to 

manufacture and, on or after [6 

MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE], no person is permitted to 

sell at retail a residential masonry heater 

unless the heater has been certified to 

meet the particulate matter emission 

limit in paragraph (b) of this section or 

the manufacturer is a small 

manufacturer as defined in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

(2) On or after [5 YEARS AFTER 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], no 

small manufacturer is permitted to 

manufacture a residential masonry 

heater unless it has been certified to 

meet the particulate matter emission 

limit in paragraph (b) of this section. For 

the purposes of this subpart, a small 

manufacturer is defined as a 

manufacturer that constructs less than 

15 residential masonry heaters per year. 

A small manufacturer may elect to 

comply with the emission limit in 

paragraph (b) of this section earlier than 

specified in this paragraph. 

(b) Residential masonry heater 

particulate matter emission limit: 0.32 

lb/million Btu (0.137 g/megajoule) heat 

output as determined by the test 

methods and procedures in § 60.5488. 

(c) Pellet Fuel Requirements. 

Operators of masonry heaters that are 

certified to burn pellet fuels may only 

burn pellets that have been produced 

under a licensing agreement with the 

Pellet Fuel Institute or an equivalent 

organization approved by EPA. The 

pellet fuel must meet the following 

minimum requirements: 

(1) Density: consistent hardness and 

energy content with a minimum density 

of 38 pounds/cubic foot; 

(2) Dimensions: maximum length of 

1.5 inches and diameter between 0.230 

and 0.285 inches; 

(3) Inorganic fines: less than or equal 

to 1 percent; 

(4) Chlorides: less than or equal to 300 

parts per million by weight; and 

(5) Ash content: no more than 2 

percent. 

(6) A quality assurance process 

licensed by the Pellet Fuel Institute or 

equivalent organization approved by the 

EPA. 

(d) Prohibited Fuel Types. No person 

is permitted to burn any of the following 

materials in a residential masonry 

heater: 

(1) Residential or commercial garbage; 

(2) Lawn clippings or yard waste; 

(3) Materials containing rubber, 

including tires; 

(4) Materials containing plastic; 

(5) Waste petroleum products, paints 

or paint thinners, or asphalt products; 

(6) Materials containing asbestos; 

(7) Construction or demolition debris; 

(8) Paper products, cardboard, 

plywood, or particleboard. The 

prohibition against burning these 

materials does not prohibit the use of 

fire starters made from paper, 

cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar 

substances for the purpose of starting a 

fire in an affected masonry heater; 

(9) Railroad ties or pressure treated 

wood; 

(10) Manure or animal remains; or 

(11) Salt water driftwood or other 

previously salt water saturated 

materials. 

(e) Owner’s Manual. A person must 

not operate a residential masonry heater 

in a manner inconsistent with the 

owner’s manual. The owner’s manual 

must clearly specify that operation in a 

manner inconsistent with the owner’s 

manual would violate the warranty. 

§ 60.5487 What compliance and 

certification requirements must I meet and 

by when? 

(a)(1) Certification Requirement. Each 

affected residential masonry heater must 

be certified to be in compliance with the 

applicable emission standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. For each 

model line manufactured or sold by a 

single entity, e.g., company or 

manufacturer, compliance with 

applicable emission standards of 

§ 60.5486(b) must be determined based 

on testing of representative affected 

appliances within the model line. If one 

entity licenses a model line to another 

entity, each entity’s model line must be 

certified. If an entity changes the name 

of the entity or the name of the model, 

the manufacturer must apply for a new 

certification. 

(2) The manufacturer of each model 

line must submit to the EPA the 

information required in paragraph (b) of 

this section and follow the certification 

procedure specified in § 60.533(f) except 

that, for the purposes of this paragraph, 

the reference in § 60.533(f) to the 

emission limits in § 60.532 must be 

understood to refer to the emission 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6391 

limits in § 60.5486(b) and the associated 

test methods are those specified in this 

subpart. 

(3) As an alternative to the 

certification process described in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an 

applicant may choose to submit a 

computer model simulation program for 

review and certification by the 

certifying entity and subsequent review 

and approval by the Administrator for 

use as a surrogate for emissions testing. 

The Administrator will post the 

certified model on the EPA Burnwise 

Web site. 

(b) Waiver from Submitting Test 

Results. 

(1) An applicant for certification may 

apply for a potential waiver of the 

requirements to submit the results of a 

certification test pursuant to the 

certification procedures specified in 

§ 60.533(f) according to the procedure 

specified in § 60.533(g)(1). 

(2) Alternatively, an applicant may 

submit results using a validated 

computer model simulation program 

that demonstrates the masonry heater 

design meets the emission limit in 

§ 60.5486(b). 

(c) Certification Period. 

(1) Unless revoked sooner by the 

Administrator, a certificate of 

compliance will be valid for 5 years 

from the date of issuance. 

(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a 

small manufacturer as defined in 

§ 60.5486(a)(2) and the model was 

certified using the procedure defined in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the 

certificate of compliance will be valid 

for the life of the model line unless it 

is revoked by the Administrator. 

(d) Renewal of Certification. 

(1) Any manufacturer of an affected 

masonry heater may apply to the 

Administrator for potential renewal of a 

certificate of compliance by submitting 

the material specified in § 60.533(b) and 

following the process specified in 

§ 60.533(f). 

(2) A certificate issued pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be 

recertified or renewed every 5 years or 

the manufacture may choose to no 

longer manufacture or sell that model. If 

the manufacturer chooses to no longer 

manufacture or sell that model, then the 

manufacturer must submit a statement 

to EPA for that model. A manufacturer 

may apply to the Administrator for 

potential renewal of their certificate by 

submitting certification information in 

accordance with § 60.533(b) or by 

affirming in writing that the wood 

heater has been subject to no changes 

that would impact emissions and 

request a potential waiver from 

certification testing. 

(3) If the Administrator waives 

certification testing under paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section, the Administrator 

will give written notice to the 

manufacturer setting forth the basis for 

the determination and issue a 

certification. 

(4) If the Administrator denies the 

request, the Administrator will give 

written notice to the manufacturer 

setting forth the basis for the 

determination. 

(e) Recertification. 

(1) The procedure specified in 

§ 60.533(k) must be used to determine 

when a model line must be recertified. 

(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a 

small manufacturer as defined in 

§ 60.5486(a)(2) and the model line was 

certified using the procedure defined in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the 

recertification provisions of paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section do not apply. 

(f) Criteria for Revocation of 

Certification. 

(1) The Administrator may revoke 

certification of a model line if it is 

determined that the residential masonry 

heaters produced in that model line do 

not comply with the requirements of 

this subpart. Such a determination will 

be based on all available evidence, 

including but not limited to: 

(i) Test data from retesting of the 

original unit on which the certification 

was conducted or a similar unit; 

(ii) A finding that the certification test 

or model simulation was not valid; 

(iii) A finding that the labeling of the 

residential masonry heater model line or 

the associated owner’s manual or 

marketing information does not comply 

with the requirements of § 60.5490; 

(iv) Failure by the manufacturer to 

comply with the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of 

§ 60.5491; 

(v) Physical examination showing that 

an inspected production unit is not 

similar in all material respects as 

defined in this subpart to the 

representative affected masonry heater 

submitted for testing; or 

(vi) Failure of the manufacturer to 

conduct a quality assurance program in 

conformity with paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(2) Revocation of certification under 

this paragraph will not take effect until 

the manufacturer concerned has been 

given written notice by the 

Administrator setting forth the basis for 

the proposed determination and an 

opportunity to request a Petition for 

Review under § 60.5493. 

(g) Quality Assurance Program. For 

each certified model line, except for any 

model line at small manufacturers as 

defined in § 60.5486(a)(2) and where the 

model line was certified using the 

procedure defined in paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section, the manufacturer must 

conduct a quality assurance program 

according to the requirements of 

§ 60.533(m). 

(h) EPA Compliance Audit Testing. 

The Administrator may conduct 

compliance audit testing according to 

the requirements of § 60.533(n). For the 

purposes of this paragraph, references in 

§ 60.533(p) to § § 60.532 through 60.535 

must be understood to refer to the 

comparable paragraphs in § § 60.5486 

through 60.5489, respectively. The 

requirements of this paragraph do not 

apply to small manufacturers as defined 

in § 60.5486(a)(2) and where the model 

line was certified using the procedure 

defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. 

§ 60.5488 What test methods and 

procedures must I use to determine 

compliance with the standards and 

requirements for certification? 

Test methods and procedures 

specified in this section or in appendix 

A of this part, except as provided under 

§ 60.8(b), must be used to determine 

compliance with the standards and 

requirements for certification under 

§ § 60.5486 and 60.5487 as follows: 

(a) ASTM E2817–11, Standard Test 

Method for Test Fueling Masonry 

Heaters, must be used to measure the 

heat output (million Btu/hr) of 

residential masonry heaters. 

(b) ASTM E2515–10 must be used in 

conjunction with ASTM E2817–11 to 

measure the particulate emission rate 

(lb/million BTU heat output) of 

residential masonry heaters. 

(c)(1) ASTM WK26558, New 

Specification for Calculation Method for 

Custom Designed, Site Built Masonry 

Heaters may be used as an alternative to 

certification testing as specified in 

paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of this 

section. 

(2) If the Administrator approves an 

alternative computer model simulation 

program pursuant to § 60.5487(a)(3), the 

approved simulation program also may 

be used as an alternative to certification 

testing as specified in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(d) Method 10 in appendix A–4 of this 

part must be used to measure CO 

emissions of residential masonry 

heaters. 

(e) The manufacturer of an affected 

masonry heater must notify the 

Administrator of the date that 

certification testing is to begin, by email, 

to Wood Heater NSPS Compliance 

Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_

NSPS_Compliance_Program. This 

notice must be received at least 30 days 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6392 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

before the start of testing. The 

notification of testing must include the 

manufacturer’s name and address, the 

accredited test laboratory’s name and 

address, certifying entity name, the 

model name and number (or, if 

unavailable, some other way to 

distinguish between models), and the 

dates of testing. 

(f) The accredited test laboratory must 

allow the manufacturer, the EPA and 

delegated states to observe certification 

testing. However, manufacturers must 

not involve themselves in the conduct 

of the test after the pretest burn (as 

defined by ASTM E2817–11) has begun. 

Communications between the 

manufacturer and laboratory or 

certifying entity personnel regarding 

operation of the masonry heater must be 

limited to written communications 

transmitted prior to the first pretest burn 

of the certification series. Written 

communications between the 

manufacturer and laboratory personnel 

may be exchanged during the 

certification test only if deviations from 

the test procedures are observed that 

constitute improper conduct of the test. 

All communications must be included 

in the test documentation required to be 

submitted pursuant to § 60.533(b)(3) and 

must be consistent with instructions 

provided in the owner’s manual 

required under § 60.5490(g), except to 

the extent that they address details of 

the certification tests that would not be 

relevant to owners. 

§ 60.5489 What procedures must I use for 

laboratory accreditation? 

The accreditation procedure specified 

in § 60.535 must be used to certify test 

laboratories under this subpart. 

§ 60.5490 What requirements must I meet 

for permanent labels and owner’s manuals? 

(a) Permanent Label Requirements. 

(1) Each affected masonry heater 

manufactured on or after the date the 

applicable standards come into effect as 

specified in § 60.5486, must have a 

permanent label affixed to it that meets 

the requirements of this section. 

(2) The permanent label must contain 

the following information: 

(i) Month and year of manufacture of 

the individual unit; 

(ii) Model name or number; and 

(iii) Serial number. 

(3) The permanent label must: 

(i) Be affixed in a readily visible or 

accessible location in such a manner 

that it can be easily viewed before and 

after the appliance is installed; 

(ii) Be at least 8.9 cm long and 5.1 cm 

wide (3 1/2 inches long and 2 inches 

wide); 

(iii) Be made of a material expected to 

last the lifetime of the residential 

masonry heater; 

(iv) Present required information in a 

manner so that it is likely to remain 

legible for the lifetime of the residential 

masonry heater; and 

(v) Be affixed in such a manner that 

it cannot be removed without damage to 

the label. 

(4) The permanent label may be 

combined with any other label, as long 

as the required information is displayed, 

the integrity of the permanent label is 

not compromised, and the requirements 

of § 60.5490(3) are still met. 

(b)(1) If the residential masonry heater 

belongs to a model line certified under 

§ 60.5487, and it has been found to meet 

the applicable emission limits or 

tolerances through quality assurance 

testing, the following statement must 

appear on the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Certified to comply with 

2015 particulate emissions standards. 

(2) If the masonry heater belongs to a 

model line owned by a manufacturer 

that qualifies for the small volume 

manufacturer delay as specified in 

§ 60.5486(a)(2), the following statement 

must appear on the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY This masonry heater was 

produced by a small volume 

manufacturer that manufactures or 

exports to the United States fewer 

than 15 masonry heaters per year. 

This appliance cannot be sold after [5 

YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE]. 

(c) The label under paragraph (b) of 

this section must also contain the 

following statement on the permanent 

label: ‘‘This appliance needs periodic 

inspection and repair for proper 

operation. Consult owner’s manual for 

further information. It is against the law 

to operate this appliance in a manner 

inconsistent with operating instructions 

in the owner’s manual.’’ 

(d) Any label statement under 

paragraph (b) of this section constitutes 

a representation by the manufacturer as 

to any residential masonry heater that 

bears it: 

(1) That the certification was in effect 

at the time the residential masonry 

heater left the possession of the 

manufacturer; 

(2) That the manufacturer was, at the 

time the label was affixed, conducting a 

quality assurance program in conformity 

with the manufacturer’s quality 

assurance program; and 

(3) That as to any residential masonry 

heater individually tested for emissions 

by the manufacturer under § 60.5487(f), 

it met the applicable emission limit. 

(e)(1) If an affected masonry heater is 

manufactured in the United States for 

export as provide in § 60.5484(b)(1), the 

following statement must appear on the 

permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Export unit. May not be 

operated in the United States. 

(2) If an affected masonry heater is 

manufactured for research and 

development purposes as provided in 

§ 60.5484(b)(2), the following statement 

must appear on the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY Not certified. Research unit. 

Not approved for sale. 

(3) If an affected masonry heater is a 

non wood-burning masonry heater 

exclusively as provided § 60.5484(b)(3) 

the following statement must appear on 

the permanent label: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY This appliance is not 

certified for wood burning. Use of any 

wood fuel is a violation of federal law. 

(f) Owner’s Manual. 

(1) Each affected masonry heater 

offered for sale by a commercial owner 

must be accompanied by an owner’s 

manual that must contain the 

information listed in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section (pertaining to installation), 

and paragraph (f)(3) of this section 

(pertaining to operation and 

maintenance). Such information must 

be adequate to enable consumers to 

achieve optimal emissions performance. 

Such information must be consistent 

with the operating instructions provided 

by the manufacturer to the accredited 

test laboratory for operating the 

residential masonry heater, except for 

details of the certification test that 

would not be relevant to the ultimate 

purchaser. The commercial owner must 

also make current and historical owner’s 

manuals available on the company Web 

site. 

(2) Installation information: 

Requirements for achieving proper draft. 

(3) Operation and maintenance 

information: 

(i) Fuel loading procedures, 

recommendations on fuel selection, and 

warnings on what fuels not to use, such 

as treated wood, colored paper, 

cardboard, solvents, trash and garbage. 

(ii) Fire starting procedures 

(iii) Proper use of air controls 

(iv) Ash removal procedures 

(v) Instructions for replacement of 

gasket and other parts that are critical to 

the emissions performance of the unit 

and other maintenance and repair 

instructions 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6393 

(vi) The following statement: ‘‘This 

wood heating appliance needs periodic 

inspection and repair for proper 

operation. It is against federal law to 

operate this wood heating appliance in 

a manner inconsistent with operating 

instructions in the manual.’’ 

(4) Any manufacturer using the EPA 

model language contained in appendix 

I of this part to satisfy any requirement 

of this paragraph (f) will be considered 

to be in compliance with that 

requirement, provided that the 

particular model language is printed in 

full, with only such changes as are 

necessary to ensure accuracy for the 

particular model line. 

(5) Residential masonry heaters that 

are affected by this subpart but have 

been operated by a noncommercial 

owner are not subject to paragraph (f) of 

this section when offered for resale. 

§ 60.5491 What records must I keep and 

what reports must I submit? 

(a) Each manufacturer who holds a 

certificate of compliance pursuant to 

§ 60.5487(a)(2) for a model line must 

maintain records containing the 

information required by this paragraph 

(a) with respect to that model line. 

(1) All documentation pertaining to 

the certification test or computer 

simulation used to obtain certification. 

(i) For certification tests, this includes 

the full test report and raw data sheets, 

laboratory technician notes, 

calculations, and the test results for all 

test runs. 

(ii) For computer simulations, this 

includes all data input into the 

simulation program and all computergenerated output. 

(2) Results of the quality assurance 

program inspections required pursuant 

to § 60.5487(f). 

(3) For emissions tests conducted 

pursuant to the quality assurance 

program required by § 60.5487(f), all test 

reports, data sheets, laboratory 

technician notes, calculations, and test 

results for all test runs, the remedial 

actions taken, if any, and any follow-up 

actions such as additional testing. 

(4) If a masonry heater manufacturer 

qualifies as a small volume 

manufacturer as specified in 

§ 60.5486(a)(2) and elects to defer 

compliance as allowed by that 

paragraph, records of the number of 

masonry heaters produced or 

constructed per year during the deferral 

period. 

(b) Each accredited test laboratory 

must maintain records consisting of all 

documentation pertaining to each 

certification test, audit test, or computer 

simulation, including the full test report 

and raw data sheets, laboratory 

technician notes, calculations, and the 

test results for all test runs. Each 

accredited test laboratory must submit 

initial and biennial proficiency test 

results to the Administrator. 

(c) Each manufacturer must retain 

each residential masonry heater upon 

which certification tests were performed 

and certification granted pursuant to 

§ 60.5487(a)(2) at the manufacturer’s 

facility for as long as the model line is 

manufactured. Each masonry heater 

must remain sealed and unaltered. Any 

such residential masonry heater must be 

made available upon request to the 

Administrator for inspection and 

testing. 

(d)(1) Each manufacturer of an 

affected masonry heater certified 

pursuant to § 60.5487 must submit a 

report to the Administrator every 2 

years following issuance of a certificate 

of compliance for each model line. This 

report must include the sales for each 

model by state and certify that no 

changes in the design or manufacture of 

the model line have been made that 

require recertification pursuant to 

§ 60.5487(d). 

(2) If the manufacturer qualifies as a 

small manufacturer as defined in 

§ 60.5486(b)(2) and the model line was 

certified using the procedure defined in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the 

reporting provision of paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section does not apply. 

(e)(1) Unless otherwise specified, all 

records required under this section must 

be maintained by the manufacturer, 

commercial owner of the affected 

masonry heater, accredited test 

laboratory or certifying entity for a 

period of no less than 5 years. 

(2) Unless otherwise specified, all 

reports to the Administrator required 

under this subpart must be made to: 

Wood Heater NSPS Compliance 

Program at www.epa.gov/Wood_Heater_

NSPS_Compliance_Program. 

(f) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test, each 

manufacturer or accredited test 

laboratory or certifying entity must 

submit performance test data, except 

opacity data, electronically to the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using 

the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html). Only data collected using 

test methods compatible with ERT are 

subject to this requirement to be 

submitted electronically to the EPA’s 

CDX. Manufacturers may submit 

compliance reports to the EPA via 

regular mail at the address listed below 

if the test methods they use are not 

compatible with ERT or if ERT is not 

available to accept reports at the time 

the final rule is published. Owners or 

operators who claim that some of the 

information being submitted for 

performance tests is confidential 

business information (CBI) must submit 

a completed ERT file, including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disk or other commonly used 

electronic storage media (including, but 

not limited to, flash drives), to the EPA, 

and the same ERT file, with the CBI 

omitted, to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. The 

compact disk must be clearly marked as 

CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/

CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. Emission 

data and all information necessary to 

determine compliance, except sensitive 

engineering drawings and sensitive 

detailed material specifications, may not 

be claimed as CBI. 

§ 60.5492 What activities are prohibited 

under this subpart? 

(a) No person is permitted to operate 

an affected masonry heater 

manufactured after [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail after 

[6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF FINAL RULE] that does not have 

affixed to it a permanent label pursuant 

to § 60.5490. 

(b)(1) No manufacturer or commercial 

owner is permitted to advertise for sale, 

offer for sale, or sell an affected masonry 

heater manufactured after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail 

after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] that does not 

have affixed to it a permanent label 

pursuant to § 60.5490. 

(2) No manufacturer or commercial 

owner is permitted to advertise for sale, 

offer for sale, or sell an affected masonry 

heater manufactured after [EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] or sold at retail 

after [6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF FINAL RULE] labeled under 

§ 60.5490(d)(1) except for export. 

(c)(1) No commercial owner is 

permitted to advertise for sale, offer for 

sale or sell an affected masonry heater 

permanently labeled under § 60.5490(b) 

unless: 

(i) The affected appliance regulated 

under this subpart was previously 

owned and operated by a 

noncommercial owner; 

(ii) The commercial owner provides 

any purchaser or transferee with an 

owner’s manual that meets the 

requirements of § 60.5490(g), a copy of 

the warranty and a moisture meter. 

(2) A commercial owner other than a 

manufacturer complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section if the commercial owner: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6394 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Receives the required 

documentation from the manufacturer 

or a previous commercial owner; and 

(ii) Provides that documentation 

unaltered to any person to whom the 

residential masonry heater that it covers 

is sold or transferred. 

(d)(1) In any case in which the 

Administrator revokes a certificate of 

compliance either for the knowing 

submission of false or inaccurate 

information or other fraudulent acts, or 

based on a finding under 

§ 60.5487(e)(1)(ii) that the certification 

test was not valid, the Administrator 

may give notice of that revocation and 

the grounds for it to all commercial 

owners. 

(2) On and after the date of receipt of 

the notice given under paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section, no commercial owner is 

permitted to sell any residential 

masonry heater covered by the revoked 

certificate (other than to the 

manufacturer) unless the model line has 

been recertified in accordance with this 

subpart. 

(e) No person is permitted to install or 

operate an affected masonry heater 

except in a manner consistent with the 

instructions on its permanent label and 

in the owner’s manual pursuant to 

§ 60.5490(g), including only using fuels 

for which the unit is certified. 

(f) No person is permitted to operate 

an affected masonry heater that has been 

physically altered to exceed the 

tolerance limits of its certificate of 

compliance. 

(g) No person is permitted to alter, 

deface, or remove any permanent label 

required to be affixed pursuant to 

§ 60.5490. 

(h) No certifying entity is permitted to 

certify its own certification test report. 

§ 60.5493 What Petition for Review 

procedures apply to me? 

(a) In any case where the 

Administrator: 

(1) Denies an application under 

§ 60.5487(a)(2); 

(2) Issues a notice of revocation of 

certification under § 60.5487(e); 

(3) Denies an application for 

laboratory accreditation pursuant to 

§ 60.5489; or 

(4) Issues a notice of revocation of 

laboratory accreditation pursuant to 

§ 60.5489, the manufacturer or 

laboratory affected may submit to the 

EPA a Petition for Review request under 

this section pursuant to the procedures 

specified in § 60.593 within 30 days 

following receipt of the required 

notification of the action in question. 

(b) In any case where the 

Administrator issues a notice of 

revocation under § 60.5487(e), the 

manufacturer may submit to the EPA a 

Petition for Review request under this 

section pursuant to the procedures 

specified in § 60.5493 with the time 

limits set out in § 60.533(p)(4). 

§ 60.5494 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

(a) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority to a state under 

section 111(c) of the Clean Air Act, the 

authorities contained in paragraph (b) of 

this section must be retained by the 

Administrator and not transferred to a 

state. 

(b) Authorities that must not be 

delegated to states: 

(1) Section 60.5473, Definitions; 

(2) Section 60.5475, Compliance and 

certification; 

(3) Section 60.5476, Test methods and 

procedures; and 

(4) Section 60.5477, Laboratory 

accreditation. 

§ 60.5495 What parts of the General 

Provisions do not apply to me? 

The following provisions of subpart A 

of part 60 do not apply to this subpart: 

(a) Section 60.7; 

(b) Section 60.8(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f); 

and 

(c) Section 60.15(d). 

6. Part 60 Appendix A–8 is amended 

by adding Methods 28R, 28WHH, and 

28WHH–PTS to follow Method 28A to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A–8 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 26 through 30B 

* * * * * 

Test Method 28R for Certification and 

Auditing of Wood Heaters 

1.0 Scope and Application 

1.1 This test method applies to certification 

and auditing of wood-fired room heaters and 

fireplace inserts. 

1.2 The test method covers the fueling and 

operating protocol for measuring particulate 

emissions, as well as determining burn rates, 

heat output and efficiency. 

1.3 Particulate emissions are measured by 

the dilution tunnel method as specified in 

ASTM E2515–10 Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Particulate Matter 

Emissions Collected in a Dilution Tunnel. 

2.0 Procedures 

2.1 This method incorporates the 

provisions of ASTM E2780–10 except as 

follows: 

2.1.1 The burn rate categories, low burn 

rate requirement, and weightings in Method 

28 shall be used. 

2.1.2 The startup procedures shall be the 

same as in Method 28. 

2.1.3 The 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 EPA Reference Method 5H 

‘‘Determination of Particulate Emissions 

From Wood Heaters From a Stack Location’’ 

shall be the same as in Method 28. 

2.1.4 Manufacturers shall not specify a 

smaller volume of the firebox for testing than 

the full usable firebox. 

2.1.5 The test fuel moisture content, fuel 

load, and coal bed depth shall be as follows: 

(a) The fuel load dry-basis moisture 

content shall be within a range of 22.5 

percent +/¥ 1 percent; 

(b) The fuel load weight shall be 7 lb/ft3

+/¥ 1 percent (or 7 lb +/¥0.07 lb) of the fuel 

load weight, calculated in accordance with 

Method 28; and 

(c) The range for the test-initiation coal-bed 

weight shall be 22 percent +/¥ 1 percent of 

the fuel load weight. 

Test Method 28 WHH for Measurement of 

Particulate Emissions and Heating Efficiency 

of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances 

1.0 Scope and Application 

1.1 This test method applies to wood-fired 

hydronic heating appliances. The units 

typically transfer heat through circulation of 

a liquid heat exchange media such as water 

or a water-antifreeze mixture. 

1.2 The test method measures particulate 

emissions and delivered heating efficiency at 

specified heat output rates based on the 

appliance’s rated heating capacity. 

1.3 Particulate emissions are measured by 

the dilution tunnel method as specified in 

ASTM E2515–10 Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Particulate Matter 

Emissions Collected in a Dilution Tunnel. 

Delivered Efficiency is measured by 

determining the heat output through 

measurement of the flow rate and 

temperature change of water circulated 

through a heat exchanger external to the 

appliance and determining the input from 

the mass of dry wood fuel and its higher 

heating value. Delivered efficiency does not 

attempt to account for pipeline loss. 

1.4 Products covered by this test method 

include both pressurized and nonpressurized heating appliances intended to 

be fired with wood. These products are 

wood-fired hydronic heating appliances that 

the manufacturer specifies for indoor or 

outdoor installation. They are often 

connected to a heat exchanger by insulated 

pipes and normally include a pump to 

circulate heated liquid. They are used to heat 

structures such as homes, barns and 

greenhouses and can heat domestic hot 

water, spas or swimming pools. 

1.5 Distinguishing features of products 

covered by this standard include: 

1.5.1 Manufacturer specifies for indoor or 

outdoor installation. 

1.5.2 A firebox with an access door for 

hand loading of fuel. 

1.5.3 Typically an aquastat that controls 

combustion air supply to maintain the liquid 

in the appliance within a predetermined 

temperature range provided sufficient fuel is 

available in the firebox. 

1.5.4 A chimney or vent that exhausts 

combustion products from the appliance. 

1.6 The values stated are to be regarded as 

the standard whether in I–P or SI units. The 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6395 

values given in parentheses are for 

information only. 

2.0 Summary of Method and References 

2.1 Particulate matter emissions are 

measured from a wood-fired hydronic 

heating appliance burning a prepared test 

fuel crib in a test facility maintained at a set 

of prescribed conditions. Procedures for 

determining burn rates, and particulate 

emissions rates and for reducing data are 

provided. 

2.2 Referenced Documents 

2.2.1 EPA Standards 

2.2.1.1 Method 28 Certification and 

Auditing of Wood Heaters 

2.2.2 Other Standards 

2.2.2.1 ASTM E2515–10 Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Particulate 

Matter Emissions Collected in a Dilution 

Tunnel. 

2.2.2.2 CAN/CSA–B415.1–2010 

Performance Testing of Solid-Fuel-Burning 

Heating Appliances. 

3.0 Terminology 

3.1 Definitions 

3.1.1 Hydronic Heating—A heating 

system in which a heat source supplies 

energy to a liquid heat exchange media such 

as water that is circulated to a heating load 

and returned to the heat source through 

pipes. 

3.1.2 Aquastat—A control device that 

opens or closes a circuit to control the rate 

of fuel consumption in response to the 

temperature of the heating media in the 

heating appliance. 

3.1.3 Delivered Efficiency—The 

percentage of heat available in a test fuel 

charge that is delivered to a simulated 

heating load as specified in this test method. 

3.1.4 Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output 

Capacity—The value in BTU/hr (MJ/hr) that 

the manufacturer specifies that a particular 

model of hydronic heating appliance is 

capable of supplying at its design capacity as 

verified by testing, in accordance with 

Section 13. 

3.1.5 Burn rate—The rate at which test 

fuel is consumed in an appliance. Measured 

in pounds (lbs) of wood (dry basis) per hour 

(kg/hr). 

3.1.6 Firebox—The chamber in the 

appliance in which the test fuel charge is 

placed and combusted. 

3.1.7 Test fuel charge—The collection of 

Test Fuel layers placed in the appliance at 

the start of the emission test run. 

3.1.8 Test Fuel Layer—Horizontal 

arrangement of Test Fuel Units. 

3.1.9 Test Fuel Unit—One or more Test 

Fuel Pieces with 3⁄4 inch (19 mm) spacers 

attached to the bottom and to one side. If 

composed of multiple Test Fuel Pieces, the 

bottom spacer may be one continuous piece. 

3.1.10 Test Fuel Piece—A single 4 x 4 (4 

± 0.25 inches by 4 ± 0.25 inches)[100 ± 6 mm 

by 100 ± 6 mm] white or red oak wood piece 

cut to the length required. 

3.1.11 Test Run—An individual emission 

test that encompasses the time required to 

consume the mass of the test fuel charge. 

3.1.12 Overall Efficiency (SLM)—The 

efficiency for each test run as determined 

using the CSA B415.1–2010 Stack Loss 

Method. 

3.1.13 Thermopile—A device consisting 

of a number of thermocouples connected in 

series, used for measuring differential 

temperature. 

4.0 Summary of Test Method 

4.1 Dilution Tunnel. Emissions are 

determined using the ‘‘dilution tunnel’’ 

method specified in ASTM E2515 Standard 

Test Method for Determination of Particulate 

Matter Emissions Collected in a Dilution 

Tunnel. The flow rate in the dilution tunnel 

is maintained at a constant level throughout 

the test cycle and accurately measured. 

Samples of the dilution tunnel flow stream 

are extracted at a constant flow rate and 

drawn through high efficiency filters. The 

filters are dried and weighed before and after 

the test to determine the emissions catch and 

this value is multiplied by the ratio of tunnel 

flow to filter flow to determine the total 

particulate emissions produced in the test 

cycle. 

4.2 Efficiency. The efficiency test 

procedure takes advantage of the fact that 

this type of appliance delivers heat through 

circulation of the heated liquid (water) from 

the appliance to a remote heat exchanger and 

back to the appliance. Measurements of the 

water temperature difference as it enters and 

exits the heat exchanger along with the 

measured flow rate allow for an accurate 

determination of the useful heat output of the 

appliance. The input is determined by weight 

of the test fuel charge, adjusted for moisture 

content, multiplied by the Higher Heating 

Value. Additional measurements of the 

appliance weight and temperature at the 

beginning and end of a test cycle are used to 

correct for heat stored in the appliance. 

Overall Efficiency (SLM) is determined using 

the CSA B415.1–2010 stack loss method for 

data quality assurance purposes. 

4.3 Operation. Appliance operation is 

conducted on a hot-to-hot test cycle meaning 

that the appliance is brought to operating 

temperature and a coal bed is established 

prior to the addition of the test fuel charge 

and measurements are made for each test fuel 

charge cycle. The measurements are made 

under constant heat draw conditions within 

predetermined ranges. No attempt is made to 

modulate the heat demand to simulate an 

indoor thermostat cycling on and off in 

response to changes in the indoor 

environment. Four test categories are used. 

These are: 

4.3.1 Category I: A heat output of 15 

percent or less of Manufacturer’s Rated Heat 

Output Capacity. 

4.3.2 Category II: A heat output of 16 

percent to 24 percent of Manufacturer’s Rated 

Heat Output Capacity. 

4.3.3 Category III: A heat output of 25 

percent to 50 percent of Manufacturer’s Rated 

Heat Output Capacity. 

4.3.4 Category IV: Manufacturer’s Rated 

Heat Output Capacity. 

5.0 Significance and Use 

5.1 The measurement of particulate 

matter emission rates is an important test 

method widely used in the practice of air 

pollution control. 

5.1.1 These measurements, when 

approved by state or federal agencies, are 

often required for the purpose of determining 

compliance with regulations and statutes. 

5.1.2 The measurements made before and 

after design modifications are necessary to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of design 

changes in reducing emissions and make this 

standard an important tool in manufacturers’ 

research and development programs. 

5.2 Measurement of heating efficiency 

provides a uniform basis for comparison of 

product performance that is useful to the 

consumer. It is also required to relate 

emissions produced to the useful heat 

production. 

5.3 This is a laboratory method and is not 

intended to be fully representative of all 

actual field use. It is recognized that users of 

hand-fired, wood-burning equipment have a 

great deal of influence over the performance 

of any wood-burning appliance. Some 

compromises in realism have been made in 

the interest of providing a reliable and 

repeatable test method. 

6.0 Test Equipment 

6.1 Scale. A platform scale capable of 

weighing the appliance under test and 

associated parts and accessories when 

completely filled with water to an accuracy 

of ±1.0 pound (±0.5 kg). 

6.2 Heat exchanger. A water-to-water heat 

exchanger capable of dissipating the 

expected heat output from the system under 

test. 

6.3 Water Temperature Difference 

Measurement. A Type–T ‘special limits’ 

thermopile with a minimum of 5 pairs of 

junctions shall be used to measure the 

temperature difference in water entering and 

leaving the heat exchanger. The temperature 

difference measurement uncertainty of this 

type of thermopile is equal to or less than ± 

0.05 °F (± 0.25 °C). Other temperature 

measurement methods may be used if the 

temperature difference measurement 

uncertainty is equal to or less than. ± 0.50 °F 

(± 0.25 °C). 

6.4 Water flow meter. A water flow meter 

shall be installed in the inlet to the load side 

of the heat exchanger. The flow meter shall 

have an accuracy of ± 1 percent of measured 

flow. 

6.4.1 Optional—Appliance side water 

flow meter. A water flow meter with an 

accuracy of ± 1 percent of the flow rate is 

recommended to monitor supply side water 

flow rate. 

6.5 Optional Recirculation Pump. 

Circulating pump used during test to prevent 

stratification of liquid being heated. 

6.6 Water Temperature Measurement— 

Thermocouples or other temperature sensors 

to measure the water temperature at the inlet 

and outlet of the load side of the heat 

exchanger. Must meet the calibration 

requirements specified in 10.1. 

6.7 Wood Moisture Meter—Calibrated 

electrical resistance meter capable of 

measuring test fuel moisture to within 1 

percent moisture content. Must meet the 

calibration requirements specified in 10.4. 

6.8 Flue Gas Temperature 

Measurement—Must meet the requirements 

of CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.2.2. 

6.9 Test Room Temperature 

Measurement—Must meet the requirements 

of CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.2.1. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6396 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6.10 Flue Gas Composition 

Measurement—Must meet the requirements 

of CSA B415.1–2010, Clauses 6.3.1 through 

6.3.3. 

7.0 Safety 

7.1 These tests involve combustion of 

wood fuel and substantial release of heat and 

products of combustion. The heating system 

also produces large quantities of very hot 

water and the potential for steam production 

and system pressurization. Appropriate 

precautions must be taken to protect 

personnel from burn hazards and respiration 

of products of combustion. 

8.0 Sampling, Test Specimens and Test 

Appliances 

8.1 Test specimens shall be supplied as 

complete appliances including all controls 

and accessories necessary for installation in 

the test facility. A full set of specifications 

and design and assembly drawings shall be 

provided when the product is to be placed 

under certification of a third-party agency. 

The manufacturer’s written installation and 

operating instructions are to be used as a 

guide in the set-up and testing of the 

appliance. 

9.0 Preparation of Test Equipment 

9.1 The appliance is to be placed on a 

scale capable of weighing the appliance fully 

loaded with a resolution of ± 1.0 lb (0.5 kg). 

9.2 The appliance shall be fitted with the 

type of chimney recommended or provided 

by the manufacturer and extending to 15 ± 

0.5 feet (4.6 ± 0.15 m) from the upper surface 

of the scale. If no flue or chimney system is 

recommended or provided by the 

manufacturer, connect the appliance to a flue 

of a diameter equal to the flue outlet of the 

appliance. The flue section from the 

appliance flue collar to 8 ± 0.5 feet above the 

scale shall be single wall stove pipe and the 

remainder of the flue shall be double wall 

insulated class A chimney. 

9.3 Optional Equipment Use 

9.3.1 A recirculation pump may be 

installed between connections at the top and 

bottom of the appliance to minimize thermal 

stratification if specified by the 

manufacturer. The pump shall not be 

installed in such a way as to change or affect 

the flow rate between the appliance and the 

heat exchanger. 

9.3.2 If the manufacturer specifies that a 

thermal control valve or other device be 

installed and set to control the return water 

temperature to a specific set point, the valve 

or other device shall be installed and set per 

the manufacturer’s written instructions. 

9.4 Prior to filling the tank, weigh and 

record the appliance mass. 

9.5 Heat Exchanger 

9.5.1 Plumb the unit to a water-to-water 

heat exchanger with sufficient capacity to 

draw off heat at the maximum rate 

anticipated. Route hoses, electrical cables, 

and instrument wires in a manner that does 

not influence the weighing accuracy of the 

scale as indicated by placing dead weights on 

the platform and verifying the scale’s 

accuracy. 

9.5.2 Locate thermocouples to measure 

the water temperature at the inlet and outlet 

of the load side of the heat exchanger. 

9.5.3 Install a thermopile meeting the 

requirements of 6.3 to measure the water 

temperature difference between the inlet and 

outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger. 

9.5.4 Install a calibrated water flow meter 

in the heat exchanger load side supply line. 

The water flow meter is to be installed on the 

cooling water inlet side of the heat exchanger 

so that it will operate at the temperature at 

which it is calibrated. 

9.5.5 Place the heat exchanger in a box 

with 2 in. (50 mm) of expanded polystyrene 

(EPS) foam insulation surrounding it to 

minimize heat losses from the heat 

exchanger. 

9.5.6 The reported efficiency and heat 

output rate shall be based on measurements 

made on the load side of the heat exchanger. 

9.5.7 Temperature instrumentation per 

6.6 shall be installed in the appliance outlet 

and return lines. The average of the outlet 

and return water temperature on the supply 

side of the system shall be considered the 

average appliance temperature for calculation 

of heat storage in the appliance (TFavg and 

TIavg). Installation of a water flow meter in 

the supply side of the system is optional. 

9.6 Fill the system with water. Determine 

the total weight of the water in the appliance 

when the water is circulating. Verify that the 

scale indicates a stable weight under 

operating conditions. Make sure air is purged 

properly. 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

10.1 Water Temperature Sensors. 

Temperature measuring equipment shall be 

calibrated before initial use and at least semiannually thereafter. Calibrations shall be in 

compliance with National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Monograph 175, Standard Limits of 

Error.10.2 Heat Exchanger Load Side Water 

Flow Meter. 

10.2.1 The heat exchanger load side water 

flow meter shall be calibrated within the flow 

range used for the test run using NIST 

Traceable methods. Verify the calibration of 

the water flow meter before and after each 

test run and at least once during each test run 

by comparing the water flow rate indicated 

by the flow meter to the mass of water 

collected from the outlet of the heat 

exchanger over a timed interval. Volume of 

the collected water shall be determined based 

on the water density calculated from section 

13, Eq. 8, using the water temperature 

measured at the flow meter. The uncertainty 

in the verification procedure used shall be 1 

percent or less. The water flow rate 

determined by the collection and weighing 

method shall be within 1 percent of the flow 

rate indicated by the water flow meter. 

10.3 Scales. The scales used to weigh the 

appliance and test fuel charge shall be 

calibrated using NIST Traceable methods at 

least once every 6 months. 

10.4 Moisture Meter. The moisture meter 

shall be calibrated per the manufacturer’s 

instructions and checked before each use. 

10.5 Flue Gas Analyzers—In accordance 

with CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.8. 

11.0 Conditioning 

11.1 Prior to testing, the noncatalytic 

appliance is to be operated for a minimum 

of 10 hours using a medium heat draw rate. 

Catalytic units shall be operated for a 

minimum of 50 hours using a medium heat 

draw rate. The pre-burn for the first test can 

be included as part of the conditioning 

requirement. If conditioning is included in 

pre-burn, then the appliance shall be aged 

with fuel meeting the specifications outlined 

in sections 12.2 with a moisture content 

between 19 and 25 percent on a dry basis. 

Operate the appliance at a medium burn rate 

(Category II or III) for at least 10 hours for 

noncatalytic appliances and 50 hours for 

catalytic appliances. Record and report 

hourly flue gas exit temperature data and the 

hours of operation. The aging procedure shall 

be conducted and documented by a testing 

laboratory. 

12.0 Procedure 

12.1 Appliance Installation. Assemble the 

appliance and parts in conformance with the 

manufacturer’s written installation 

instructions. Clean the flue with an 

appropriately sized, wire chimney brush 

before each certification test series. 

12.2 Fuel. Test fuel charge fuel shall be 

red (Quercus ruba L.) or white (Quercus alba) 

oak 19 to 25 percent moisture content on a 

dry basis. Piece length shall be 80 percent of 

the firebox depth rounded down to the 

nearest 1 inch (25mm) increment. For 

example, if the firebox depth is 46 inches 

(1168mm) the 4 × 4 piece length would be 

36 inches (46 inches × 0.8 = 36.8 inches 

round down to 36 inches). Pieces are to be 

placed in the firebox parallel to the longest 

firebox dimension. For fireboxes with sloped 

surfaces that create a non-uniform firebox 

length, the piece length shall be adjusted for 

each layer based on 80 percent of the length 

at the level where the layer is placed. Pieces 

are to be spaced 3⁄4 inches (19 mm) apart on 

all faces. The first fuel layer may be 

assembled using fuel units consisting of 

multiple 4 × 4s consisting of single pieces 

with bottom and side spacers of 3 or more 

pieces if needed for a stable layer. The 

second layer may consist of fuel units 

consisting of no more than two pieces with 

spacers attached on the bottom and side. The 

top two layers of the fuel charge must consist 

of single pieces unless the fuel charge is only 

three layers. In that instance only the top 

layer must consist of single units. Threequarter inch (19 mm) by 1.5 inch (38 mm) 

spacers shall be attached to the bottom of 

piece to maintain a 3⁄4 inch (19 mm) 

separation. When a layer consists of two or 

more units of 4 × 4s an additional 3⁄4 inch 

(19 mm) thick by 1.5 inch (38 mm) wide 

spacer shall be attached to the vertical face 

of each end of one 4 × 4, such that the 3⁄4

inch (19 mm) space will be maintained when 

two 4 × 4 units or pieces are loaded side by 

side. In cases where a layer contains an odd 

number of 4 × 4s one piece shall not be 

attached, but shall have spacers attached in 

a manner that will provide for the 3⁄4 inch (19 

mm) space to be maintained. (See Figure 1). 

Spacers shall be attached perpendicular to 

the length of the 4 × 4s such that the edge 

of the spacer is 1 ± 0.25 inch from the end 

of the 4 × 4s in the previous layers. Spacers 

shall be red or white oak and will be attached 

with either nails (non-galvanized), brads or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6397 

oak dowels. The use of kiln-dried wood is 

not allowed. 

12.2.1 Using a fuel moisture meter as 

specified in 6.7 of 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 measured 

parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of the 

moisture meter insulated electrodes for all 

readings shall be 1⁄4 the thickness of the fuel 

piece or 19 mm (3⁄4 in.), whichever is lesser. 

One measurement from each of three sides 

shall be made at approximately 3 inches from 

each end and the center. Two additional 

measurements shall be made centered 

between the other three locations. Each 

individual moisture content reading shall be 

in the range of 18 to 28 percent on a dry 

basis. The average moisture content of each 

piece of test fuel shall be in the range of 19 

to 25 percent. It is not required to measure 

the moisture content of the spacers. Moisture 

shall not be added to previously dried fuel 

pieces except by storage under high humidity 

conditions and temperature up to 100 °F. 

Fuel moisture shall be measured within four 

hours of using the fuel for a test. 

12.2.2 Firebox Volume. Determine the 

firebox volume in cubic feet. Firebox volume 

shall include all areas accessible through the 

fuel loading door where firewood could 

reasonably be placed up to the horizontal 

plane defined by the top of the loading door. 

A drawing of the firebox showing front, side 

and plan views or an isometric view with 

interior dimensions shall be provided by the 

manufacturer and verified by the laboratory. 

Calculations for firebox volume from 

computer aided design (CAD) software 

programs are acceptable and shall be 

included in the test report if used. If the 

firebox volume is calculated by the 

laboratory the firebox drawings and 

calculations shall be included in the test 

report. 

12.2.3 Test Fuel charge. Test fuel charges 

shall be determined by multiplying the 

firebox volume by 10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft 3

(28L), or a higher load density as 

recommended by the manufacturer’s printed 

operating instructions, of wood (as used wet 

weight). Select the number of pieces of 

standard fuel that most nearly match this 

target weight. This is the standard fuel charge 

for all tests. For example, if the firebox 

loading area volume is 10 ft 3 (280L) and the 

firebox depth is 46 inches (1168 mm), test 

fuel charge target is 100 lbs (45 kg) minimum 

and the piece length is 36 inches (914 mm). 

If 8–4 × 4s, 36 inches long weigh 105 lbs (48 

kg), use 8 pieces for each test fuel charge. All 

test fuel charges will be of the same 

configuration. 

12.3 Sampling Equipment. Prepare the 

particulate emission sampling equipment as 

defined by ASTM E2515–10 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method For Determination of Particulate 

Matter Emissions Collected In a Dilution 

Tunnel.’’ 

12.4 Appliance Startup. The appliance 

shall be fired with wood fuel of any species, 

size and moisture content at the laboratories 

discretion to bring it up to operating 

temperature. Operate the appliance until the 

water is heated to the upper operating control 

limit and has cycled at least two times. Then 

remove all unburned fuel, zero the scale and 

verify the scales accuracy using dead 

weights. 

12.4.1 Pre-Test Burn Cycle. Reload 

appliance with oak wood and allow it to burn 

down to the specified coal bed weight. The 

Pre-Test burn cycle fuel charge weight shall 

be within ±10 percent of the test fuel charge 

weight. Piece size and length shall be 

selected such that charcoalization is achieved 

by the time the fuel charge has burned down 

to the required coal bed weight. Pieces with 

a maximum thickness of approximately 2 

inches have been found to be suitable. 

Charcoalization is a general condition of the 

test fuel bed evidenced by an absence of large 

pieces of burning wood in the coal bed and 

the remaining fuel pieces being brittle 

enough to be broken into smaller charcoal 

pieces with a metal poker. Manipulations to 

the fuel bed prior to the start of the test run 

are to be done to achieve charcoalization 

while maintaining the desired heat output 

rate. During the pre-test burn cycle and at 

least one hour prior to starting the test run, 

adjust water flow to the heat exchanger to 

establish the target heat draw for the test. For 

the first test run the heat draw rate shall be 

equal to the manufacturer’s rated heat output 

capacity. 

12.4.1.1 Allowable Adjustments. Fuel 

addition or subtractions, and coal bed raking 

shall be kept to a minimum but are allowed 

up to 15 minutes prior to the start of the test 

run. For the purposes of this method, coal 

bed raking is the use of a metal tool (poker) 

to stir coals, break burning fuel into smaller 

pieces, dislodge fuel pieces from positions of 

poor combustion, and check for the condition 

of charcoalization. Record all adjustments to 

and additions or subtractions of fuel, and any 

other changes to the appliance operations 

that occur during pretest ignition period. 

During the 15-minute period prior to the start 

of the test run, the wood heater loading door 

shall not be open more than a total of 1 

minute. Coal bed raking is the only 

adjustment allowed during this period. 

12.4.2 Coal Bed Weight. The appliance is 

to be loaded with the test fuel charge when 

the coal bed weight is between 10 percent 

and 20 percent of the test fuel charge weight. 

Coals may be raked as necessary to level the 

coal bed but may only be raked and stirred 

once between 15 to 20 minutes prior to the 

addition of the test fuel charge. 

12.5 Test Runs. For all test runs, the 

return water temperature to the hydronic 

heater must be equal to or greater than 

120 °F. Aquastat or other heater output 

control device settings that are adjustable 

shall be set using manufacturer 

specifications, either as factory set or in 

accordance with the owner’s manual, and 

shall remain the same for all burn categories. 

Complete a test run in each heat output 

rate category, as follows: 

12.5.1 Test Run Start. Once the appliance 

is operating normally and the pretest coal 

bed weight has reached the target value per 

12.4.2, tare the scale and load the full test 

charge into the appliance. Time for loading 

shall not exceed 5 minutes. The actual 

weight of the test fuel charge shall be 

measured and recorded within 30 minutes 

prior to loading. Start all sampling systems. 

12.5.1.1 Record all water temperatures, 

differential water temperatures and water 

flow rates at time intervals of one minute or 

less. 

12.5.1.2 Record particulate emissions 

data per the requirements of ASTM E2515. 

12.5.1.3 Record data needed to determine 

Overall Efficiency (SLM) per the 

requirements of CSA B415.1–2010 Clauses 

6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3, 8.5.7, 10.4.3(a), 10.4.3(f), and 

13.7.9.3. 

12.5.1.3.1 Measure and record the test 

room air temperature in accordance with the 

requirements of Clauses 6.2.1, 8.5.7 and 

10.4.3(g). 

12.5.1.3.2 Measure and record the flue 

gas temperature in accordance with the 

requirements of Clauses 6.2.2, 8.5.7 and 

10.4.3(f). 

12.5.1.3.3 Determine and record the 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide 

(CO2) concentrations in the flue gas in 

accordance with Clauses 6.3, 8.5.7 and 

10.4.3(i) and (j). 

12.5.1.3.4 Measure and record the test 

fuel weight per the requirements of Clauses 

8.5.7 and 10.4.3(h). 

12.5.1.3.5 Record the test run time per the 

requirements of Clause 10.4.3(a). 

12.5.1.4 Monitor the average heat output 

rate on the load side of the heat exchanger. 

If the heat output rate gets close to the upper 

or lower limit of the target range (±5 percent) 

adjust the water flow through the heat 

exchanger to compensate. Make changes as 

infrequently as possible while maintaining 

the target heat output rate. The first test run 

shall be conducted at the category IV heat 

output rate to validate that the appliance is 

capable of producing the manufacturer’s 

rated heat output capacity. 

12.5.2 Test Fuel Charge Adjustment. It is 

acceptable to adjust the test fuel charge (i.e., 

reposition) once during a test run if more 

than 60 percent of the initial test fuel charge 

weight has been consumed and more than 10 

minutes have elapsed without a measurable 

(1 lb or 0. 5 kg) weight change while the 

operating control is in the demand mode. 

The time used to make this adjustment shall 

be less than 60 seconds. 

12.5.3 Test Run Completion. The test run 

is completed when the remaining weight of 

the test fuel charge is 0.0 lb (0.0 kg). End the 

test run when the scale has indicated a test 

fuel charge weight of 0.0 lb (0.0 kg) or less 

for 30 seconds. 

12.5.3.1 At the end of the test run, stop 

the particulate sampling train and Overall 

Efficiency (SLM) measurements, and record 

the run time, and all final measurement 

values. 

12.5.4 Heat Output Capacity Validation. 

The first test run must produce a heat output 

rate that is within 10 percent of the 

manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity 

(Category IV) throughout the test run and an 

average heat output rate within 5 percent of 

the manufacturer’s rated heat output 

capacity. If the appliance is not capable of 

producing a heat output within these limits, 

the manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity 

is considered not validated and testing is to 

be terminated. In such cases, the tests may 

be restarted using a lower heat output 

capacity if requested by the manufacturer. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6398 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12.5.5 Additional Test Runs. Using the 

Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output Capacity 

as a basis, conduct a test for additional heat 

output categories as specified in 4.3. It is not 

required to run these tests in any particular 

order. 

12.5.6 Alternative Heat Output Rate for 

Category I. If an appliance cannot be operated 

in the category I heat output range due to 

stopped combustion, two test runs shall be 

conducted at heat output rates within 

Category II. When this is the case, the 

weightings for the weighted averages 

indicated in Table 2 shall be the average of 

the category I and II weightings and shall be 

applied to both category II results. 

Appliances that are not capable of operation 

within Category II (<25 percent of maximum) 

cannot be evaluated by this test method. 

12.5.6.1 Stopped Fuel Combustion. 

Evidence that an appliance cannot be 

operated at a category I heat output rate due 

to stopped fuel combustion shall include 

documentation of two or more attempts to 

operate the appliance in burn rate Category 

I and fuel combustion has stopped prior to 

complete consumption of the test fuel charge. 

Stopped fuel combustion is evidenced when 

an elapsed time of 60 minutes or more has 

occurred without a measurable (1 lb or 0.5 

kg) weight change in the test fuel charge 

while the appliance operating control is in 

the demand mode. Report the evidence and 

the reasoning used to determine that a test in 

burn rate Category I cannot be achieved. For 

example, two unsuccessful attempts to 

operate at an output rate of 10 percent of the 

rated output capacity are not sufficient 

evidence that burn rate Category I cannot be 

achieved. 

12.5.7 Appliance Overheating. 

Appliances shall be capable of operating in 

all heat output categories without 

overheating to be rated by this test method. 

Appliance overheating occurs when the rate 

of heat withdrawal from the appliance is 

lower than the rate of heat production when 

the unit control is in the idle mode. This 

condition results in the water in the 

appliance continuing to increase in 

temperature well above the upper limit 

setting of the operating control. Evidence of 

overheating includes: 1 Hour or more of 

appliance water temperature increase above 

the upper temperature set-point of the 

operating control, exceeding the temperature 

limit of a safety control device (independent 

from the operating control), boiling water in 

a non-pressurized system or activation of a 

pressure or temperature relief valve in a 

pressurized system. 

12.6 Additional Test Runs. The testing 

laboratory may conduct more than one test 

run in each of the heat output categories 

specified in section 4.4.1. If more than one 

test run is conducted at a specified heat 

output rate, the results from at least twothirds of the test runs in that heat output rate 

category shall be used in calculating the 

weighted average emission rate (See section 

15.1.14). The measurement data and results 

of all test runs shall be reported regardless of 

which values are used in calculating the 

weighted average emission rate. 

13.0 Calculation of Results 

13.1 Nomenclature 

ET —Total particulate emissions for the full 

test run as determined per ASTM E2515 in 

grams. 

Eg/MJ—Emissions rate in grams per mega 

joule of heat output. 

Elb/mmBtu output—Emissions rate in pounds 

per million Btu’s of heat output. 

Eg/kg—Emissions factor in grams per 

kilogram of dry fuel burned. 

Eg/hr—Emissions factor in grams per hour. 

HHV—Higher Heating Value of fuel = 8600 

Btu/lb (19.990 MJ/kg). 

LHV—Lower Heating Value of fuel = 7988 

Btu/lb (18.567 MJ/kg). 

DT—Temperature difference between water 

entering and exiting the heat exchanger. 

Qout—Total heat output in BTU’s (mega 

joules). 

Qin—Total heat input available in test fuel 

charge in BTU’s (mega joules). 

M—Mass flow rate of water in lb/min (kg/ 

min). 

Vi—Volume of water indicated by a 

totalizing flow meter at the ith reading in 

gallons (liters). 

Vf—Volumetric Flow rate of water in heat 

exchange system in gallons per minute 

(liters/min). 

Q—Total length of test run in hours 

ti—Data sampling interval in minutes. 

hdel—Delivered heating efficiency in 

percent. 

Fi—Weighting factor for heat output 

category i. (See Tables 2A and 2B) 

T1—Temperature of water at the inlet on 

the supply side of the heat exchanger. 

T2—Temperature of the water at the outlet 

on the supply side of the heat exchanger. 

T3–Temperature of water at the inlet to the 

load side of the heat exchanger. 

TIavg—Average temperature of the 

appliance and water at start of the test. 

MC—Fuel moisture content in percent dry 

basis. 

MCi—Average moisture content of 

individual 4 × 4 fuel pieces in percent dry 

basis. 

MCsp—Moisture content of spacers 

assumed to be 10 percent dry basis. 

s—Density of water in pounds per gallon. 

Cp—Specific Heat of Water in Btu/lb °¥F. 

Csteel—Specific Heat of Steel (0.1 Btu/ 

lb¥°F). 

Wfuel—Fuel charge weight in pounds (kg). 

Wi—Weight of individual fuel 4 × 4 pieces 

in pounds (kg). 

Wsp—Weight of all spacers used in a fuel 

load in pounds (kg). 

Wapp—Weight of empty appliance in 

pounds. 

Wwat— Weight of water in supply side of 

the system in pounds. 

13.2 After the test is completed, 

determine the particulate emissions ET in 

accordance with ASTM E2515. 

13.3 Determine Average Fuel Load Moisture 

Content 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.009</GPH> EP03FE14.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6399 

13.5 Determine heat output and 

efficiency. 

13.5.1 Determine heat output as: 

Qout = S [Heat output determined for each 

sampling time interval]+ Change in heat 

stored in the appliance. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.011</GPH> EP03FE14.012</GPH>

Qout = lL: (Cpi • /).7; • kf; • tJJ+ O¥app • CSteel + CpaWwatcl')· (TFavg - TIavg) ,BTU Eq.6 

Note: The subscript (i) indicates the parameter value for sampling time interval ti. 

Mi = Mass flow rate = gal/min x Density of Water (lb/gal) = lb/min 

Mi=Vfi' C;i, lb/min Eq.7 

Li (62.56 + ( -.0003413 x T3d + ( -.00006225 X T3i2)) 0.1337, lbs/galEq. 8 

Cp 1.0014 + ( -.000003485 X T3i) Btu/lb-OF Eq. 9 

Csteel 0.1 Btu/lb-oF 

Cpa 1.0014 + (-.000003485 X (TIavg +TFavg)/2) ,Btu/lb-oF Eq. 10 

Vfi (Vi-Vi-l)/(ti-ti-l), gal/min Eq. 11 

Note: Vi is the total water volume at the end of interval i and Vi-l is the total water volume 

at the beginning of the time interval. This calculation is necessary when a totalizing type 

water meter is used. 

13.5.2 Determine Heat output rate as: 

Heat Output Rate Qout/E>, BTUlhr Eq.12 

13.5.3 Determine Emission Rates and Emission Factors as: 

EgIMJ= ET/(Qoutx 0.001055), g/MJ Eq.13 

ElblMMBTUoutput= (ET/453.59)/(QoutputX 10-6), Ib/MMBtu Out Eq.14 

Eg/kg= ET/(Wfuel/(l+MC/lOO)), g/dry kg Eq, 15 

Eglhr= ET/E> ,g/hr Eq. 16 

13.5.4 Determine delivered efficiency as: 

lldel= (QouJQin) X 100, % Eq. 17 

lldelLHV (QouJQinLHV) X 100, % Eq. 18 
6400 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13.5.5 Determine hSLM—Overall 

Efficiency (SLM) using Stack Loss For 

determination of the average overall thermal 

efficiency (hSLM) for the test run, use the data 

collected over the full test run and the 

calculations in accordance with CSA B415.1– 

2010, Clause 13.7 except for 13.7.2 (e), (f), (g), 

and (h), use the following average fuel 

properties for oak: percent C = 50.0, percent 

H = 6.6, percent O = 43.2, percent Ash = 0.2 

percent. 

13.5.5.1 Whenever the CSA B415.1–2010 

overall efficiency is found to be lower than 

the overall efficiency based on load side 

measurements, as determined by Eq. 16 of 

this method, section 14.1.7 of the test report 

must include a discussion of the reasons for 

this result. 

13.6 Weighted Average Emissions and 

Efficiency 

13.6.1 Determine the weighted average 

emission rate and delivered efficiency from 

the individual tests in the specified heat 

output categories. The weighting factors (Fi) 

are derived from an analysis of ASHRAE Bin 

Data which provides details of normal 

building heating requirements in terms of 

percent of design capacity and time in a 

particular capacity range—or ‘‘bin’’—over the 

course of a heating season. The values used 

in this method represent an average of data 

from several cities located in the northern 

United States. 

13.7 Average Heat Output (Qout-8hr) and 

Efficiency ((havg-8hr) for 8 hour burn time. 

13.7.1 Units tested under this standard 

typically require infrequent fuelling, 8 to 12 

hours intervals being typical. Rating unit’s 

based on an Average Output sustainable over 

an 8 hour duration will assist consumers in 

appropriately sizing units to match the 

theoretical heat demand of their application. 

13.7.2 Calculations: 

Where: 

Y1 = Test Duration just above 8 hrs 

Y2 = Test Duration just below 8 hrs 

X1 = Actual Load for duration Y1 

X2 = Actual Load for duration Y2 

hdel1 = Average Delivered Efficiency 

for duration Y1 

hdel2 = Average Delivered Efficiency 

for duration Y2 

13.7.2.1 Determine the Test 

Durations and Actual Load for each 

Category as recorded in Table 1A. 

13.7.2.2 Determine the data point 

that has the nearest duration greater 

than 8 hrs. X1 = Actual Load, 

Y1 = Test Duration and 

hdel1 = Average Delivered Efficiency 

for this data point. 

13.7.2.3 Determine the data point 

that has the nearest duration less than 

8 hrs. 

X2 = Actual Load, 

Y2 = Test Duration and 

hdel2 = Average Delivered Efficiency 

for this data point. 

13.7.2.4 Example: 

CATEGORY ACTUAL LOAD DURATION

[Category Actual Load Duration hdel] 

(Btu/Hr) (Hr) (%) 

1 15,000 ......................... 10.2 70.0 

2 26,000 ......................... 8.4 75.5 

3 50,000 ......................... 6.4 80.1 

4 100,000 ....................... 4.7 80.9 

Category 2 Duration is just above 8 

hours, therefore: X1 = 26,000 BTU/hr, 

hdel1 = 75.5% and Y1 = 8.4 Hrs 

Category 3 Duration is just below 8 

hours, therefore: X2 = 50,000 BTU/hr, 

hdel2 = 80.1% and Y2 = 6.4 Hrs 

Qout-8hr = 26,000 + {(8—8.4) × 

[(50,000—26,000)/(6.4—8.4)]} 

= 30,800 BTU/hr 

havg-8hr = 75.5 + {(8—8.4) × [(80.1— 

75.5)/(6.4—8.4)]} = 76.4% 

14.0 Report 

14.1.1 The report shall include the 

following. 

14.1.2 Name and location of the 

laboratory conducting the test. 

14.1.3 A description of the 

appliance tested and its condition, date 

of receipt and dates of tests. 

14.1.4 A statement that the test 

results apply only to the specific 

appliance tested. 

14.1.5 A statement that the test 

report shall not be reproduced except in 

full, without the written approval of the 

laboratory. 

14.1.6 A description of the test 

procedures and test equipment 

including a schematic or other drawing 

showing the location of all required test 

equipment. Also, a description of test 

fuel sourcing, handling and storage 

practices shall be included. 

14.1.7 Details of deviations from, 

additions to or exclusions from the test 

method, and their data quality 

implications on the test results (if any), 

as well as information on specific test 

conditions, such as environmental 

conditions. 

14.1.8 A list of participants and 

observers present for the tests. 

14.1.9 Data and drawings indicating 

the fire box size and location of the fuel 

charge. 

14.1.10 Drawings and calculations 

used to determine firebox volume. 

14.1.11 Information for each test run 

fuel charge including piece size, 

moisture content, and weight. 

14.1.12 All required data for each 

test run shall be provided in 

spreadsheet format. Formulae used for 

all calculations shall be accessible for 

review. 

14.1.13 Test run duration for each 

test. 

14.1.14 Calculated results for 

delivered efficiency at each burn rate 

and the weighted average Emissions 

reported as total emissions in grams, 

pounds per million Btu of delivered 

heat, grams per mega-joule of delivered 

heat, grams per kilogram of dry fuel and 

grams per hour. Results shall be 

reported for each heat output category 

and the weighted average. 

14.1.15 Tables 1A, 1B, 1C and 2 

must be used for presentation of results 

in test reports. 

14.1.16 A statement of the estimated 

uncertainty of measurement of the 

emissions and efficiency test results. 

14.1.17 Raw data, calibration 

records, and other relevant 

documentation shall be retained by the 

laboratory for a minimum of 7 years. 

15.0 Precision and Bias 

15.1 Precision—It is not possible to 

specify the precision of the procedure in 

Draft Test because the appliance 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.013</GPH> EP03FE14.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6401 

operation and fueling protocols and the 

appliances themselves produce variable 

amounts of emissions and cannot be 

used to determine reproducibility or 

repeatability of this measurement 

method. 

15.2 Bias—No definitive information 

can be presented on the bias of the 

procedure in Draft Test Method 28 

WHH for measuring solid fuel burning 

hydronic heater emissions because no 

material having an accepted reference 

value is available. 

16.0 Keywords 

16.1 Solid fuel, hydronic heating 

appliances, wood-burning hydronic 

heaters. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.000</GPH> EP03FE14.001</GPH>

Table lA. Data Summary Part A 

e VII!liel Meave Q;o QOU! 

Load % Test Wood 

Calegory Run No Capacity Target Load Actual load Act load Duration WoodWt Moisture Heal Input Heat Output 

.. ' BTUlhr BTUlhr % of max hrs Ib ~{b. DB BTU BTU 

< 15% of 

I max 

16-24% 

11 of max 

25-50% 

Ifl of max 

Max 

IV I capacity 

Table lB. Data Summary Part B 

T2Min Er E E Eglhf EgIkg 11",,1 I1SLM 

Load % Min Return Total Pf.1 PM Output PM Output Delivered Slack Loss 

Cateqory Run No Capacity Water Temp Emissions Based Based PM Rate PM Factor Efficiency Efficienc'l '" < OF 9 IbMMBTlioul g/MJ g/hr g/l\g ~/D % ..... 

< 15'l't. of 

I max 

16-24% 

fI of max 

25-50% 

m of max 

Max 

IV capacity 

Table 1 C: Hangtag Information 
6402 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.002</GPH> EP03FE14.003</GPH>

Table 2. Year Round Use Weighting 

1. Fuel Piece 

Test Fuel ~pl!leE~r 

Test Fuel Units 2, 3 

Test Fuel 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6403 

Method 28WHH–PTS A Test Method for 

Certification of Cord Wood-Fired Hydronic 

Heating Appliances With Partial Thermal 

Storage: Measurement of Particulate Matter 

(PM) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emissions 

and Heating Efficiency of Wood-Fired 

Hydronic Heating Appliances With Partial 

Thermal Storage 

1.0 Scope and Application 

1.1 This test method applies to woodfired hydronic heating appliances with heat 

storage external to the appliance. The units 

typically transfer heat through circulation of 

a liquid heat exchange media such as water 

or a water-antifreeze mixture. Throughout 

this document, the term ‘‘water’’ will be used 

to denote any of the heat transfer liquids 

approved for use by the manufacturer. 

1.2 The test method measures PM and CO 

emissions and delivered heating efficiency at 

specified heat output rates referenced against 

the appliance’s rated heating capacity as 

specified by the manufacturer and verified 

under this test method. 

1.3 PM emissions are measured by the 

dilution tunnel method as specified in the 

EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards 

referenced therein with the exceptions noted 

in Section 12.5.9. Delivered Efficiency is 

measured by determining the fuel energy 

input and appliance output. Heat output is 

determined through measurement of the flow 

rate and temperature change of water 

circulated through a heat exchanger external 

to the appliance and the increase in energy 

of the external storage. Heat input is 

determined from the mass of dry wood fuel 

and its higher heating value (HHV). Delivered 

efficiency does not attempt to account for 

pipeline loss. 

1.4 Products covered by this test method 

include both pressurized and nonpressurized hydronic heating appliances 

intended to be fired with wood and for which 

the manufacturer specifies for indoor or 

outdoor installation. The system, which 

includes the heating appliance and external 

storage, is commonly connected to a heat 

exchanger by insulated pipes and normally 

includes a pump to circulate heated liquid. 

These systems are used to heat structures 

such as homes, barns and greenhouses. They 

also provide heat for domestic hot water, 

spas and swimming pools. 

1.5 Distinguishing features of products 

covered by this standard include: 

1.5.1 The manufacturer specifies the 

application for either indoor or outdoor 

installation. 

1.5.2 A firebox with an access door for 

hand loading of fuel. 

1.5.3 Typically an aquastat mounted as 

part of the appliance that controls 

combustion air supply to maintain the liquid 

in the appliance within a predetermined 

temperature range provided sufficient fuel is 

available in the firebox. The appliance may 

be equipped with other devices to control 

combustion. 

1.5.4 A chimney or vent that exhausts 

combustion products from the appliance. 

1.5.5 A liquid storage system, typically 

water, which is not large enough to accept all 

of the heat produced when a full load of 

wood is burned and the storage system starts 

a burn cycle at 125 °F. 

1.5.6 The heating appliances require 

external thermal storage and these units will 

only be installed as part of a system which 

includes thermal storage. The manufacturer 

specifies the minimum amount of thermal 

storage required. However, the storage system 

shall be large enough to ensure that the boiler 

(heater) does not cycle, slumber, or go into 

an off-mode when operated in a Category III 

load condition (See section 4.3). 

1.6 The values stated are to be regarded 

as the standard whether in I–P or SI units. 

The values given in parentheses are for 

information only. 

2.0 Summary of Method and References 

2.1 PM and CO emissions are measured 

from a wood–fired hydronic heating 

appliance burning a prepared test fuel charge 

in a test facility maintained at a set of 

prescribed conditions. Procedures for 

determining heat output rates, PM and CO 

emissions, and efficiency and for reducing 

data are provided. 

2.2 Referenced Documents 

2.2.1 EPA Standards 

2.2.1.1 Method 28 Certification and 

Auditing of Wood Heaters 

2.2.1.2 Method 28 WHH Measurement of 

Particulate Emissions and Heating Efficiency 

of Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances 

and the standards referenced therein. 

2.2.2 Other Standards 

2.2.2.1 CAN/CSA–B415.1–2010 

Performance Testing of Solid-Fuel-Burning 

Heating Appliances 

3.0 Terminology 

3.1 Definitions 

3.1.1 Hydronic Heating—A heating 

system in which a heat source supplies 

energy to a liquid heat exchange media such 

as water that is circulated to a heating load 

and returned to the heat source through 

pipes. 

3.1.2 Aquastat—A control device that 

opens or closes a circuit to control the rate 

of fuel consumption in response to the 

temperature of the heating media in the 

heating appliance. 

3.1.3 Delivered Efficiency—The 

percentage of heat available in a test fuel 

charge that is delivered to a simulated 

heating load or the storage system as 

specified in this test method. 

3.1.4 Emission factor—the emission of a 

pollutant expressed in mass per unit of 

energy (typically) output from the boiler/

heater 

3.1.5 Emission index—the emission of a 

pollutant expressed in mass per unit mass of 

fuel used 

3.1.6 Emission rate—the emission of a 

pollutant expressed in mass per unit time 

3.1.7 Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output 

Capacity ¥The value in Btu/hr (MJ/hr) that 

the manufacturer specifies that a particular 

model of hydronic heating appliance is 

capable of supplying at its design capacity as 

verified by testing, in accordance with 

section 12.5.4. 

3.1.8 Heat output rate—The average rate 

of energy output from the appliance during 

a specific test period in Btu/hr (MJ/hr) 

3.1.9 Firebox—The chamber in the 

appliance in which the test fuel charge is 

placed and combusted. 

3.1.10 NIST—National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

3.1.11 Test fuel charge—The collection of 

test fuel placed in the appliance at the start 

of the emission test run. 

3.1.12 Test Run—An individual emission 

test which encompasses the time required to 

consume the mass of the test fuel charge. The 

time of the test run also considers the time 

for the energy to be drawn from the thermal 

storage. 

3.1.13 Test Run Under ‘‘Cold-to-Cold’’ 

Condition—under this test condition the test 

fuel is added into an empty chamber along 

with kindling and ignition materials (paper). 

The boiler/heater at the start of this test is 

typically 125° to 130° F. 

3.1.14 Test Run Under ‘‘Hot-to-Hot’’ 

Condition—under this test condition the test 

fuel is added onto a still-burning bed of 

charcoals produced in a pre-burn period. The 

boiler/heater water is near its operating 

control limit at the start of the test. 

3.1.15 Overall Efficiency, also known as 

Stack Loss Efficiency—The efficiency for 

each test run as determined using the CSA 

B415.1–2010 Stack Loss Method (SLM). 

3.1.16 Phases of a Burn Cycle. The 

‘‘startup phase’’ is defined as the period from 

the start of the test until 15 percent of the test 

fuel charge is consumed. The ‘‘steady state 

phase’’ is defined as the period from the end 

of the startup phase to a point at which 80 

percent of the test fuel charge is consumed. 

The ‘‘end phase’’ is defined as the time from 

the end of the steady state period to the end 

of the test. 

3.1.17 Thermopile—A device consisting 

of a number of thermocouples connected in 

series, used for measuring differential 

temperature. 

3.1.18 Slumber Mode—This is a mode in 

which the temperature of the water in the 

boiler/heater has exceeded the operating 

control limit and the control has changed the 

boiler/heater fan speed, dampers, and/or 

other operating parameters to minimize the 

heat output of the boiler/heater. 

4.0 Summary of Test Method 

4.1 Dilution Tunnel. Emissions are 

determined using the ‘‘dilution tunnel’’ 

method specified in EPA Method 28 WHH 

and the standards referenced therein. The 

flow rate in the dilution tunnel is maintained 

at a constant level throughout the test cycle 

and accurately measured. Samples of the 

dilution tunnel flow stream are extracted at 

a constant flow rate and drawn through high 

efficiency filters. The filters are dried and 

weighed before and after the test to 

determine the emissions collected and this 

value is multiplied by the ratio of tunnel flow 

to filter flow to determine the total 

particulate emissions produced in the test 

cycle. 

4.2 Efficiency. The efficiency test 

procedure takes advantage of the fact that 

this type of system delivers heat through 

circulation of the heated liquid (water) from 

the system to a remote heat exchanger (e.g. 

baseboard radiators in a room) and back to 

the system. Measurements of the cooling 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6404 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

water temperature difference as it enters and 

exits the test system heat exchanger along 

with the measured flow rate allow for an 

accurate determination of the useful heat 

output of the appliance. Also included in the 

heat output is the change in the energy 

content in the storage system during a test 

run. Energy input to the appliance during the 

test run is determined by weight of the test 

fuel charge, adjusted for moisture content, 

multiplied by the Higher Heating Value. 

Additional measurements of the appliance 

weight and temperature at the beginning and 

end of a test cycle are used to correct for heat 

stored in the appliance. Overall Efficiency 

(SLM) is determined using the CSA B415.1– 

2010 stack loss method for data quality 

assurance purposes. 

4.3 Operation. Four test categories are 

defined for use in this method. These are: 

4.3.1 Category I: A heat output of 15 

percent or less of Manufacturer’s Rated Heat 

Output Capacity. 

4.3.2 Category II: A heat output of 16 

percent to 24 percent of Manufacturer’s Rated 

Heat Output Capacity. 

4.3.3 Category III: A heat output of 25 

percent to 50 percent of Manufacturer’s Rated 

Heat Output Capacity. 

4.3.4 Category IV: Manufacturer’s Rated 

Heat Output Capacity. These heat output 

categories refer to the output from the system 

by way of the load heat exchanger installed 

for the test. The output from just the boiler/ 

heater part of the system may be higher for 

all or part of a test, as part of this boiler/

heater output goes to storage. 

For the Category III and IV runs, appliance 

operation is conducted on a hot-to-hot test 

cycle meaning that the appliance is brought 

to operating temperature and a coal bed is 

established prior to the addition of the test 

fuel charge and measurements are made for 

each test fuel charge cycle. The 

measurements are made under constant heat 

draw conditions within pre-determined 

ranges. No attempt is made to modulate the 

heat demand to simulate an indoor 

thermostat cycling on and off in response to 

changes in the indoor environment. 

For the Category I and II runs, the unit is 

tested with a ‘‘cold start.’’ At the 

manufacturer’s option, the Category II and III 

runs may be waived and it may be assumed 

that the particulate emission values and 

efficiency values determined in the startup, 

steady-state, and end phases of Category I are 

applicable in Categories II and III for the 

purpose of determining the annual averages 

in lb/MMBtu and g/MJ (See section 13). For 

the annual average in g/hr, the length of time 

for stored heat to be drawn from thermal 

storage shall be determined for the test load 

requirements of the respective Category. 

All test operations and measurements shall 

be conducted by personnel of the laboratory 

responsible for the submission of the test 

report. 

5.0 Significance and Use 

5.1 The measurement of particulate 

matter emission and CO rates is an important 

test method widely used in the practice of air 

pollution control. 

5.1.1 These measurements, when 

approved by state or federal agencies, are 

often required for the purpose of determining 

compliance with regulations and statutes. 

5.1.2 The measurements made before and 

after design modifications are necessary to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of design 

changes in reducing emissions and make this 

standard an important tool in manufacturer’s 

research and development programs. 

5.2 Measurement of heating efficiency 

provides a uniform basis for comparison of 

product performance that is useful to the 

consumer. It is also required to relate 

emissions produced to the useful heat 

production. 

5.3 This is a laboratory method and is not 

intended to be fully representative of all 

actual field use. It is recognized that users of 

hand-fired, wood-burning equipment have a 

great deal of influence over the performance 

of any wood-burning appliance. Some 

compromises in realism have been made in 

the interest of providing a reliable and 

repeatable test method. 

6.0 Test Equipment 

6.1 Scale. A platform scale capable of 

weighing the boiler/heater under test and 

associated parts and accessories when 

completely filled with water to an accuracy 

of ± 1.0 pound (± 0.5 kg) and a readout 

resolution of ± 0.2 pound (± 0.1 kg). 

6.2 Heat Exchanger. A water-to-water 

heat exchanger capable of dissipating the 

expected heat output from the system under 

test. 

6.3 Water Temperature Difference 

Measurement. A Type–T ‘special limits’ 

thermopile with a minimum of 5 pairs of 

junctions shall be used to measure the 

temperature difference in water entering and 

leaving the heat exchanger. The temperature 

difference measurement uncertainty of this 

type of thermopile is equal to or less than ± 

0.50 °F (± 0.25 °C). Other temperature 

measurement methods may be used if the 

temperature difference measurement 

uncertainty is equal to or less than 

± 0.50 °F (± 0.25 °C). This measurement 

uncertainty shall include the temperature 

sensor, sensor well arrangement, piping 

arrangements, lead wire, and measurement/

recording system. The response time of the 

temperature measurement system shall be 

less than half of the time interval at which 

temperature measurements are recorded. 

6.4 Water Flow Meter. A water flow 

meter shall be installed in the inlet to the 

load side of the heat exchanger. The flow 

meter shall have an accuracy of ± 1 percent 

of measured flow. 

6.4.1 Optional—Appliance side water 

flow meter. A water flow meter with an 

accuracy of ± 1 percent of the flow rate is 

recommended to monitor supply side water 

flow rate. 

6.5 Optional Recirculation Pump. 

Circulating pump used during test to prevent 

stratification, in the boiler/heater, of liquid 

being heated. 

6.6 Water Temperature Measurement— 

Thermocouples or other temperature sensors 

to measure the water temperature at the inlet 

and outlet of the load side of the heat 

exchanger must meet the calibration 

requirements specified in 10.1 of this 

method. 

6.7 Lab Scale—For measuring the 

moisture content of wood slices as part of the 

overall wood moisture determination. 

Accuracy of ± 0.01 pounds. 

6.8 Flue Gas Temperature 

Measurement—Must meet the requirements 

of CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.2.2. 

6.9 Test Room Temperature 

Measurement—Must meet the requirements 

of CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.2.1. 

6.10 Flue Gas Composition 

Measurement—Must meet the requirements 

of CSA B415.1–2010, Clauses 6.3.1 through 

6.3.3. 

6.11 Dilution Tunnel CO Measurement— 

In parallel with the flue gas composition 

measurements, the CO concentration in the 

dilution tunnel shall also be measured and 

reported at time intervals not to exceed one 

minute. This analyzer shall meet the zero and 

span drift requirements of CSA B415.1–2012. 

In addition the measurement repeatability 

shall be better than ±15 ppm over the range 

of CO levels observed in the dilution tunnel. 

7.0 Safety 

7.1 These tests involve combustion of 

wood fuel and substantial release of heat and 

products of combustion. The heating system 

also produces large quantities of very hot 

water and the potential for steam production 

and system pressurization. Appropriate 

precautions must be taken to protect 

personnel from burn hazards and respiration 

of products of combustion. 

8.0 Sampling, Test Specimens and Test 

Appliances 

8.1 Test specimens shall be supplied as 

complete appliances, as described in 

marketing materials, including all controls 

and accessories necessary for installation in 

the test facility. A full set of specifications, 

installation and operating instructions, and 

design and assembly drawings shall be 

provided when the product is to be placed 

under certification of a third-party agency. 

The manufacturer’s written installation and 

operating instructions are to be used as a 

guide in the set-up and testing of the 

appliance and shall be part of the test record. 

8.2 The size, connection arrangement, 

and control arrangement for the thermal 

storage shall be as specified in the 

manufacturer’s documentation. It is not 

necessary to use the specific storage system 

that the boiler/heater will be marketed with. 

However, the capacity of the system used in 

the test cannot be greater than that specified 

as the minimum allowable for the boiler/

heater. 

8.3 All system control settings shall be 

the as-shipped, default settings. These 

default settings shall be the same as those 

communicated in a document to the installer 

or end user. These control settings and the 

documentation of the control settings as to be 

provided to the installer or end user shall be 

part of the test record. 

8.4 Where the manufacturer defines 

several alternatives for the connection and 

loading arrangement, one shall be defined in 

the appliance documentation as the default 

or standard installation. It is expected that 

this will be the configuration for use with a 

simple baseboard heating system. This is the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6405 

configuration to be followed for these tests. 

The manufacturer’s documentation shall 

define the other arrangements as optional or 

alternative arrangements. 

9.0 Preparation of Test Equipment 

9.1 The appliance is to be placed on a 

scale capable of weighing the appliance fully 

loaded with a resolution of ± 0.2 lb (0.1 kg). 

9.2 The appliance shall be fitted with the 

type of chimney recommended or provided 

by the manufacturer and extending to 15 ± 

0.5 feet (4.6 ± 0.15 m) from the upper surface 

of the scale. If no flue or chimney system is 

recommended or provided by the 

manufacturer, connect the appliance to a flue 

of a diameter equal to the flue outlet of the 

appliance. The flue section from the 

appliance flue collar to 8 ± 0.5 feet above the 

scale shall be single wall stove pipe and the 

remainder of the flue shall be double wall 

insulated class A chimney. 

9.3 Optional Equipment Use 

9.3.1 A recirculation pump may be 

installed between connections at the top and 

bottom of the appliance to minimize thermal 

stratification if specified by the 

manufacturer. The pump shall not be 

installed in such a way as to change or affect 

the flow rate between the appliance and the 

heat exchanger. 

9.3.2 If the manufacturer specifies that a 

thermal control valve or other device be 

installed and set to control the return water 

temperature to a specific set point, the valve 

or other device shall be installed and set per 

the manufacturer’s written instructions. 

9.4 Prior to filling the boiler/heater with 

water, weigh and record the appliance mass. 

9.5 Heat Exchanger 

9.5.1 Plumb the unit to a water-to-water 

heat exchanger with sufficient capacity to 

draw off heat at the maximum rate 

anticipated. Route hoses and electrical cables 

and instrument wires in a manner that does 

not influence the weighing accuracy of the 

scale as indicated by placing dead weights on 

the platform and verifying the scale’s 

accuracy. 

9.5.2 Locate thermocouples to measure 

the water temperature at the inlet and outlet 

of the load side of the heat exchanger. 

9.5.3 Install a thermopile (or equivalent 

instrumentation) meeting the requirements of 

section 6.3 to measure the water temperature 

difference between the inlet and outlet of the 

load side of the heat exchanger. 

9.5.4 Install a calibrated water flow meter 

in the heat exchanger load side supply line. 

The water flow meter is to be installed on the 

cooling water inlet side of the heat exchanger 

so that it will operate at the temperature at 

which it is calibrated. 

9.5.5 Place the heat exchanger in a box 

with 2 in. (50 mm) of expanded polystyrene 

(EPS) foam insulation surrounding it to 

minimize heat losses from the heat 

exchanger. 

9.5.6 The reported efficiency and heat 

output rate shall be based on measurements 

made on the load side of the heat exchanger. 

9.5.7 Temperature instrumentation per 

section 6.6 shall be installed in the appliance 

outlet and return lines. The average of the 

outlet and return water temperature on the 

supply side of the system shall be considered 

the average appliance temperature for 

calculation of heat storage in the appliance 

(TFavg and TIavg). Installation of a water flow 

meter in the supply side of the system is 

optional. 

9.6 Storage Tank. The storage tank shall 

include a destratification pump as illustrated 

in Figure 1. The pump will draw from the 

bottom of the tank and return to the top as 

illustrated. Temperature sensors (TS1 and 

TS2 in Figure 1) shall be included to measure 

the temperature in the recirculation loop. 

The valve plan in Figure 1 allows the tank 

recirculation loop to operate and the boiler/ 

heater-to-heat exchanger loop to operate at 

the same time but in isolation. This would 

typically be done before the start of a test or 

following completion of a test to determine 

the end of test average tank temperature. The 

nominal flow rate in the storage tank 

recirculation loop can be estimated based on 

pump manufacturer’s performance curves 

and any significant restriction in the 

recirculation loop. 

9.7 Fill the system with water. Determine 

the total weight of the water in the appliance 

when the water is circulating. Verify that the 

scale indicates a stable weight under 

operating conditions. Make sure air is purged 

properly. 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

10.1 Water Temperature Sensors. 

Temperature measuring equipment shall be 

calibrated before initial use and at least semiannually thereafter. Calibrations shall be in 

compliance with National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Monograph 175, Standard Limits of Error. 

10.2 Heat Exchanger Load Side Water 

Flow Meter. 

10.2.1 The heat exchanger load side water 

flow meter shall be calibrated within the flow 

range used for the test run using NISTtraceable methods. Verify the calibration of 

the water flow meter before and after each 

test run and at least once during each test run 

by comparing the water flow rate indicated 

by the flow meter to the mass of water 

collected from the outlet of the heat 

exchanger over a timed interval. Volume of 

the collected water shall be determined based 

on the water density calculated from section 

13, Eq. 12, using the water temperature 

measured at the flow meter. The uncertainty 

in the verification procedure used shall be 1 

percent or less. The water flow rate 

determined by the collection and weighing 

method shall be within 1 percent of the flow 

rate indicated by the water flow meter. 

10.3 Scales. The scales used to weigh the 

appliance and test fuel charge shall be 

calibrated using NIST-traceable methods at 

least once every 6 months. 

10.4 Flue Gas Analyzers—In accordance 

with CSA B415.1–2010, Clause 6.8. 

11.0 Conditioning 

11.1 Prior to testing, a non-catalytic 

appliance is to be operated for a minimum 

of 10 hours using a medium heat draw rate. 

Catalytic units shall be operated for a 

minimum of 50 hours using a medium heat 

draw rate. The pre-burn for the first test can 

be included as part of the conditioning 

requirement. If conditioning is included in 

pre-burn, then the appliance shall be aged 

with fuel meeting the specifications outlined 

in section 12.2 with a moisture content 

between 19 and 25 percent on a dry basis. 

Operate the appliance at a medium heat 

output rate (Category II or III) for at least 10 

hours for non-catalytic appliances and 50 

hours for catalytic appliances. Record and 

report hourly flue gas exit temperature data 

and the hours of operation. The aging 

procedure shall be conducted and 

documented by a testing laboratory. 

12.0 Procedure 

12.1 Appliance Installation. Assemble the 

appliance and parts in conformance with the 

manufacturer’s written installation 

instructions. Clean the flue with an 

appropriately sized, wire chimney brush 

before each certification test series. 

12.2 Fuel. Test fuel charge fuel shall be 

red (Quercus ruba L.) or white (Quercus 

Alba) oak 19 to 25 percent moisture content 

on a dry basis. Piece length shall be 80 

percent of the firebox depth rounded down 

to the nearest 1 inch (25mm) increment. For 

example, if the firebox depth is 46 inches 

(1168mm) the piece length would be 36 

inches (46 inches x 0.8 = 36.8 inches round 

down to 36 inches). Pieces are to be placed 

in the firebox parallel to the longest firebox 

dimension. For fireboxes with sloped 

surfaces that create a non-uniform firebox 

length, the piece length shall be adjusted for 

each layer based on 80 percent of the length 

at the level where the layer is placed. The 

test fuel shall be cord wood with cross 

section dimensions and weight limits as 

defined in CSA B415.1–2010, section 8.3, 

Table 4. The use of dimensional lumber is 

not allowed. 

12.2.1 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 inch to 3⁄4 inch 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: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6406 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

WSliceWet = weight of the slice before drying 

in pounds 

WSliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in 

pounds 

MCSlice = moisture content of the slice in % 

dry basis 

The average moisture content of the entire 

test load (MC) shall be determined using Eq. 

6. Each individual slice shall have a moisture 

content in the range of 18 percent to 28 

percent on a dry basis. The average moisture 

content for the test fuel load shall be in the 

range of 19 percent to 25 percent. Moisture 

shall not be added to previously dried fuel 

pieces except by storage under high humidity 

conditions and temperature up to 100 °F. 

Fuel moisture measurement shall begin 

within four hours of using the fuel batch for 

a test. Use of a pin-type meter to estimate the 

moisture content prior to a test is 

recommended. 

12.2.2 Firebox Volume. Determine the 

firebox volume in cubic feet. Firebox volume 

shall include all areas accessible through the 

fuel loading door where firewood could 

reasonably be placed up to the horizontal 

plane defined by the top of the loading door. 

A drawing of the firebox showing front, side 

and plan views or an isometric view with 

interior dimensions shall be provided by the 

manufacturer and verified by the laboratory. 

Calculations for firebox volume from 

computer aided design (CAD) software 

programs are acceptable and shall be 

included in the test report if used. If the 

firebox volume is calculated by the 

laboratory the firebox drawings and 

calculations shall be included in the test 

report. 

12.2.3 Test Fuel charge. Test fuel charges 

shall be determined by multiplying the 

firebox volume by 10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft3

(28L), or a higher load density as 

recommended by the manufacturer’s printed 

operating instructions, of wood (as used wet 

weight). Select the number of pieces of cord 

wood that most nearly match this target 

weight. However, the test fuel charge cannot 

be less than the target of 10 pounds (4.54 kg) 

per ft3 (28L). 

12.3 Sampling Equipment. Prepare the 

particulate emission sampling equipment as 

defined by EPA Method 28 WHH and the 

standards referenced therein. 

12.4 Appliance Startup. The appliance 

shall be fired with wood fuel of any species, 

size and moisture content at the laboratories 

discretion to bring it up to operating 

temperature. Operate the appliance until the 

water is heated to the upper operating control 

limit and has cycled at least two times. Then 

remove all unburned fuel, zero the scale and 

verify the scales accuracy using dead 

weights. 

12.4.1 Startup Procedure for Category III 

and IV Test Runs, ‘‘Hot-to-Hot’’ 

12.4.1.1 Pre-Test Burn Cycle. Following 

appliance startup (section 12.4), reload 

appliance with oak cord wood and allow it 

to burn down to the specified coal bed 

weight. The pre-test burn cycle fuel charge 

weight shall be within ±10 percent of the test 

fuel charge weight. Piece size and length 

shall be selected such that charcoalization is 

achieved by the time the fuel charge has 

burned down to the required coal bed weight. 

Pieces with a maximum thickness of 

approximately 2 inches have been found to 

be suitable. Charcoalization is a general 

condition of the test fuel bed evidenced by 

an absence of large pieces of burning wood 

in the coal bed and the remaining fuel pieces 

being brittle enough to be broken into smaller 

charcoal pieces with a metal poker. 

Manipulations to the fuel bed prior to the 

start of the test run are to be done to achieve 

charcoalization while maintaining the 

desired heat output rate. During the pre-test 

burn cycle and at least one hour prior to 

starting the test run, adjust water flow to the 

heat exchanger to establish the target heat 

draw for the test. For the first test run the 

heat draw rate shall be equal to the 

manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity. 

12.4.1.2 Allowable Adjustments. Fuel 

addition or subtractions, and coal bed raking 

shall be kept to a minimum but are allowed 

up to 15 minutes prior to the start of the test 

run. For the purposes of this method, coal 

bed raking is the use of a metal tool (poker) 

to stir coals, break burning fuel into smaller 

pieces, dislodge fuel pieces from positions of 

poor combustion, and check for the condition 

of charcoalization. Record all adjustments to 

and additions or subtractions of fuel, and any 

other changes to the appliance operations 

that occur during pretest ignition period. 

During the 15-minute period prior to the start 

of the test run, the wood heater loading door 

shall not be open more than a total of 1 

minute. Coal bed raking is the only 

adjustment allowed during this period. 

12.4.1.3 Coal Bed Weight. The appliance 

is to be loaded with the test fuel charge when 

the coal bed weight is between 10 percent 

and 20 percent of the test fuel charge weight. 

Coals may be raked as necessary to level the 

coal bed but may only be raked and stirred 

once between 15 to 20 minutes prior to the 

addition of the test fuel charge. 

12.4.1.4 Storage. The Category III and IV 

test runs may be done either with or without 

the thermal storage. If thermal storage is used 

the initial temperature of the storage must be 

125 °F or greater at the start of the test. The 

storage may be heated during the pre-test 

burn cycle or it may be heated by external 

means. If thermal storage is used, prior to the 

start of the test run, the storage tank 

destratification pump, shown in Figure 1, 

shall be operated until the total volume 

pumped exceeds 1.5 times the tank volume 

and the difference between the temperature 

at the top and bottom of the storage tank (TS1

and TS2) is less than 1 °F. These two 

temperatures shall then be recorded to 

determine the starting average tank 

temperature. The total volume pumped may 

be based on the nominal flow rate of the 

destratification pump (See section 9.6). If the 

Category III and IV runs are done with 

storage, it is recognized that during the last 

hour of the pre-burn cycle the storage tank 

must be mixed to achieve a uniform starting 

temperature and cannot receive heat from the 

boiler/heater during this time. During this 

time period the boiler/heater might cycle or 

go into a steady reduced output mode. 

(Note—this would happen, for example, in a 

Category IV run if the actual maximum 

output of the boiler/heater exceed the 

manufacturer’s rated output.) A second 

storage tank may be used temporarily to 

enable the boiler/heater to operate during 

this last hour of the pre-burn period as it will 

during the test period. The temperature of 

this second storage tank is not used in the 

calculations but the return water to the 

boiler/heater (after mixing device if used) 

must be 125 °F or greater. 

12.4.2 Startup Procedure for Category I 

and II test runs, ‘‘cold-to-cold.’’ 

12.4.2.1 Initial Temperatures. This test 

shall be started with both the boiler/heater 

and the storage at a minimum temperature of 

125 °F. The boiler/heater maximum 

temperature at the start of this test shall be 

135 °F. The boiler/heater and storage may be 

heated through a pre-burn or it may be 

heated by external means. 

12.4.2.2 Firebox Condition at Test Start. 

Prior to the start of this test remove all ash 

and charcoal from the combustion 

chamber(s). The loading of the test fuel and 

kindling should follow the manufacturer’s 

recommendations, subject to the following 

constraints: Up to 10 percent kindling and 

paper may be used which is in addition to 

the fuel load. Further, up to 10 percent of the 

fuel load (i.e., included in the 10 lb/ft3) may 

be smaller than the main fuel. This startup 

fuel shall still be larger than 2 inches. 

12.4.2.3 Storage. The Category I and II 

test runs shall be done with thermal storage. 

The initial temperature of the storage must be 

125 °F or greater at the start of the test. The 

storage may be heated during the pre-test 

burn cycle or it may be heated by external 

means. Prior to the start of the test run, the 

storage tank destratification pump, shown in 

Figure 1, shall be operated until the total 

volume pumped exceeds 1.5 times the tank 

volume and the difference between the 

temperature at the top and bottom of the 

storage tank (TS1 and TS2) is less than 1 °F. 

These two temperatures shall then be 

recorded to determine the starting average 

tank temperature. The total volume pumped 

may be based on the nominal flow rate of the 

destratification pump (See section 9.6). 

12.5 Test Runs. For all test runs, the 

return water temperature to the hydronic 

heater must be equal to or greater than 120 °F 

(this is lower than the initial tank 

temperature to allow for any pipeline losses). 

Where the storage system is used, flow of 

water from the boiler/heater shall be divided 

between the storage tank and the heat 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6407 

exchanger such that the temperature change 

of the circulating water across the heat 

exchanger shall be 30 ± 5 °F, averaged over 

the entire test run. This is typically adjusted 

using the system valves. 

Complete a test run in each heat output 

rate category, as follows: 

12.5.1 Test Run Start. For Category III and 

IV runs: once the appliance is operating 

normally and the pretest coal bed weight has 

reached the target value per 12.4.1, tare the 

scale and load the full test charge into the 

appliance. Time for loading shall not exceed 

5 minutes. The actual weight of the test fuel 

charge shall be measured and recorded 

within 30 minutes prior to loading. Start all 

sampling systems. 

For Category I and II runs: once the 

appliance has reached the starting 

temperature, tare the scale and load the full 

test charge, including kindling into the 

appliance. The actual weight of the test fuel 

charge shall be measured and recorded 

within 30 minutes prior to loading. Light the 

fire following the manufacturer’s written 

normal startup procedure. Start all sampling 

systems. 

12.5.1.1 Record all water temperatures, 

differential water temperatures and water 

flow rates at time intervals of one minute or 

less. 

12.5.1.2 Record particulate emissions 

data per the requirements of EPA Method 28 

WHH and the standards referenced therein. 

12.5.1.3 Record data needed to determine 

Overall Efficiency (SLM) per the 

requirements of CSA B415.1–2010 Clauses 

6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3, 8.5.7, 10.4.3 (a), 10.4.3(f), 

and 13.7.9.3 

12.5.1.3.1 Measure and record the test 

room air temperature in accordance with the 

requirements of Clauses 6.2.1, 8.5.7 and 

10.4.3 (g). 

12.5.1.3.2 Measure and record the flue 

gas temperature in accordance with the 

requirements of Clauses 6.2.2, 8.5.7 and 

10.4.3 (f). 

12.5.1.3.3 Determine and record the 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide 

(CO2) concentrations in the flue gas in 

accordance with Clauses 6.3, 8.5.7 and 10.4.3 

(i) and (j). 

12.5.1.3.4 Measure and record the test 

fuel weight per the requirements of Clauses 

8.5.7 and 10.4.3 (h). 

12.5.1.3.5 Record the test run time per the 

requirements of Clause 10.4.3 (a). 

12.5.1.3.6 Record and document all 

settings and adjustments, if any, made to the 

boiler/heater as recommended/required by 

manufacturer’s instruction manual for 

different combustion conditions or heat 

loads. These may include temperature 

setpoints, under and over-fire air adjustment, 

or other adjustments that could be made by 

an operator to optimize or alter combustion. 

All such settings shall be included in the 

report for each test run. 

12.5.1.4 Monitor the average heat output 

rate on the load side of the heat exchanger 

based on water temperatures and flow. If the 

heat output rate over a 10 minute averaging 

period gets close to the upper or lower limit 

of the target range (± 5 percent), adjust the 

water flow through the heat exchanger to 

compensate. Make changes as infrequently as 

possible while maintaining the target heat 

output rate. The first test run shall be 

conducted at the category IV heat output rate 

to validate that the appliance is capable of 

producing the manufacturer’s rated heat 

output capacity. 

12.5.2 Test Fuel Charge Adjustment. It is 

acceptable to adjust the test fuel charge (i.e., 

reposition) once during a test run if more 

than 60 percent of the initial test fuel charge 

weight has been consumed and more than 10 

minutes have elapsed without a measurable 

(1 lb or 0.5 kg) weight change while the 

operating control is in the demand mode. 

The time used to make this adjustment shall 

be less than 60 seconds. 

12.5.3 Test Run Completion. For the 

Category III and IV, ‘‘hot-to-hot’’ test runs, 

the test run is completed when the remaining 

weight of the test fuel charge is 0.0 lb (0.0 

kg). (WFuelBurned = Wfuel) End the test run when 

the scale has indicated a test fuel charge 

weight of 0.0 lb (0.0 kg) or less for 30 

seconds. 

For the Category I and II ‘‘cold-to-cold’’ test 

runs, the test run is completed; and the end 

of a test is defined at the first occurrence of 

any one of the following: 

(a) The remaining weight of the test fuel 

charge is less than 1 percent of the total test 

fuel weight (WFuelBurned > 0.99 · Wfuel); 

(b) The automatic control system on the 

boiler/heater switches to an off mode. In this 

case the boiler/heater fan (if used) is typically 

stopped, and all air flow dampers are closed 

by the control system. Note that this off mode 

cannot be an ‘‘overheat’’ or emergency 

shutdown which typically requires a manual 

reset; or 

(c) If the boiler/heater does not have an 

automatic off mode: After 90 percent of the 

fuel load has been consumed and the scale 

has indicated a rate of change of the test fuel 

charge of less than 1.0 lb/hr for a period of 

10 minutes or longer. Note—this is not 

considered ‘‘stopped fuel combustion,’’ See 

section 12.5.6.1. 

12.5.3.1 At the end of the test run, stop 

the particulate sampling train and Overall 

Efficiency (SLM) measurements, and record 

the run time, and all final measurement 

values. 

12.5.3.2 At the end of the test run, 

continue to operate the storage tank 

destratification pump until the total volume 

pumped exceeds 1.5 times the tank volume. 

The maximum average of the top and bottom 

temperatures measured after this time may be 

taken as the average tank temperature at the 

end of the tests (TFSavg, See section 13.1). 

The total volume pumped may be based on 

the nominal flow rate of the destratification 

pump (See section 9.6). 

12.5.3.3 For the Category I and II test 

runs, there is a need to determine the energy 

content of the unburned fuel remaining in 

the chamber if the remaining mass in the 

chamber is greater than 1 percent of the test 

fuel weight. Following the completion of the 

test, as soon as safely practical, this 

remaining fuel is removed from the chamber, 

separated from the remaining ash and 

weighed. This separation could be 

implemented with a slotted ‘‘scoop’’ or 

similar tool. A 1⁄4 inch opening size in the 

separation tool shall be used to separate the 

ash and charcoal. This separated char is 

assigned a heating value of 12,500 Btu/lb. 

12.5.4 Heat Output Capacity Validation. 

The first test run must produce a heat output 

rate that is within 10 percent of the 

manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity 

(Category IV) throughout the test run and an 

average heat output rate within 5 percent of 

the manufacturer’s rated heat output 

capacity. If the appliance is not capable of 

producing a heat output within these limits, 

the manufacturer’s rated heat output capacity 

is considered not validated and testing is to 

be terminated. In such cases, the tests may 

be restarted using a lower heat output 

capacity if requested by the manufacturer. 

Alternatively, during the Category IV run, if 

the rated output cannot be maintained for a 

15 minute interval, the manufacturer may 

elect to reduce the rated output to match the 

test and complete the Category IV run on this 

basis. The target outputs for Cat I, II, and III 

shall then be recalculated based on this 

change in rated output capacity. 

12.5.5 Additional Test Runs. Using the 

Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output Capacity 

as a basis, conduct a test for additional heat 

output categories as specified in 4.3. It is not 

required to run these tests in any particular 

order. 

12.5.6 Alternative Heat Output Rate for 

Category I. If an appliance cannot be operated 

in the Category I heat output range due to 

stopped combustion, two test runs shall be 

conducted at heat output rates within 

Category II. When this is the case, the 

weightings for the weighted averages 

indicated in section 15.1.14 shall be the 

average of the Category I and II weighting’s 

and shall be applied to both Category II 

results. Appliances that are not capable of 

operation within Category II (<25 percent of 

maximum) cannot be evaluated by this test 

method. 

12.5.6.1 Stopped Fuel Combustion. 

Evidence that an appliance cannot be 

operated at a Category I heat output rate due 

to stopped fuel combustion shall include 

documentation of two or more attempts to 

operate the appliance in heat output rate 

Category I and fuel combustion has stopped 

prior to complete consumption of the test 

fuel charge. Stopped fuel combustion is 

evidenced when an elapsed time of 60 

minutes or more has occurred without a 

measurable (1 lb or 0.5 kg) weight change in 

the test fuel charge while the appliance 

operating control is in the demand mode. 

Report the evidence and the reasoning used 

to determine that a test in heat output rate 

Category I cannot be achieved. For example, 

two unsuccessful attempts to operate at an 

output rate of 10 percent of the rated output 

capacity are not sufficient evidence that heat 

output rate Category I cannot be achieved. 

12.5.7 Appliance Overheating. 

Appliances with their associated thermal 

storage shall be capable of operating in all 

heat output categories without overheating to 

be rated by this test method. Appliance 

overheating occurs when the rate of heat 

withdrawal from the appliance is lower than 

the rate of heat production when the unit 

control is in the idle mode. This condition 

results in the water in the appliance 

continuing to increase in temperature well 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6408 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

above the upper limit setting of the operating 

control. Evidence of overheating includes: 1 

hour or more of appliance water temperature 

increase above the upper temperature setpoint of the operating control, exceeding the 

temperature limit of a safety control device 

(independent from the operating control— 

typically requires manual reset), boiling 

water in a non-pressurized system or 

activation of a pressure or temperature relief 

valve in a pressurized system. 

12.5.8 Option to Eliminate Tests in 

Category II and III. Following successful 

completion of a test run in Category I, the 

manufacturer may eliminate the Cat II and III 

tests. For the purpose of calculating the 

annual averages for particulates and 

efficiency, the values obtained in the 

Category I run shall be assumed to apply also 

to Category II and Category III. It is 

envisioned that this option would be 

applicable to systems which have sufficient 

thermal storage such that the fuel load in the 

Cat I test can be completely consumed 

without the system reaching its upper 

operating temperature limit. In this case the 

boiler/heater would likely be operating at 

maximum thermal output during the entire 

test and this output rate may be higher than 

the Manufacturer’s Rated Heat Output 

Capacity. The Category II and III runs would 

then be the same as the Category I run. It may 

be assumed that the particulate emission 

values and efficiency values determined in 

the startup, steady-state, and end phases of 

Category I are applicable in Categories II and 

III, for the purpose of determining the annual 

averages in lb/MMBtu and g/MJ (See section 

13). For the annual average in g/hr, the length 

of time for stored heat to be drawn from 

thermal storage shall be determined for the 

test load requirements of the respective 

Category. 

12.5.9 Modification to Measurement 

Procedure in EPA Method 28 WHH to 

Determine Emissions Separately During the 

Startup, Steady-State and End Phases. With 

one of the two particulate sampling trains 

used, filter changes shall be made at the end 

of the startup phase and the steady state 

phase (See section 3.0). This shall be done to 

determine the particulate emission rate and 

particulate emission index for the startup, 

steady state, and end phases individually. 

For this one train, the particulates measured 

during each of these three phases shall be 

added together to also determine the 

particulate emissions for the whole run. 

12.5.10 Modification to Measurement 

Procedure in EPA Method 28 WHH and the 

standards referenced therein on Averaging 

Period for Determination of Efficiency by the 

Stack Loss Method. The methods currently 

defined in Method 28 WHH allow averaging 

over 10 minute time periods for flue gas 

temperature, flue gas CO2, and flue gas CO 

for the determination of the efficiency with 

the Stack Loss Method. However, under some 

cycling conditions the ‘‘on’’ period may be 

short relative to this 10 minute period. For 

this reason, during cycling operation the 

averaging period for these parameters may 

not be longer than the burner on period 

divided by 10. The averaging period need not 

be shorter than one minute. During the off 

period, under cycling operation, averaging 

periods as specified in EPA Method 28 WHH 

and the standards referenced therein may be 

used. Where short averaging times are used, 

however, the averaging period for fuel 

consumption may still be at 10 minutes. This 

average wood consumption rate shall be 

applied to all of the smaller time intervals 

included. 

12.6 Additional Test Runs. The testing 

laboratory may conduct more than one test 

run in each of the heat output categories 

specified in section 4.3. If more than one test 

run is conducted at a specified heat output 

rate, the results from at least two-thirds of the 

test runs in that heat output rate category 

shall be used in calculating the weighted 

average emission rate. The measurement data 

and results of all test runs shall be reported 

regardless of which values are used in 

calculating the weighted average emission 

rate. 

13.0 Calculation of Results 

13.1 Nomenclature. 

COs—Carbon monoxide measured in the 

dilution tunnel at arbitrary time in ppm 

dry basis. 

COg/min—Carbon monoxide emission rate in 

g/min. 

COT—Total carbon monoxide emission for 

the full test run in grams. 

CO_1—Startup period carbon monoxide 

emissions in grams. 

CO_2—Steady-state period carbon monoxide 

emission in grams. 

CO_3—End period carbon monoxide 

emission in grams. 

ET—Total particulate emissions for the full 

test run as determined per EPA Method 

28 WHH and the standards referenced 

therein in grams. 

E1 = Startup period particulate emissions in 

grams. 

E2 = Steady-state period particulate 

emissions in grams. 

E3 = End period particulate emissions in 

grams. 

E1_g/kg = Startup period particulate emission 

index in grams per kg fuel. 

E2_g/kg = Steady-state period particulate 

emission index in grams per kg fuel. 

E3_g/kg = End period particulate emission 

index in grams per kg fuel. 

E1_g/hr = Startup period particulate emission 

rate in grams per hour. 

E2_g/hr = Steady-state period particulate 

emission rate in grams per hour. 

E3_g/hr = End period particulate emission rate 

in grams per hour. 

Eg/MJ—Emission rate in grams per MJ of heat 

output. 

Elb/mmBtu output—Emissions rate in pounds per 

million Btu’s of heat output. 

Eg/kg—Emissions factor in grams per kilogram 

of dry fuel burned. 

Eg/hr—Emission factor in grams per hour. 

HHV—Higher Heating Value of fuel = 8600 

Btu/lb (19.990 MJ/kg). 

LHV—Lower Heating Value of fuel = 7988 

Btu/lb (18.567 MJ/kg). 

DT—Temperature difference between cooling 

water entering and exiting the heat 

exchanger. 

Qout ¥ Total heat output in Btu’s (MJ). 

Qin ¥ Total heat input available in test fuel 

charge in Btu’s (MJ). 

Qstd—Volumetric flow rate in dilution tunnel 

in dscfm. 

M—Mass flow rate of water in lb/min (kg/

min). 

Vi—Volume of water indicated by a totalizing 

flow meter at the ith reading in gallons 

(liters). 

Vf—Volumetric flow rate of water in heat 

exchange system in gallons per minute 

(liters/min). 

Q—Total length of burn period in hours (Q1

+ Q2 + Q3). 

Q1—Length of time of the startup period in 

hours. 

Q2—Length of time of the steady state period 

in hours. 

Q3—Length of time of the end period in 

hours. 

Q4—Length of time for stored heat to be used 

following a burn period in hours. 

ti—Data sampling interval in minutes. 

hdel—Delivered heating efficiency in percent. 

Fi—Weighting factor for heat output category 

i. See Table 2. 

T1—Temperature of water at the inlet on the 

supply side of the heat exchanger, °F. 

T2—Temperature of the water at the outlet 

on the supply side of the heat exchanger, 

°F. 

T3—Temperature of cooling water at the inlet 

to the load side of the heat exchanger, °F. 

T4—Temperature of cooling water at the 

outlet of the load side of the heat 

exchanger, °F. 

T5—Temperature of the hot water supply as 

it leaves the boiler/heater, °F. 

T6—Temperature of return water as it enters 

the boiler/heater, °F. 

T7—Temperature in the boiler/heater 

optional destratification loop at the top 

of the boiler/heater, °F. 

T8—Temperature in the boiler/heater 

optional destratification loop at the 

bottom of the boiler/heater, °F. 

TIavg—Average temperature of the appliance 

and water at start of the test. 

TIS1—Temperature at the inlet to the storage 

system at the start of the test. 

TIS2—Temperature at the outlet from the 

storage system at the start of the test. 

TFS1—Temperature at the inlet to the storage 

system at the end of the test. 

TFS2—Temperature at the outlet from the 

storage system at the end of the test. 

TISavg—Average temperature of the storage 

system at the start of the test. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6409 

MC—Fuel moisture content in percent dry 

basis. 

s—Density of water in pounds per gallon. 

sInitial—Density of water in the boiler/heater 

system at the start of the test in pounds 

per gallons. 

sboiler/heater—Density of water in the boiler/

heater system at arbitrary time during the 

test in pounds per gallon. 

Cp—Specific heat of water in Btu/lb ¥°F. 

Csteel—Specific heat of steel (0.1 Btu/lb ¥°F). 

Vboiler/heater—total volume of water in the 

boiler/heater system on the weight scale 

in gallons. 

Wfuel—Fuel charge weight, as-fired or ‘‘wet’’, 

in pounds (kg). 

Wfuel_1—Fuel consumed during the startup 

period in pounds (kg). 

Wfuel_2—Fuel consumed during the steady 

state period in pounds (kg). 

Wfuel_3—Fuel consumed during the end 

period in pounds (kg). 

WFuelBurned—Weight of fuel that has been 

burned from the start of the test to an 

arbitrary time, including the needed 

correction for the change in density and 

weight of the water in the boiler/heater 

system on the scale in pounds (kg). 

WRemainingFuel—weight of unburned fuel 

separated from the ash at the end of a 

test. Useful only for Cat I and Cat II tests. 

Wapp—Weight of empty appliance in pounds 

(kg). 

Wwat—Weight of water in supply side of the 

system in pounds (kg). 

WScaleInitial—weight reading on the scale at the 

start of the test, just after the test load 

has been added in pounds (kg). 

WScale—Reading of the weight scale at 

arbitrary time during the test run in 

pounds (kg). 

WStorageTank—Weight of the storage tank 

empty in pounds (kg). 

WWaterStorage—Weight of the water in the 

storage tank at TISavg in pounds (kg). 

13.2 After the test is completed, 

determine the particulate emissions ET in 

accordance with EPA Method 28 WHH and 

the standards referenced therein. 

13.3 Determination of the weight of fuel 

that has been burned at arbitrary time 

For the purpose of tracking the 

consumption of the test fuel load during a 

test run the following may be used to 

calculate the weight of fuel that burned since 

the start of the test: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.015</GPH> EP03FE14.016</GPH> EP03FE14.017</GPH>
6410 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13.6 Determine heat output, efficiency, 

and emissions 

13.6.1 Determine heat output as: 

Qout = S [Heat output determined for each 

sampling time interval] + Change in heat 

stored in the appliance + Change in heat 

in storage tank. 

Note: The subscript (i) indicates the 

parameter value for sampling time interval ti. 

Mi = Mass flow rate = gal/min × Density 

of Water (lb/gal) = lb/min. 

Note: Vi is the total water volume at the 

end of interval i and Vi-1 is the total water 

volume at the beginning of the time interval. 

This calculation is necessary when a 

totalizing type water meter is used. 

13.6.2 Determine Heat Output Rate Over 

Burn Period (Q1+ Q2+ Q3) as: 

If thermal storage is not used in a Category 

III or IV run, then Q4 = 0 

E1_g/kg = E1/(Wfuel_1/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg 

E2_g/kg = E2/(Wfuel_2/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg 

E3_g/kg = E3/(Wfuel_3/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg 

E1_g/hr = E1/Q1, g/hr 

E2_g/hr = E2/Q2, g/hr 

E3_g/hr = E3/Q3, g/hr 

13.6.4 Determine delivered efficiency as: 

13.6.5 Determine hSLM—Overall 

Efficiency, also known as Stack Loss 

Efficiency, using Stack Loss Method (SLM). 

For determination of the average overall 

thermal efficiency (hSLM) for the test run, use 

the data collected over the full test run and 

the calculations in accordance with CSA 

B415.1–2010, Clause 13.7 except for 13.7.2 

(e), (f), (g), and (h), use the following average 

fuel properties for oak: %C = 50.0, %H = 6.6, 

%O = 43.2, %Ash = 0.2. 

13.6.5.1 Whenever the CSA B415.1–2010 

overall efficiency is found to be lower than 

the overall efficiency based on load side 

measurements, as determined by Eq. 22 of 

this method, section 14.1.7 of the test report 

must include a discussion of the reasons for 

this result. For a test where the CSA B415.1– 

2010 overall efficiency SLM is less than 2 

percentage points lower than the overall 

efficiency based on load side measurements, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.018</GPH> EP03FE14.019</GPH> EP03FE14.020</GPH> EP03FE14.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6411 

the efficiency based on load side 

measurements shall be considered invalid. 

[Note on the rationale for the 2 percentage 

points limit. The SLM method does not 

include boiler/heater jacket losses and, for 

this reason, should provide an efficiency 

which is actually higher than the efficiency 

based on the energy input and output 

measurements or ‘‘delivered efficiency.’’ A 

delivered efficiency that is higher than the 

efficiency based on the SLM could be 

considered suspect. A delivered efficiency 

greater than 2 percentage points higher than 

the efficiency based on the SLM, then, clearly 

indicates a measurement error.] 

13.6.6 Carbon Monoxide Emissions 

For each minute of the test period, the 

carbon monoxide emission rate shall be 

calculated as: 

Total CO emissions for each of the three 

test periods (CO_1, CO_2, CO_3) shall be 

calculated as the sum of the emission rates 

for each of the 1 minute intervals. Total CO 

emission for the test run, COT, shall be 

calculated as the sum of CO_1, CO_2, and 

CO_3. 

13.7 Weighted Average Emissions and 

Efficiency. 

13.7.1 Determine the weighted average 

emission rate and delivered efficiency from 

the individual tests in the specified heat 

output categories. The weighting factors (Fi) 

are derived from an analysis of ASHRAE Bin 

Data which provides details of normal 

building heating requirements in terms of 

percent of design capacity and time in a 

particular capacity range—or ‘‘bin’’—over the 

course of a heating season. The values used 

in this method represent an average of data 

from several cities located in the northern 

United States. 

If, as discussed in section 12.5.8, the 

option to eliminate tests in Category II and 

III is elected, the values of efficiency and 

particulate emission rate as measured in 

Category I, shall be assigned also to Category 

II and III for the purpose of determining the 

annual averages. 

14.0 Report 

14.1.1 The report shall include the 

following: 

14.1.2 Name and location of the 

laboratory conducting the test. 

14.1.3 A description of the appliance 

tested and its condition, date of receipt and 

dates of tests. 

14.1.4 A description of the minimum 

amount of external thermal storage that is 

required for use with this system. This shall 

be specified both in terms of volume in 

gallons and stored energy content in Btu with 

a storage temperature ranging from 125 °F to 

the manufacturer’s specified setpoint 

temperature. 

14.1.5 A statement that the test results 

apply only to the specific appliance tested. 

14.1.6 A statement that the test report 

shall not be reproduced except in full, 

without the written approval of the 

laboratory. 

14.1.7 A description of the test 

procedures and test equipment including a 

schematic or other drawing showing the 

location of all required test equipment. Also, 

a description of test fuel sourcing, handling 

and storage practices shall be included. 

14.1.8 Details of deviations from, 

additions to or exclusions from the test 

method, and their data quality implications 

on the test results (if any), as well as 

information on specific test conditions, such 

as environmental conditions. 

14.1.9 A list of participants and their 

roles and observers present for the tests. 

14.1.10 Data and drawings indicating the 

fire box size and location of the fuel charge. 

14.1.11 Drawings and calculations used 

to determine firebox volume. 

14.1.12 Information for each test run fuel 

charge including piece size, moisture content 

and weight. 

14.1.13 All required data and applicable 

blanks for each test run shall be provided in 

spreadsheet format both in the printed report 

and in a computer file such that the data can 

be easily analyzed and calculations easily 

verified. Formulas used for all calculations 

shall be accessible for review. 

14.1.14 For each test run, Q1,Q2, Q3, the 

total CO and particulate emission for each of 

these three periods, and Q4. 

14.1.15 Calculated results for delivered 

efficiency at each heat output rate and the 

weighted average emissions reported as total 

emissions in grams, pounds per million Btu 

of delivered heat, grams per MJ of delivered 

heat, grams per kilogram of dry fuel and 

grams per hour. Results shall be reported for 

each heat output category and the weighted 

average. 

14.1.16 Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 2 

must be used for presentation of results in 

test reports. 

14.1.17 A statement of the estimated 

uncertainty of measurement of the emissions 

and efficiency test results. 

14.1.18 A plot of CO emission rate in 

grams/minute vs. time, based on 1 minute 

averages, for the entire test period, for each 

run. 

14.1.19 A plot of estimated boiler/heater 

energy release rate in Btu/hr based on 10 

minute averages, for the entire test period, for 

each run. This will be calculated from the 

fuel used, the wood heating value and 

moisture content, and the SLM efficiency 

during each 10 minute period. 

14.1.20 Raw data, calibration records, and 

other relevant documentation shall be 

retained by the laboratory for a minimum of 

7 years. 

15.0 Precision and Bias 

15.1 Precision—It is not possible to 

specify the precision of the procedure in this 

test method because the appliance operation 

and fueling protocols and the appliances 

themselves produce variable amounts of 

emissions and cannot be used to determine 

reproducibility or repeatability of this test 

method. 

15.2 Bias—No definitive information can 

be presented on the bias of the procedure in 

this test method for measuring solid fuel 

burning hydronic heater emissions because 

no material having an accepted reference 

value is available. 

16.0 Keywords 

16.1 Solid fuel, hydronic heating 

appliances, wood-burning hydronic heaters, 

partial thermal storage. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.022</GPH> EP03FE14.023</GPH>
6412 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1A—DATA SUMMARY PART A 

Category Run No. Load % 

capacity 

Target load Actual load Actual load 

Q Wfuel MCave Qin Qout

Test duration Wood 

weight asfired 

Wood moisture Heat input 

Heat input 

Btu/hr 

Btu/hr % of max hrs 

lb %DB Btu Btu 

I .................. .................. <15% of max

II ................. .................. 16–24% of 

max.

III ................ .................. 25–50% of 

max.

IV ................ .................. Max capacity ..

TABLE 1B—DATA SUMMARY PART B 

Category Run No. Load % 

capacity 

T2 Min ET E E Eg/hr Eg/kg hdel HSLM

Min return 

water temp. 

Total PM 

emissions 

PM output 

based 

PM output 

based 

PM rate PM factor Delivered efficiency Stack loss 

efficiency 

°F g lb/MMBtu 

Out g/MJ g/hr g/kg % % 

I .................. .................. <15% of max

II ................. .................. 16–24% of 

max.

III ................ .................. 25–50% of 

max.

IV ................ .................. Max capacity ..

TABLE 1C—DATA SUMMARY PART C 

Category Run No. Load % 

capacity 

Q1 Q2 Q3 CO_1 CO_2 CO_3 COT

Startup time. Steady state 

time 

End time Startup CO 

emission 

Steady state 

CO emission 

End CO 

emission 

Total CO 

emission 

min min min g g g g 

I .................. .................. <15% of max ..........................

II ................. .................. 16–24% of max ......................

III ................ .................. 25–50% of max ......................

IV ................ .................. Max capacity ..........................

TABLE 1D—DATA SUMMARY PART D 

Category Run No. Load % 

capacity 

E1 E2 E3 E1_g/kg E2_g/kg E3_g/kg

Startup PM Steady 

state PM 

End PM Startup PM 

emission 

index 

Steady 

state PM 

emission 

index 

End PM 

emission 

index 

g g g 

g/kg fuel g/kg fuel g/kg fuel 

I ................ ................ <15% of max ......................................

II ............... ................ 16–24% of max ..................................

III .............. ................ 25–50% of max ..................................

IV ............. ................ Max capacity ......................................

TABLE 1E—LABEL SUMMARY INFORMATION

MANUFACTURER: 

MODEL NUMBER: 

ANNUAL EFFICIENCY RATING: .............................. havg ................... ........................... (Using higher heating value). 

PARTICLE EMISSIONS: ........................................... Eavg ................... ........................... GRAMS/HR (average). 

LBS/MILLION Btu/hr OUTPUT. 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL WEIGHTING

Category Weighting factor (Fi) hdel,i x Fi Eg/MJ,i x Fi Eg/kg,i x Fi Elb/MMBtu Out,i x Fi Eg/hr,i x Fi

I ........................................................ 0.437 

II ....................................................... 0.238 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6413 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL WEIGHTING—Continued 

Category Weighting factor (Fi) hdel,i x Fi Eg/MJ,i x Fi Eg/kg,i x Fi Elb/MMBtu Out,i x Fi Eg/hr,i x Fi

III ...................................................... 0.275 

IV ...................................................... 0.050 

Totals ........................................ 1.000 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.007</GPH>

Figure 1. Schematic of Equipment Test Setup 

D 
6414 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

■ 7. Revise Appendix I to Part 60 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix I to Part 60—Owner’s 

Manuals for Wood-Burning Heaters 

Subject to Subparts AAA, QQQQ, and 

RRRR of Part 60 

1. Introduction 

The purpose of this appendix is to provide 

specific instructions to manufacturers for 

compliance with the owner’s manual 

provisions of subparts AAA, QQQQ, and 

RRRR of this part. 

2. Instructions for Preparation of Wood 

Heater Owner’s Manuals 

2.1 Introduction 

Although the owner’s manuals do not 

require premarket approval, EPA will 

monitor the contents to ensure that sufficient 

information is included to provide heater 

operation and maintenance information 

affecting emissions to consumers. The 

purpose of this section is to provide 

instructions to manufacturers for compliance 

with the owner’s manual provisions of 

§ 60.536(f) of subpart AAA that applies to 

wood heaters, § 60.5478(f) of subpart QQQQ 

that applies to hydronic heaters and forcedair furnaces, and § 60.5490(g) of subpart 

RRRR that applies to masonry heaters. A 

checklist of topics and illustrative language 

is provided as instructions. Owner’s manuals 

should be tailored to specific wood heater 

models, as appropriate. 

2.2 Topics Required To Be Addressed in 

Owner’s Manual 

(a) Wood heater description and 

compliance status; 

(b) Tamper warning; 

(c) Catalyst information and warranty (if 

catalyst equipped); 

(d) Fuel selection; 

(e) Achieving and maintaining catalyst 

light-off (if catalyst equipped); 

(f) Catalyst monitoring (if catalyst 

equipped); 

(g) Troubleshooting catalytic equipped 

heaters (if catalyst equipped); 

(h) Catalyst replacement (if catalyst 

equipped); 

(i) Wood heater operation and 

maintenance; and 

(j) Wood heater installation: achieving 

proper draft. 

2.3 Sample Text/Descriptions 

(a) The following are example texts and/or 

further descriptions illustrating the topics 

identified above. Although the regulation 

requires manufacturers to address (where 

applicable) the ten topics identified above, 

the exact language is not specified. Manuals 

should be written specific to the model and 

design of the wood heater. The following 

instructions are composed of generic 

descriptions and texts. 

(b) If manufacturers choose to use the 

language provided in the example, the 

portion in italics should be revised as 

appropriate. Any manufacturer electing to 

use the EPA example language will be 

considered to be in compliance with owner’s 

manual requirements provided that the 

particular language is printed in full with 

only such changes as are necessary to ensure 

accuracy. 

Example language is not provided for 

certain topics, since these areas are generally 

heater specific. For these topics, 

manufacturers should develop text that is 

specific to the operation and maintenance of 

their particular products. 

2.3.1 Wood Heater Description and 

Compliance Status 

Owner’s Manuals must include: 

(a) Manufacturer and model; 

(b) Compliance status (exempt, 1990 std., 

2015 std., etc.); and 

(c) Heat output range. 

Exhibit 1—Example Text covering (a), (b), 

and (c) above: 

‘‘This manual describes the installation 

and operation of the Brand X, Model 0 

catalytic equipped wood heater. This heater 

meets the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s emission limits for wood heaters 

sold after January 1, 2015. Under specific test 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE14.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 6415 

conditions this heater has been shown to 

deliver heat at rates ranging from 8,000 to 

35,000 Btu/hr.’’ 

2.3.2 Tamper Warning 

The following statement must be included 

in the owner’s manual for catalyst-equipped 

units: 

‘‘This wood heater contains a catalytic 

combustor, which needs periodic inspection 

and replacement for proper operation. It is 

against the law to operate this wood heater 

in a manner inconsistent with operating 

instructions in this manual, or if the catalytic 

element is deactivated or removed.’’ 

2.3.3 Catalyst Information 

The following information must be 

included with or supplied in the owner’s and 

warranty manuals: 

(a) Catalyst manufacturer and model; 

(b) Catalyst warranty details; and 

(c) Instructions for warranty claims. 

Exhibit 2—Example Text covering (a), (b), 

and (c): 

‘‘The combustor supplied with this heater 

is a Brand Z, Long Life Combustor. Consult 

the catalytic combustor warranty also 

supplied with this wood heater. Warranty 

claims should be addressed to: 

Stove or Catalyst Manufacturer llllll

Address llllllllllllllll

Phone # lllllllllllllllll

2.3.3.1 This section should also provide 

clear instructions on how to exercise the 

warranty (how to package for return 

shipment, etc.). 

2.3.4 Fuel Selection 

Owner’s manuals must include: 

(a) Instructions on acceptable fuels; and 

(b) Warning against inappropriate fuels. 

Exhibit 3—Example Text covering (a) and 

(b): 

‘‘This heater is designed to burn natural 

wood only. Higher efficiencies and lower 

emissions generally result when burning air 

dried seasoned hardwoods, as compared to 

softwoods or to green or freshly cut 

hardwoods. 

DO NOT BURN: 

• Treated Wood 

• Coal 

• Garbage 

• Cardboard 

• Solvents 

• Colored Paper 

• Trash 

Burning treated wood, garbage, solvents, 

colored paper or trash may result in release 

of toxic fumes and may poison or render 

ineffective the catalytic combustor. Burning 

coal, cardboard, or loose paper can produce 

soot, or large flakes of char or fly ash that can 

coat the combustor, causing smoke spillage 

into the room, and rendering the combustor 

ineffective.’’ 

2.3.5 Achieving and Maintaining Catalyst 

Light-Off 

Owner’s manuals must describe in detail 

proper procedures for: 

(a) Operation of catalyst bypass (stove 

specific), 

(b) Achieving catalyst light-off from a cold 

start, and 

(c) Achieving catalyst light-off when 

refueling. 

2.3.5.1 No example text is supplied for 

describing operation of catalyst bypass 

mechanisms (Item (a) above) since these are 

typically stove-specific. Manufacturers must 

provide instructions specific to their model 

describing: 

(1) Bypass position during startup; 

(2) Bypass position during normal 

operation; and 

(3) Bypass position during reloading. 

Exhibit 4—Example Text for Item (b): 

‘‘The temperature in the stove and the 

gases entering the combustor must be raised 

to between 500° to 700°F for catalytic activity 

to be initiated. During the startup of a cold 

stove, a medium to high firing rate must be 

maintained for about 20 minutes. This 

ensures that the stove, catalyst, and fuel are 

all stabilized at proper operating 

temperatures. Even though it is possible to 

have gas temperatures reach 600°F within 2 

to 3 minutes after a fire is started, if the fire 

is allowed to die down immediately it may 

go out or the combustor may stop working. 

Once the combustor starts working, heat 

generated in it by burning the smoke will 

keep it working.’’ 

Exhibit 5—Example Text for Item (c): 

‘‘REFUELING: During the refueling and 

rekindling of a cool fire, or a fire that has 

burned down to the charcoal phase, operate 

the stove at a medium to high firing rate for 

about 10 minutes to ensure that the catalyst 

reaches approximately 600 °F.’’ 

2.3.6 Catalyst Monitoring 

Owner’s manuals must include: 

(a) Recommendation to visually inspect 

combustor at least three times during the 

heating season; 

(b) Discussion on expected combustor 

temperatures for monitor-equipped units; 

and 

(c) Suggested monitoring and inspection 

techniques. 

Exhibit 6—Example Text covering (a), (b) 

and (c): 

‘‘It is important to periodically monitor the 

operation of the catalytic combustor to 

ensure that it is functioning properly and to 

determine when it needs to be replaced. A 

non-functioning combustor will result in a 

loss of heating efficiency, and an increase in 

creosote and emissions. Following is a list of 

items that should be checked on a periodic 

basis: 

• Combustors should be visually inspected 

at least three times during the heating season 

to determine if physical degradation has 

occurred. Actual removal of the combustor is 

not recommended unless more detailed 

inspection is warranted because of decreased 

performance. If any of these conditions 

exists, refer to Catalyst Troubleshooting 

section of this owner’s manual. 

• This catalytic heater is equipped with a 

temperature probe to monitor catalyst 

operation. Properly functioning combustors 

typically maintain temperatures in excess of 

500 °F, and often reach temperatures in 

excess of 1,000 °F. If catalyst temperatures 

are not in excess of 500 °F, refer to Catalyst 

Troubleshooting section of this owner’s 

manual. 

• You can get an indication of whether the 

catalyst is working by comparing the amount 

of smoke leaving the chimney when the 

smoke is going through the combustor and 

catalyst light-off has been achieved, to the 

amount of smoke leaving the chimney when 

the smoke is not routed through the 

combustor (bypass mode). 

Step 1—Light stove in accordance with 

instructions in 3.3.5. 

Step 2—With smoke routed through the 

catalyst, go outside and observe the 

emissions leaving the chimney. 

Step 3—Engage the bypass mechanism and 

again observe the emissions leaving the 

chimney. 

Significantly more smoke should be seen 

when the exhaust is not routed through the 

combustor (bypass mode). Be careful not to 

confuse smoke with steam from wet wood.’’ 

2.3.7 Catalyst Troubleshooting 

The owner’s manual must provide clear 

descriptions of symptoms and remedies to 

common combustor problems. It is 

recommended that photographs of catalyst 

peeling, plugging, thermal cracking, 

mechanical cracking, and masking be 

included in the manual to aid the consumer 

in identifying problems and to provide 

direction for corrective action. 

2.3.8 Catalyst Replacement 

The owner’s manual must provide clear 

step-by-step instructions on how to remove 

and replace the catalytic combustor. The 

section should include diagrams and/or 

photographs. 

2.3.9 Wood Heater Operation and 

Maintenance 

Owner’s manual must include: 

(a) Recommendations about building and 

maintaining a fire; 

(b) Instruction on proper use of air 

controls; 

(c) Ash removal and disposal; 

(d) Instruction on gasket replacement; and 

(e) Warning against overfiring. 

2.3.9.1 No example text is supplied for 

(a), (b), and (d) since these items are model 

specific. Manufacturers should provide 

detailed instructions on building and 

maintaining a fire including selection of fuel 

pieces, fuel quantity, and stacking 

arrangement. Manufacturers should also 

provide instruction on proper air settings 

(both primary and secondary) for attaining 

minimum and maximum heat outputs and 

any special instructions for operating 

thermostatic controls. Step-by-step 

instructions on inspection and replacement 

of gaskets should also be included. 

Manufacturers should provide diagrams and/ 

or photographs to assist the consumer. Gasket 

type and size should be specified. 

Exhibit 7—Example Text for Item (c): 

‘‘Whenever ashes get 3 to 4 inches deep in 

your firebox or ash pan, and when the fire 

has burned down and cooled, remove excess 

ashes. Leave an ash bed approximately 1 inch 

deep on the firebox bottom to help maintain 

a hot charcoal bed.’’ 

‘‘Ashes should be placed in a metal 

container with a tight-fitting lid. The closed 

container of ashes should be placed on a 

noncombustible floor or on the ground, away 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6416 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

from all combustible materials, pending final 

disposal. The ashes should be retained in the 

closed container until all cinders have 

thoroughly cooled.’’ 

Exhibit 8—Example Text covering Item (e): 

‘‘DO NOT OVERFIRE THIS HEATER’’ 

‘‘Attempts to achieve heat output rates that 

exceed heater design specifications can result 

in permanent damage to the heater and to the 

catalytic combustor if so equipped.’’ 

2.3.10 Wood Heater Installation: 

Achieving Proper Draft 

Owner’s manual must include: 

(a) Importance of proper draft; 

(b) Conditions indicating inadequate draft; 

and 

(c) Conditions indicating excessive draft. 

Exhibit 9—Example Text for Item (a): 

‘‘Draft is the force which moves air from 

the appliance up through the chimney. The 

amount of draft in your chimney depends on 

the length of the chimney, local geography, 

nearby obstructions, and other factors. Too 

much draft may cause excessive temperatures 

in the appliance and may damage the 

catalytic combustor. Inadequate draft may 

cause backpuffing into the room and 

‘plugging’ of the chimney or the catalyst.’’ 

Exhibit 10—Example Text for Item (b): 

‘‘Inadequate draft will cause the appliance 

to leak smoke into the room through 

appliance and chimney connector joints.’’ 

Exhibit 11—Example Text for Item (c): 

‘‘An uncontrollable burn or a glowing red 

stove part or chimney connector indicates 

excessive draft.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2014–00409 Filed 1–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS