1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** EO12866_NSPSResidentialWoodHeaters_2060 - AP93_NPRM_20130627.docx 6560 - 50 - P **ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 60 [**  **EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2009 -**  **0734 ; FRL**  **-** ]

**RIN 2060**  **- AP93**  **Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced**  **- Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters**  **AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ). **ACTION:** Proposed r

ule . **SUMMARY:** The E PA 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 F orced - Air Furnaces and Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry Heaters. Th is proposal is aimed at achiev ing several objectives for new resi dential wood heaters and other wood - burning appliances , including appl yi ng updated emission limits that reflect the current b est s ys tem s of e mission reduction ; eliminating exemptions over a bro ad suite of residential wood combustion devices ; strengthening test methods as appropriate ; and s treamlin ing the certification process . Th is proposal do es not include any requirements for heaters solel y fired b y gas , oil or coal . In addition, it do es not include any requirements associated with appliances that are already in use. The EPA continues to encourage state, local, tribal , and consumer efforts to change out (replace) old er heaters with newer, cleaner, more ef f ic i ent heaters, but that is not part of this Federal rulemaking.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 2 of 349 Particulate pollution from wood heaters is a significant national air pollution problem and human health issue . H ealth benefits associated with these proposed regulations are valued to be much greater than the cost to manufacture cleaner, l ower emitting appliances. The se proposed regulations would significantl y reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions and many other pollutants from these appliances , including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and hazardous air pollutants . Emis sions 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 pu blic health. **DATES:** Comments must be received on or before **[ INSERT DATE**  **90 DAYS AFTER**  **PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]** . Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a cop y of your comments on or before **[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AF T**  **ER DATE OF PUBLIC ATION IN THE**  **FEDERAL REGISTER]** . Public Hearing

s . The EPA will hold two public hearing s on this proposed rule , one in Boston, M assachusetts and one in Tacoma , Washington . Requests to speak at one of the hearing s must be made by **[INSERT DATE 2**  **0 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  . Contact Mr. David Cole via email at cole.david@epa.gov or by phone at (919) 541 - 5565 to request to speak . The EPA will announce additional details for the hearing s o nthe EPA BurnWise website at www.epa.gov/burnwise . Note that there is no extra weight placed on the comments presented at a public hearing versus comments submitted via the process discussed in the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 3 of 349 “ADDRESSES” section below. P otential speakers should still submit a written cop y of their comments to best en sure that they have full effect. Also, note that the EPA does not normally make a presentation at the hearings and only asks clarifying questions . **ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR 2 009 - 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 P ennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20 00 4. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a cop y of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) , Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 735 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 2 0503.  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 . S uch deliveries are onl y 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 docket1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 4 of 349 without change and may

b e 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 b y statute. Do no t submit information that you consider to be CBI , or otherwise protected , through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonym ous access” sy stem, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directl y t o 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 o r CD - ROM you submit. I f 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 IN FORMAT ION 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 5 of 349 Certain other material, such as cop yri ghted material, will be publicly available only

in hard cop y form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronicall y in www.regulations.gov or in hard cop y 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 holiday s. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566 - 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566 - 1742. Public Hearing

s . The public hearing s will be announced in a that provides details, including specific dates, times, addresses and contact information for the hearing s . **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 (C 3 04 - 0 3 ), 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 appl y to me? C . Where can I get a cop y of this document? D . What should Iconsider as Iprepare m y comments for the EPA? II. Background A. What is the NSPS program? B. Why was the original residential wood heater s NSPS developed? C. What are the requirements of the current 1988 NSPS? D. What are the major developments since the original NSPS was p ublished ? E. Why is residential wood smoke a concern? F. Wh at are the major issues that drove the review process?1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 6 of 349 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. Rational e for Proposed Amendments A. Why are we proposing to expand the scope of appliances subject to the NSPS? B. How did we determine B SER 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 ? V I . 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 L ow - Income Populations **I. General Information** A. Executive Summary 1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action The purpose of this action is to propos e amendments to the Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters (40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) and to1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 7 of 349 add two new subparts: Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced - Air Fur

naces and Standards of Performance for New Residential Masonry Heaters (40 CFR part 60, subparts QQQQ and RRRR) . Th i s proposal w as developed following a Clean Air Act (CAA) s ection 111(b)(1)(B) periodic review of the current residential wood heater new source performance standards (NSPS). We concur with numerous stakeholders that the current body of evidence justifies revision of the current residential wood heaters NSPS to capture the improvements in performance of such units and to expand the applicability of this NSPS to include additional wood - burning residential heating devices that are in the market. The proposed changes are aimed at achieving several objectives, including appl yi ng updated emission limits that reflect the current best sy stems 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. Th is proposal do es not include any requirem ents 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 ef forts to change out (replace) older heaters with newer, cleaner, more efficient heaters, but that is not part of this Federal rulemaking. Th ese revisions will help reduce the health impacts of fine particle pollution, of which wood smoke is a contributing factor in many areas. Residential w ood smoke contains fine particles with an aerodyn amic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less ( PM 2.5 ) , carbon monoxide ( CO ) , toxic air pollutants ( e.g. , benzene and formaldehyde) , and climate - forcing emissions ( e.g. , methane and black carbon) . Residential wood smoke can1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 8 of 349 increase PM 2.5 to levels that cause significant health concerns . Populations that are at greater risk for experiencing health effects related to fine particle exposures include older adults, children and individuals with pre - existing heart or lung disease. Each year , smoke from wood heaters contributes hundreds of thousands of tons of fine particles throughout the country

– mostly

during the winter months. Nationally , residential wood combustion accounts for 44 percent of total stationary and mobile polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions , nearly

25 percent of all area source air toxics cancer risks and 15 percent of noncancer respiratory

effects . 1 Residential wood smoke causes many counties in the U.S. to either exceed the EPA’s health - based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS ) for fine particles or places them on the cusp of exceeding those standards. 2 To the degre e that older, higher emitting , less eff i cient w ood h e aters are replaced by newer heaters that me et the requi rements of this rule , or better, the emissions w ould be reduced, the efficiencies w ould be increase d , and fewer health imp acts sho uld occur . This action is conducted under the authority of s ection 111 of the CAA, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources," under which the EPA establish es federal standards of performance for new sources within source categories that cause or contribute significantl y to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Consistent with section 111(h), i f it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, the Administrator may 1 Strategies for Reducing Residential W ood Smoke . EPA - 456/B - 13 - 001, March 2013 . Prepared b y 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. p p. 4 - 5. 2 Note to OMB: Air Quality and Emissions Data; S upporting Information for the Residential Wood Heater New Source Performance Standard , August 14, 2013.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 9 of 349 instead promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that reflects the best sy stem 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 adequatel y demonstrated. 2. Summary

of the Major Provisions of this Proposed Regulatory Action In response to the results of the NSPS review, w e are proposing to amend 40 CFR p art 60, subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. The current regulation applies to affected appliances manufa ctured after 1988. T he current emis s ion limits would remain in effect for the heaters and model lines manufactured before the effective date of this rule unti l 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 t o 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 specificall y include all single burn rate wood heaters /stoves and pellet heaters/ stoves . (Some pellet heaters/ stoves were not affected b y the 1988 regulation.) Note that this preamble uses the following terms interchangeabl y: heaters, stoves, and heaters/stoves. Heaters /stoves and model lines manufactured after the effective date of the rule would be required to meet particulate matter (PM) standards . As with th e 1988 regulation, the source category covered by

this NSPS is fundamentall y different from the typical NSPS source category in several way s. For example, most NSPS source categories focus on industrial or co mmercial facilities and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 10 of 349 ty picall y these heaters are installed and operated in residences, not industrial or commercial facilities. Also, residential wood heaters, hydronic heaters, forced - air furnaces, and most masonry heaters are mass - produced consumer items, rather than industrial processes typically regulated by NSPS. Therefore, as in 1988, we are proposing that manufacturers participate in a certification program that tests a representative heater per model line rather than requiring testing each heater . I f 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 q uality 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 comment s 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 address ed some of the specific characteristics of this source category by developing a two - step compliance approach that provide d a reasonable, phased implementation of emission limits for manufacturers . We believe such an approach is pr

udent this ti m e also to allow manufacturers lead time to develop , test, field evaluate, and certify current technolog ies 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 adequatel y assure compliance if all the NSPS requirements were to be immediate. Those concerns have1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 11 of 349 been expressed this time also. Thus, u pon the effective date of th is 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 e ach unit be equipped with a permanent NSPS label . The two - step approach would ap ply t o all the heater types addressed in this rul emaking ex c ept for mas onry heaters . For masonry heaters , we are not pro posing 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 onl y 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 t ools 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 typ es in the 1987 residenti al wo o d h e ater source category

listing that were not regulated b y the 1988 NSPS . B oth 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 to1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 12 of 349 address very small volume manufacturers, including a proposed compliance extension and the ability

to use a software certification approach rather than a laboratory emission test. The proposed PM standards for subparts QQQQ and RRRR would be implemented in two steps. For subpart QQQQ, upon the effective date of the rule, hydronic heaters would be required to meet a Step 1 PM limit of 0.32 pound per million British thermal unit ( lb/MM Btu) 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/MM B tu heat out put. Five years after the effective date of the rule , small volume masonry heater manufacturers (defined as manufacturers constructing less than 15 masonry

heaters per ye ar) would be required to meet the 0.32 lb/MM B tu heat output PM limit. 3. Costs and Benefits C onsistent with Ex ecutive 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 r ule at a 3 percent discount rate are $ 1.8 billion to $ 4.2 billion or $ 1.7 billion to $ 3.7 billion at a 7 percent discount rate. The non - monetized benefits include 33,000 tons of carbon monoxide reductions ; 3 , 2 00 tons of volatile organic compounds reductions ; r educed exposure to h azardous air p ollutants, including1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 13 of 349 formaldeh yde, benzene, and polycyclic organic matter ; reduced climate effects due to reduced black carbon emissions ; reduced e cos ys tem effects ; and reduced v isibility impairments . Table 1 is a summary of the results of the anal ys is per typ e of residential wood heater . We have provided estimates reflecting average annual impacts for the 2014 to 2022 timeframe, which are the ye ars in which the options considered in this proposal are implemented. Monetized ben e fits are not currently avail a b l e for masonry

heaters . W e ask for emission and projected sales data per model that would help us prepare emission reduction estimates and corresponding monetized benefits estimates . **Table 1. Summary**  **of Compliance Costs, Monetized Benefits, and Monetized Net** 

**Benefits (2010 dollars) by Type of Heater**  **in the 2014**  **– 20**  **22 Time Frame f**  **o r the Prop**  **o sed Rule**  **Type of Heater Total Annualized**  **Costs ($ m** **illions) Monetized Benefits** 

**($ m illions)**  **a Monetized Net** 

**Benefits ($ m illions)**  Wood stoves $4.2 $62 to $140 $62 to $140 Single burn rate stoves $0.9 $290 to $650 $290 to $650 Pellet stoves $3.5 $19 to $43 $19 to $43 Forced - air furnaces $2.3 $1,000 to $2,200 $1,000 to $2,200 Masonry heaters $0.3 N/A c N/A Hydronic heating systems $4.5 $480 to $1,100 $480 to $1,100

a All estimates are f

or 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% interest rate. b Total monetized benefits are estimated at a 3% discount rate. T he total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 2.5 through reductions of directly emitted PM 2.5 . It is important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all health effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a range from Krewski et al. (200 9 ) to L epeule et al. (20 12 ) . These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. Because these estimates were generated using benefit -per - ton estimates, we do not break down the total monetized benefits into specific components. c The monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not avail abl e because wedo no t have good estimates of the potential emi ssion reductions .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 14 of 349 B. Does this action apply to me ? The potentially regulated source s 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 likel y 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 b y this proposed action. Table 2 . Potentially

Regulated Entities Category NAI CS a Code Examples of Regulated Entities Residential Wood Heating 333414 - Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing Manufacturers, owners and operators of w ood heater s, pellet heaters/ stoves, hydronic heaters, masonry heaters 333415 - Air - Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing Manufacturers, owners and operators of f

orced - air furnaces 238140 - Masonry

Contractors Manufacturers, owners ,

operators and testers of m asonry heaters Testing Laboratories 541380 - Testing laboratories (except medical, veterinary) Testers of wood heaters, pellet heaters/ stoves, hydroni c heaters and masonry heaters a North American Industry Classification S ys tem C. Wh ere can I get a copy of this document ? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic cop y of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 15 of 349 Networ k (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newl y proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html . The TTN prov ides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA ? 1. Submitting CBI Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. In stead, c learl y m ark the part or all of the information that yo u claim to be CBI and send or deliver onl y 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 C D - ROM as CBI and then identify electronically

within the disk or CD - ROM the specific information that yo u 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 2.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 16 of 349 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to:  Id entify

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 yo ur 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 clearl y 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. Wh at is the NSPS program ? Under s ection 111 of the CAA, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources," the EPA lists categories of sources that, in EPA’s judgment , cause or contribute significantl y 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 section1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 17 of 349 111(b)(1)(B) . At the time the EPA proposes and establishes standards for certain pollutants for a source category , the EPA prepares an anal ys is 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, e mission reductions associated with the requirements of this proposed rule will generate health benefits b y reducing emissions of PM 2.5 , other criteria pollutants, such as CO , and non - criteria hazardous air pollutants (HAP) . Consistent with section 111(h) , i f 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 sy stem 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 adequatel y 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 e xample s are discussed in I I.E. Th e level of control pre scribed by s ection 111 historically has been referred to as “Best Demonstrated Technology” or BDT. T o better reflect that s ection 111 was amended in 1990 to clarify that “best s ys tems” may

or may not be “technology , ” the EPA is now using the term “best sy stem s of emission reduction” or BSER. As was done previously in anal yz ing BDT , the EPA uses available information and considers the emissions reductions and incremental costs f or different sy stems available at reasonable1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 1 8 of 349 cost . The re sidential wood heater s 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 th ose sy stem s 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 EP A is proposing considers these factors. Th at is, for this rulemaking, th e E PA has determine d the appropriate emission limits and compliance deadlines that together are representative of B SER . Detai l s of the BSER determinations are included in V.B. of this preamble. Section 111(b) ( 1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to periodicall y (every 8 ye ars) review an NSPS unless it determines “that such review is not appropriate in light of readil y 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 , in cluding 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 heater s NSPS to capture the improvements in performanc e of such units and to expand the applicability of this NSPS to include additional residential wood - burning heating devices that are available today . The states of New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, as well as the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency , have filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., 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,1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 19 of 349 and Environment and Human Health, Inc., have filed a similar request. The EPA has committed to action as expeditiously as possible. Also, s ome stakeholders have suggested th at the EPA develop additional NSPS to regulate residential heating devices that burn fuels other than or in addition to wood, e.g. , coal , corn or grass . This pro posal does not include any require ment s for heaters that sole l y burn fuels other than wood . B. Wh y was the original residential wood heater s 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 b y New York State and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) , the EPA agreed to initiate a residential wood heater s 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 s ection 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA listed the residential wood heater source category bas ed on its determination that residential wood heaters cause, or contribute significantly

to, air pollution which may reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (52 FR 5065, February 18, 1987). The EPA also proposed regulations for resid ential 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 ty pical pre -NSPS conventional wood1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 20 of 349 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. Wh at are the requirements of the current 1988 NSPS ? The current s ubpart AAA defines a wood heater as an enclosed, wood - burning appl iance 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 b y 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 b y 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), ex cluding 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 ty pes of resi dential wood combustion appliances that are not subject to the current 1988 NSPS:  Open masonry

fireplaces constructed on site  Boilers /Heaters  Furnaces  Cookstoves1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 21 of 349 In addition, the current 1988 NSPS exempts the following from the emission limits:  Wood heaters used solely for research and development (R&D) purposes  Wood heaters manufactured for export  Coal - only

heaters As noted earlier, because of the specific characteristics of this source category ( e.g. , it applies to mass - produced residential co nsumer items ) , the residential wood heater s 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 costl y and i mpractical . Therefore, th e 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 th e EPA to conduct audits to ensure compliance. As discussed in the 1988 rulemaking, the s tandards 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 p roduction while new models were being developed and certified. Advanced technology heaters/ stoves including both catal ytic and noncatal ytic s ys tems were con s idered t o be BDT (now called BSER) , because the net1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 22 of 349 emissions of both systems over time were estimated to be similar (even though the initial certification test results were lower for cataly tic models) due to possible degradation and lack of catal ys t replacement . The EPA considered requiring cataly st replacement on a regular schedule but determine d that enforcement of such a requirement would be difficult or impractical . The EPA did require manufacturers to provide 2 - ye ar unconditional warranties on the catal ys ts and prohibited the operation of cataly tic heaters/ stoves without a catal ys t. Principal ly bec au s e of these concerns, the EPA wanted to ensure that both catalytic and noncatal ytic technology would continue to be option s 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 ye ars. 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 ye ars of publication of the final rule , i.e. , by 1990 . Models equipped with a catal ytic combustor cannot emit more than a weighted average of 4.1 g/hr (of PM) . Models that are not equipped with a catal ytic combustor cannot emit more than a weighted average of 7.5 g/hr of PM. The lower initial emission limit for the catal ytic combustor - equipped models incorporates an expected deterioration rate for the catal ys ts such that after 5 years the emissions from those models were expected to be similar to the emissions f rom noncatal ytic models . D. What are the major developments since the original NSPS was published ? New sy stems for residential wood heating devices are commerciall y available in the U.S. that p erform at significantl y lower g/hr emission rates than required under the current 1988 NSPS. Furthermore, even greater performance potentiall y can be achieved1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 23 of 349 by greater depl oy

ment of the best U.S. sy stems and the ty pical sy stems already

widel y employed in Europe , especiall y for outdoor and indoor hydronic heaters . The EPA has conducted a research project “Environmental Characterization of Outdoor Wood - fired Hydronic Heaters” through a cooperative Research and Development ( R&D ) agreement with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) that evaluated four types of technology ranging from a common outdoor wood boiler/heater to a state - of - the - art, high - efficiency

pellet boiler/heater from Austria. The study showed considerable emission reduction due to a 2 - stage combustion technology that include s gasification of the fuel and more complete combustion. 3 Many s takeholders 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 heater s ; pellet heaters/ stoves that are not subject to the current standard via the NSPS air - to - fuel ratio; wood “boilers” (hydronic heaters) ; forced - air furnaces ; and masonry heaters . Some stakeholders have also expressed an interest in regulating non - “heater” devices , such as indoor and outdoor fireplaces, firepits, cookstoves, and pizza ovens. One category

of wood heating appliances that has undergone significant growth is wood heaters/boilers or “ hydronic heaters. ” (Note that these units are technically called heaters rather than boilers because many are not pressurized and do not boil the liquid. ) Hydronic heaters are typi cally located outside the buildings they heat in small sheds with short smokestacks. These appliances burn wood to heat a liquid (water or a water - 3 Environmental, Energy Market, And Health Characterization Of W ood -Fired Hydronic Heater Technologies . Prepared b y U.S. E PA Office of Research and Development , et al ., prepared for NYSERDA. June 2012.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 24 of 349 antifreeze mixture ) that is piped to provide heat and hot w ater 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 us e other biomass (such as corn or wood pellets) or coal or a combination for fuel . S tudies have shown that PM 2.5 concentrations in proximity to a ty pical 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, less polluting, more efficient hydronic heaters. We developed the voluntary partnership program with the goal of bring ing cleaner models to market faster than the traditional federal regulatory process. Properly

operated Phase 1 5 emission level (0.60 lb/MMB tu heat input) qualifying 6 units are approximately 70 percent cle aner than ty pical 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 . Properl y operated Phase 2 emission level (0.32 lb/MMB tu heat output) 4 For more information on wood smoke health effects, s ee : “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 b y NESCAUM, March 2006 (revised June 2006). 5 “Phase 1” and “Phase 2” emission levels refer to levels established in EPA voluntary partnership program s. The earlier use of the term “Phase II” (with a Roman numeral) standard refers to standards established in the current subpart AAA for residential wood heaters. 6 The terms “qualified” and “unqualified,” or other similar terms, refer to models that meet or have not been shown to meet the voluntary partnership program performance levels. Later use of the terms “certified” and “uncertified,” or other similar terms, refers to models that are deemed to be in compliance or noncompliance with the NSPS emission limits.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 25 of 349 qualifying units are estimated to be approximately 90 percent cleaner than ty pical unqualified units. Ty

pically , qualified models have improved insulation, secondary combustion, separation of the firebox from the water jacket, and the additio n of improved heat exchanger s . 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 adopte d 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 lim i ts on proximity to neighbors and limits on vis ible em i ssions and limits on use in non - h eating seasons and some have banned hydronic heaters entirel y in some areas . The EPA also developed a similar voluntary partnership program for low mass fireplaces (engineered, pre - fabricated fireplaces) and site - built masonry fireplaces. Firepl a ces were not included in the 1988 NSPS for residential wood heaters because they are no t considered to be “heaters.” The voluntary program began in February 2009 , and pertain ed onl y to low mass fireplaces at that time . In July 2009, the program was expanded to maso nry

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 kilo gram (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 under1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 26 of 349 this voluntary

partnership program at the Phase 2 level. Ty picall y, qualified models have improved insulation and added secondary combustion and/or a catal ys t 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 ” day s on which the firep laces cann o t 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 2 5 ye ars 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 implem ent the program, such as developing an electronic s ys tem for submittals and approval. Many m anufacturers and test laboratories have also questioned the effectiveness of some of the current audit procedures. In addition, they have participated in the devel opment of new test methods and test method improvements as part of the efforts of ASTM International (formerl y 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 s ubpart AAA . O n 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 s ubpart AAA pro vided that the tests use the same burn rate categories specified in the EPA Reference1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 27 of 349 Method 28 . W e are now proposing that the current version of this method be used for efficiency testing (CSA B415.1 - 10) . W e are also proposing EPA Method 28 WHH (wood - fired hydronic heaters) that has been used f or qualification testing of hydronic heaters in the EPA voluntary partnership program and numerous state regulations . Other issues that have been identified over the ye ars regarding test m ethods and emissions calculations include em issions averaging, burn rate weightings, hot start versus cold start, emission caps per burn rate , and cataly st 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 closel y resemble s what a typical homeowner would use. W e address all these issues as part of this propos al . E. Wh y 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 s ymptoms, 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 - existing1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 28 of 349 heart or lung disease. 7 Residential wood smoke contains fine particles and toxic air pollutants ( e.g. , benzene and formaldehyd e). Each year , smoke from wood heater s 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 increase s 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, i n 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 strengthen ed the annual NAAQS for fine particles to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ( μg/m 3 ) from the 1997 st andard of 15 μg/m 3 and retain ed the existing 24 - hour fine particle standard of 35 μg/m 3 issued in 2006. The 2012 NAAQS for PM also retains the current 24 - hour PM 10 standards for health and environmental effects at a level of 150 μg/m 3 to continue to provide protection against effects associated with exposure to thoracic coarse particles. 7 EPA Burn Wise (Consumer - Health Effects) , http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/healtheffects.html . 8 Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke. EPA - 456/B - 13 - 001, March 2013 . Prepared b y 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. 9 Memorandum dated April 4, 2013, from David Cole, EPA, to Docket ID No. EPA - HQ OAR - 2009 - 0734 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 29 of 349 Areas that do not meet the standards must take steps to reduce PM emissions. Some state organizations ( e.g. , NACAA, ECOS, NESCAUM, WESTAR, 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 P M 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, formaldeh yde and other organic gases, and nitrogen oxides (NO x). Health effects from CO include:  Interference with the blood’s ability to carry oxygen to the brain, which impairs thinking and reflexes  H eart pain  Lower birth weights and increased deaths in newborns  D eath H ealth effects from f

ormaldehyde and other organic gases include:  Irritation of eyes, nose, and throat  In flammation of mucous membranes, irritation of the throat and sinuses  Interference with lung function

10 Arthur Marin, Executive Directo r of NESCAUM and Dan Johnson, Executive Director of WESTAR, to Steve Page, Director OAQPS/EPA. April 28, 2008. 11 Arthur Marin , Executive Director of NESCAUM, to Gina McCarthy , Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation/EPA. January 14, 2011.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 30 of 349  A llergic reactions  N ose and throat cancer in animals, and cancer in humans N itrogen oxide can irritate the eyes and respiratory sy stem, may damage the immune sy stem 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, pol yc yclic 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. M any 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 b y this rule . In addition , d ue to the long life span of wood - burning appliance s 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 example s , the S tate of Oregon , Washoe County (NV), and Township of Mammoth L akes (CA) have require d that , when a home is sold, existing wood heaters that have not been certified to 12 Department of Ecology , State of Washington, Brochure on Wood Smoke and Your Health. September 2008 , http://www.ecy .wa.gov/pubs/91br023.pdf. 13 EPA Burn Wise (Health Effects of Breathing Wood Smoke) , http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/woodsmoke_health_effects_jan07.pd f. 14 " Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke ," EPA - 456/B - 13 - 001. March 20 13 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 31 of 349 meet the NSPS be removed and destro ye d and not resold . As additional SIP strategies, some states and local authorities have banned wood burning during certain high PM events, restrict ed the amount of burning, and regulate d 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 way s 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 Barbe cue Association ( HPBA ) , have been active in promoting wood heater/ stove changeout programs to replace older, higher - emitting heaters/ stoves with lower - emitting EPA certified heaters/ stoves, pellet heaters/ stoves, or other cleaner burning appliances. F. Wh at are the major issues that drove the review process ? We received several requests to conduct a review of the residential wood heaters NSPS, including a joint letter from the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) and NESCAUM that urged us to update and develop regulations relating to a variety of wood combustion devices. The authors cited concerns that many communities are measuring ambient conditions above or very close to the PM 2.5 NAAQS and that , in many instances , emissions from wood smoke are a larg e contributor to those high PM 2.5 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 ye ars. Oth er states, environmental groups, and HPBA have also recommended several changes to the NSPS. The HPBA Outdoor Wood - fired1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 32 of 349 Hydronic Heater ( OWHH ) Manufacturers Caucus wrote the EPA to express their unanimous support for the EPA to develop a federal regulatio n for OWHH . 15 Specific requests from stakeholders include:  Tighten ing emission standards based on current performance data  Address ing other pollutants of concern  Review ing the format of the standard s , including adding requirements to document the tested efficiency

of the unit  Reevaluating exemptions, such as those based on air - to - fuel ratios and size and weight  Adding other wood heating devices such as pellet heaters/ stoves, hydronic heaters, and masonry

heaters to the NSPS  Regulating fireplaces and other “non - heater” devices ( e.g. , cookstoves)  Regulating heating devices that burn fuel other than wood ( e.g. , other solid biomass and coal)  Updating test methods  Streamlin ing the certification process to use electronic data submittals/reviews  Considering use of International Organization for Standardization (I SO) - accredited labs and I SO - accredited certifying bodies  Improv ing compliance assurance/enforceability and quality

assurance/quality

control  Making the rule more consumer friendl y b y making more information readily available on - line

15 HPBA OWHH Caucus letter to Greg Green, Director, Outreach and Information Division, EPA. September 27, 2007.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 33 of 349 **III. Summary of Proposed Residential Wood Heater Appliance Amendments** We are proposing to amend 40 CFR p art 60, subpart AAA, Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters. We are also proposing two new su bparts to address additional ty

pes 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 Ne w Residential Masonry Heaters . The following sections describe the major provisions of each subpart . Th i s proposal do es not include any requirements that would apply t o heaters that are fueled solel y b y gas , oil or coal . In addition, this proposal does not include any requirements associated with wood heaters or other wood - burning appliances that are already in use. The EPA continues to encourage state, local, tribal, and consumer efforts to change out (replace) older heaters with newer, cleaner, more effic ient heaters, but that is not part of this Federal rulemaking. A. Room Heaters The current 1988 regulation ( s ubpart 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. W e propose to broaden the applicability of the wood heater s regulation beyond adjustable burn rate wood heater s (the focus of the original regulation) to specifically also include single burn rate wood heater s /stoves , pellet heaters/ stoves , and any

other affected appliance as defined in the proposed subpart AAA1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 34 of 349 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. Li ke the 1988 current subpart AAA, the proposed subpart AAA does not apply to fireplaces . This proposal tightens the definition for “ cookstoves ” and add s definitions for “ camp stoves ” and

“ traditional Native American bake ovens ” to clarify that they would not be subject to th e standard other than appropriate labeling for cookstoves and camp stoves . Finally , the proposed subpart AAA clarifie s that the emission limits would only appl y to wood burning devices ( i.e. , not to devices that only burn fuels other than wood , e.g. , gas , oil or coal ). As discussed in section II, NSPS determinations of BSER must consider costs . The fact that this source category is for consumer products manufactured for residential sale result s in cost considerations that are different from those for industrial process source categories that are ty pical 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 currentl y 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 Admin istrator, 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 for1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 35 of 349 co mpliance in 1990) for adjustable burn rate wood heater s and pellet heaters/ stoves with a current EPA certification issued prior to the effective date of th is 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 imp acts on those manufacturers (mostl y 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 th is 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 - ye ar certific ation period for units manufactured after the effective date of th e 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 . W e are proposing a two - step compliance approach (referred to herein as the “Proposed Approach”) that would apply to all new adjustable burn rate wood heater s , single burn rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/ stove s . Un der this P roposed Approach, the Proposed Step 1 emission limits for these sources would appl y 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 after1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 36 of 349 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 heater s , single burn rate wood heaters and pellet heaters/ stove s . Under this Alternative Approach, the Alternative Step 1 emission limit s 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 limit s would apply

to each source manufactured or sold on or after the date 3 ye ars after the effective date of the final rule . The Alternative Step 3 emission limit s would apply to each source manufactured or sold on or aft er 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 full y c onsidering 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 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 37 of 349 Table 3. Proposed Approach S ubpart AAA PM Emissions Li mits Appliance Phases/ Steps PM Emissions Limit Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/ Stoves with current EPA c ertification i ssued p rior 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 cataly tic heaters/ stoves and 7.5 g/hr for noncataly

tic heaters/ stoves

All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters , Single Burn Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/ Stoves (includes currentl y certified heaters after the certification expires , catal ytic and noncatal ytic ) 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 S ubpart AAA PM Emissions Li mits 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 cataly tic heaters/ stoves and 7.5 g/hr for noncataly

tic heaters/ stoves

All Other Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters , Single Burn Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/ Stoves (includes currentl y certified heaters after the certification expires , catal ytic and Step 1: upon the effective date of final rule Step 2: 3 years after the effective date of the final rule 4 .5 g/hr 2.5 g/hr1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 38 of 349 noncatal ytic ) Step 3: 8 years after the effective date of the final rule 1.3 g/hr Although the 1988 promulgated subpart AAA (53 FR 5860, February 26, 1988) included an additional 1 - ye ar 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 doe s not include a similar compliance extension. We are not proposing a delay for adjustable burn rate wood heaters or pellet heaters/ stoves because the majority of these appliances already comply with the proposed Step 1 emission levels . See section V.C. of this preamble for more discussion of this topic. However, we are requesting comments on the possible need for such a compliance extension for single burn rate wood heaters, which are not subject to the current subpart AAA requirements. W e are proposing to make a single determination of BSER for both catal ytic and noncatal ytic heater s ys tems . The EPA considered requiring cataly st replacement on a regular schedule but determined that federal enforcement of such a requirement would be difficult. As in the curr ent 1988 rule, we are proposing to require manufacturers to provide warranties on the catal ys ts and prohibit the operation of catal ytic heaters/ stoves without a catal ys t. In addition, we are proposing to require warranties for noncatal ytic heaters/ stoves. Though we are not propos ing efficiency standards at this time, we are proposing to require testing and reporting of th ese data ; however, we are requesting specific comment on the need to propose efficiency standards and any data to support the basis for th ese standards .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 39 of 349 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 ye ars after the effective date of the fiamn rule , we would require certifying with cord wood only . As discussed earlier in this preamble, “ c rib 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 resemble s what a ty

pical homeowner would use. We ask for co mments and test d ata to co mpare of heater performance with crib wood and cord wood. Although we lack sufficient data to propose a separate CO emissions standard at this time, we propo se to require that the manufacturer determine CO emissions during the compliance test and report those results to the EPA. We specificall y request emission and cost data for s ys tems that reduce CO emissions. If those sy stems 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 19 88 subpart, the EPA is using its authority under s ection 114 of the CAA to require each manufacturer to submit certifications of compliance with this1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 40 of 349 rule for all models and all units. As in the 1988 rule, provided that the certifications are timely , compl ete, 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 economicall y prohibitive. Inaddition , as in 1988, the testing of each unit could create a potential “logjam” that would sty mie 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 Lab oratory ,” from onl y EPA - accredited laboratories to laboratories approved b y 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 I SO - IEC 18 Standard 17025, to conduct the certification testing. The laboratories would have to register their credentials with the EPA and be approved b y 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 , a fter testing is complete, a 18 IS O, the International Organization for Standardization, and IEC, the International Electrotechnical Commission, prepare and publish international standards.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 41 of 349 certification of conformity with the PM emissions standards mustbe issued by a certifying body with whom the manufacturer h as 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 I SO - accredited should be expected to act in such a way that will not create a conflict of interest. The EPA would oversee the certification body ’s work and retain the right to revoke the approval if appropriate. Upon review of the test report and quality control plan submitted by the manufacturer, the certifying body may certify compliance and submit the required documentation to the EPA ’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for review, approval and listing of the certified appliance. Our preference is to require the new expanded certification process ( i.e. , inclusion of I SO - accredited and EP A - approved certif ying 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, e ach 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 affected1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 42 of 349 unit on the effective date of the final rule. We propose to clarify that the permanent la

bel 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 heater s that may be required b y 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 onl y 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 primaril y to contain information useful to consumers and pro spective 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 include d 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 properl y 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 o peration of these appliances. Consequently , we are proposing to remove the requirem ent for temp orary labels on certified heaters . Consumers can get additional information that would normally be contained on the temporary labels at http://www.epa.gov/burnwise . We request comment on the potential impact that deleting1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 43 of 349 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 h ow to red uce exaggerated claims . Inaddition to the PM emissions s tandards, 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 standard s 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 the ir warrant ies 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 requirement s 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 i nclude 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 ce rtification 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 b y the EPA) , to meet certain minimum requirements and procedures for a quality assurance process. Details of the PFI program are available at1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 44 of 349 http://pelletheat.org/pfi - standards/pfi - standards - program/ . We are not aw ar e of any other U. S . organization that h a s a pellet fuel quality assurance program simi lar in quality t o the PFI program . However, we request sp e cif i c co mments on whether another high quality program exists. Manufacturers’ data show that pellet fuel quality assurance is necessary to ensure that the appliances operate properl y 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 19 88 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 change d . The 1988 requirements for manufac turer quality assurance program s would be super s eded b y 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 c ontrol p lan is being implemented properl y. The EPA audit testing program s of the 1988 NSPS will be maintained under the proposed changes , although they will be streamlined and simplified to better en sure compliance and to clarify that audits can be based on any information the EPA has1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 45 of 349 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 u sed in the EPA enforcement and compliance assurance efforts . As discussed earlier, the EPA developed Method 28 in 1987 and 1988 as part of our effort s 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 ( 5 3 FR 5866 ) . The manufacturers, laboratories, states and the EPA have now had more than 2 5 ye ars 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 anal ys is method be used for all of the appliances in this rulemaking. As with all test methods, there are opportunitie s for continual improvement , and the EPA requests1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 46 of 349 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. Attorney s General for several states have indicated that state emplo ye es in their states cannot give to ASTM the property rights for property that their states paid for via the employee salaries and other expenditures and thus cannot participate in ASTM’s “consensus - based” process . For this rulemaking, ASTM is allowing pub lic 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 way s 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

replac ing 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 analy sis 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 so und method for sampling and anal ys is and we are proposing its use . The EPA also believes that E2779 - 10 is a sound method for1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 47 of 349 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 o nl y th e s e test method s 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 . F or example, we are proposing the use of the E2780 - 10 appendix for testing single burn rate appliances. However, w e , 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 particularl y concerned about scenarios in which heaters/ stoves will have higher emissions in home u se 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 ty picall y the most polluting and least efficient. The EPA is asking for specific comments on these issues and recommendations and supporting data for other changes. The following paragraphs discuss some of the key test method provisions we are proposing and not proposing . Additional information on the methods is at www.epa.gov/burnwise, and at1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 48 of 349 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 b y a number of manufacturers that are relativel y 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 we ightings and believe that if weightings are to be used, they should be the same as the original requirements in Method 28. W e 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 separatel y. 2. We propose to not allow 5 minutes for startup befo re closing the doors because startup is often the highest polluting part of the wood heater operation, and manufacturers need to ensure that startup emissions are also reduced. Again, re lativel y inexpensive means exist to reduce these emissions. 3. We are not proposing to use the new ASTM equation for co nverting 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 5 H “Determination of Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a Stack Location” currentl y allowed in the NSPS. Rather, we are proposing that Method 5G (3) test values be reported as tested for heaters that have valid1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 49 of 349 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 . W e 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 specificall y request comments and supporting data regarding the following proposed tighter specifications for the laboratory test: (a) tightening fuel load dry- b asis moisture content tightened from the Method 28 - allowed 6 percentage - point range from 19 percent to 25 percent to a reduced range of 22.5 percent +/ - 1 percent; (b) tightening the Method 28 - allowed range for fuel load weight from 7.0 lb/ft**3** +/**-** 10 percent of the fuel load weight (or 7 lb/ ft**3** +/ - 0.7 lb/ft**3** ) to 7 lb/ft**3** +/ - 1 percent (or 7 lb +/ - 0.07 lb) of the fuel load weight, calculated in accordance with Method 28; and (c) tightening the Method- 28 - allowed range for the test - initiation coal - bed weight from 20 percent to 25 percent of the fuel load weight to 22 percent +/ - 1 percent of the fuel load weight. 6. We propose to require efficiency testing according to CSA B415.1 - 10 19 using the stack loss method. That is, during each test run, data must be obtained and presented 19 “CSA B415.1 - 10: Performance testing of solid - fuel - burning heating appliances,” Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. 2010.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 50 of 349 for the purpose of calculation of overall efficiency as specified in CSA B415.1 - 10. This would include CO and carbon dioxide ( CO 2 ) , 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 propos al to require use of this method. 7. We propose that electronic test report submittals include the locked spreadsheets so the formulas used and relevant calculations can be evaluated in detail. We request comments on this specific proposal. 8. We propose that the test report include a narrative detailing specifics about test conditions and operations, such as how the test was run, operating conditions, issues and special procedures. 9. We prop ose 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 b y averaging at least five fuel moisture meter readings, one from each of thr ee sides, measured parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of the moisture meter insulated electrodes shall be 1⁄4 ( one - fourth) the thickness of the fuel piece or 19 millimeters (mm) (3/4 in.), whichever is less , for 3 of the mea surements made at approximate ly 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 pro cedure developed by B rookhaven National1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 51 of 349 Laboratory : 20 “ 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. Immediatel y 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: MC slice = 100 ∙ ( W

SliceWet – W

SliceDry) / W

SliceDry Where: W

SliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds ; W SliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds ; [ and ] MC Slice = 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
20 “A Test Method for Certification of Cord Wood - Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances with Partial Thermal Storage: M easurement 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 b y Brookhaven National Laboratory , February 15, 2013.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 52 of 349 scenarios as they

do for the EPA laboratory test scenarios. Proposed Step 2 tests will use cord wood and not crib wood. T he EPA, industry and states believe that moving to cord wood testing will help address concerns about actual emissions from heaters/ stoves in home u s e 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 Th e proposed subpart QQQQ would appl y to new wood - fired residential hydronic heaters and forced - air furnaces and any other affected appliance as defined in subpart QQQQ as a

“ central heat er . ” We believe this new “central heater” categorization will better ensure that all appliances potentially affected under new proposed subpart Q QQQ are included in this proposed action. The provisions of subpart QQQQ would appl y to each affected unit that is manufactured or sold on or after **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER**  **PUBLICATION OF** **THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].**  Th i s proposal do es not include any requirements for heaters that are fueled solely b y 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 change out (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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 53 of 349 Thus, this proposed NSPS has many aspects that are similar to those in Subpart AAA, e.g. , certification of model lines and phased implementation. This Proposed Approach would apply

to all new residential hydronic heaters and forced - air furnaces. Under the Proposed Approach, the Proposed Step 1 emission limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply upon the effective date of the final rule . The Proposed Step 2 emission limit for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would apply 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. We ask for specific comments on the Proposed Approach and the degree to which these dates could be sooner. We also considered an alternative three - step a pproach (Alternative Approach) for residential h ydronic heaters and forced air heaters . Under this Alternative Approach, as in the Proposed Approach, the Alternative Step 1 emission limit s for residential hydronic heaters and forced air heaters would appl y upon the effective date of the final rule. The Pro posed S tep 1 em i ssion li mits and the Alter native Approach Step 1 em i ssion li mits are identical . The Alternative Step 2 emission limit for residential h ydronic 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 St ep 3 em i ssion li mits are identical. We ask for specific comments on th is Alternative Ap proach 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 standards1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 54 of 349 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 c ertification tests. S ome 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 li mits and other requirements in this NSPS . Table 5 . Proposed Approach Subpart QQQQ PM Emissions Standards

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 Step 2: 3 years 0. 32 lb/MMB tu heat

output and a cap of 7.5 g/hr for individual test runs Appliance Steps Particulate Matter Emissions Limits Residential Hydronic Heater Step 1: Upon the

effective date of the final rule Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of final rule 0. 32 lb/MMB tu heat

output and a cap of 7.5 g/hr for individual test runs 0.06 lb/MMBtu Forced - Air Furnace Step 1: Upon the

effective date of the final rule Step 2: 5 years after the effective date of final rule 0. 93 lb/MMB tu

0.06 lb/MMBtu1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 55 of 349 after the effective date of final rule Step 3: 8 years after the effective date of the final rule 0.15 lb/MMBtu

0.06 lb/MMBtu Forced - Air Furnace Step 1: Upon the

effective date of the final rule Step 2: 3 years after the effective date of final rule Step 3: 8 years after the effective date of final rule 0. 93 lb/MMB tu

0. 15 lb/MMBtu

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 c leaner EPA - qualif i ed Phase 2 hydronic h e aters sy stems have already been readil y available for several years , the older s ys tems are so high - polluting that they have cause d numerous complai nts nationwide , and th is proposal publication is ampl e notice for the remaining old high polluting unit s . 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, w e are proposing a l ist 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 . A lso , as in the current subpart AAA for wood heaters/ sto ves,1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 56 of 349 we are proposing that the owner or operator must not operate the h ydronic heater or forced - air furnace in a manner that is inconsistent with the owner’s manual. F or pellet fueled appliances, this proposal makes it clear that operation according to the owner’s manual include s operation only with pellet fuels that have been used in the certification test and have been graded and marked under a licensing agreement with the PFI , or equivalent (after request and subsequent approval by the EPA) , to meet certain minimum requirements and procedures for a quality assurance process. Details of the PFI program are available at http://pelletheat.org/pfi - standards/pfi - standards - program/ . Data show that quality assurance provisions are necessary to ensure that the appliances operate properl y 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 whic h the PFI program will adequatel y 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 comment s on way s 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 reques t specific comment s on changes or improvements to that pro cess that might be needed to address any special concerns related to the certification of hydronic heaters and forced - air furnaces.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 57 of 349 As discussed earlier, the EPA developed Method 28 OWHH , in 2006 , as part of our effort s for voluntary

qualification of cleaner hydronic heaters . We receive d 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 ty picall y 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 ye ars of experience with Method 28 OWHH and its successor Method 28 WHH (improved and exp anded to include indoor heaters, not just outdoor heaters) . A ll the stakeholders that have provided input on the test methods agree that the methods should be thoroughl y vetted and change d a s necessary to improve the method’s accuracy and precision and to address concerns about how to best ensure protection across the entire U.S. when various operating scenarios and wood species and densities are used. ASTM has developed E2618 - 09 to address some of these concerns , and the EPA believes that E2618 - 09 does include some improvements . However, as with the wood heater/ stove methods, we and some states do not agree with all the changes that ASTM has made . For example, the s tates of Washington and Oregon are very concerned that Method 28 WHH and ASTM E2618 - 09 do not specify fueling with Douglas F ir , which is used in EPA Method 28 for wood heaters/ stoves and which the se states require1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 58 of 349 in their regulations for residential wood heaters , including hydronic heaters . They are concerned that hydronic heaters tested with red o ak will have higher emissions when fueled with Douglas F ir and other less dense species ty pical in their states and have prov ided test data that show s higher emissions . Thus, they requi re 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 ty pically the highest - polluting and least efficient. For several ye ar s , 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 method s . More recentl y, because of initial concerns about some surprisingl y 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 safel y handle all the heat generate d 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 D epartment of Environmental1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 59 of 349 Conservation (NYSDEC) and NYSDEC is requiring that method be used for certification of such models in their states. W e are proposing that method be used for certification of the NSPS for hydronic heaters equipped with a partial heat storage unit. 23 Further, w e 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 rul e and solel y cord wood for the Step 2 emission limits 5 years after the effective date of the final rule . W e 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 h ydronic heaters in their state as equivalent to the EPA Method 28 WHH ; (3) the partial thermal storage test method developed b y 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 install ation of the hydronic heaters be no less than the amount used for the certification tests. Because EN303 - 05 does not currently u se heat storage during the certifi cation test, if the EPA were to use EN303 - 05 test results, the EPA would require the installed heater to have heat storage that can safel y handle at least 60 percent of the maximum heat output of the heater or a greater level if the manufacturer specifies a great er 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
23 See footnote 19.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 60 of 349 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 especiall y i nterested in emission test data that compare the results for testing b y these different methods. Also, th e 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 agree d 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 th is method and recommendations and supporting data for other changes o r acceptable alternatives . The following paragraphs discuss some of the changes we are proposing for comment. Additional information on the EPA methods is available at www.epa.gov/burnwise . T he ASTM methods and draft work products are available at www.astm.org/epa . 1. Heater ( aka Boiler) t emperature range We propose that f

or all tests, the return water temperature to the heater must be 120 ° F or greater. We additionally propose that i f 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 meter1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 61 of 349 is determined separatel y 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 sy stem or a homemade sy stem). 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 interval s of 1 minute or less. This data file must be submitted with the test report. For determination of heat output, the data for the se parameters must be measured in equal ti me 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 e ach 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 te st method, determine the fuel moisture for each test fuel piece used for the test fuel load by averaging at least five fuel moisture meter readings, one from each of three sides, measured parallel to the wood grain. Penetration of the moisture meter insulated electrodes must be one - fourth the thickness of the fuel1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 62 of 349 piece or 19 mm (3/4 in.), whichever is less for three of the measurements made at approximately

3 inches from each end and the center. Two additional measurements at approximately one - third the thickness shall be made centered between the other three locations. We request specific comments on the moisture content limits and the procedures for determining the moisture content and the ty pical variances due to the measurement procedures. We also request specific comments on th e following approach f or de termin ing mo i sture c ontent. “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. Immediatel y 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: MC slice = 100 ∙ ( W

SliceWet – W

SliceDry) / W

SliceDry Where: W

SliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds; W SliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds; [and] MC Slice = moisture content of the slice in % dry basis.” 24 Also, we propose that moisture must not be added to previously dried fuel pieces
24 See footnote 19.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 63 of 349 except by storage under high humidity conditions and temperature up to 100oF. Fuel moisture must be measured no more than 4 hours before using the fuel for a test. The test report must describe the source and storage history of the test fuel. 5. Water density a. We propose that the measured volumetric flow from the fl ow 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 us ing 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 d

uring 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 CO 2 , flue gas temperature, and appliance mass (remaining fuel weight) . Overall efficiency for each run must be determined a s 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 b y1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 64 of 349 this method, the report must include a discussion of the reasons for this result. 8. Wood loading Test fuel loads would be determined b y 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 b y the manufacturer’s operating ins tructions. As discussed earlier, the EP A 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 ty pes 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 . A lso , 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). 1 0. 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 those1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 65 of 349 devi ations, the reasons for those deviations, and an evaluation of the data quality implications, if any , of such deviations on the test results. 1 2 . The test report would include a standard s ummary p age as a quick check for the reviewer that results are withi n method specifications . 1 3 . 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 co rd wood versus crib wood . In addition, ASTM has developed a draft test method that uses cordwood 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 start - up 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 b y 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 -1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 66 of 349 10 was published in March 2010, and it includes not only the forced - air furnace test method but also new Canadian emission performance specification s for indoor and outdoor central heating appliances. 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 th is method in subst antively , we are satisfied that i t warrants proposal for this rulemaking . W e 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 Th e proposed subpart RRRR would apply to new residential masonry heaters. The provisions apply

to each affected unit that is manufactured on or after **[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER**  **PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE**  **IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  . We are proposing that, a s 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 MM B tu heat output. We are also proposing a 5 - ye ar small volume manufacturer compliance extension that would apply to companies that c onstruct fewer than 15 masonry heater s per ye ar. 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 masonry1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 67 of 349 heater, including a provision to operate the unit in compliance with the owner’s manual; a prohibition on use of certain fuels; and a re quirement to use licensed wood pellet s 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 ye ars 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 propos e that they be used for this rulemaking . W e 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 rel evant 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. Mas onry heater manufacturers1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 68 of 349 and laboratories developed c omputer simulations as a way to encourage good designs without having to conduct emission tests for sl i ght variations , especially because there are so few masonry

heaters built every

year per manufacturer . Also, s ince these units are built on - site, it is not easy to test each of them. S ince these units are inherentl y relativel y clean versus pre - NSPS certi fied wood stoves , we agree with the manufacturers that a simple computer simulation showing how new models would perform may be all that is necessary for many models . The structure of the rest of the proposed new subpart RRRR is similar to t he 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 ( Q C ) procedures. Specifically , we are proposing that the initial certification for these custom units is sufficient and that no further Q C is necessary since each unit is a unique model and subject to certification. W e 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 prop o sed NSPS’s total annualized average nationwide costs w ould be $ 15 . 7 million ($2010) over the 2014 through 2022 period . The economic impacts for industries affected b y this proposed rule over this same period range from 4.3 percent for manufacture of wood heater/ stove model s to 6.4 percent compliance cost - to - sales estimate for manufacture of single burn rate wood heater model s . These impacts do not presume any pass - through of impacts to consumers. With pass - through to1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 69 of 3 49 consumers, these impact estimates to manufacturers will decline proportionate to the degree of pass - through. A. Wh at 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. 25 We developed the emission factors using the EPA Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) emission estimation tool , 26 which is a Microsoft Access database that compiles nationwide RWC emissions using c ounty- 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 es timated 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 sp ecific 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 b y devices within the category by the category

emiss ion factor to calculate the total tons of emissions for each of the pollutants PM 2.5 , volatile organic compound (VOC ) , and CO emissions for that category . Then we divided these values by the number of appliances in the category to calculate the average emi ssions of PM 2.5 , VOC and CO per individual appliance. We then developed adjusted emission factors to 25 Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. Estimated Emissions from Wood Heaters. February

15, 2013. 26 rwc_2008_tToolv4.1_feb09_2010.zip available in the docket.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 70 of 349 reflect the NSPS options and then used the adjusted factors to calculate average tons of emissions of each of these three pollutants per appliance for each category . We used data in the Frost & Sullivan Market (F&S) report27 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 Analy sis. 28 There is no perfect predictor but historically woo d h e ater s hipments have most c losely

corresponded to GDP, housi n g starts, and price of wood relative to gas. W e 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 versu s other ty p e s of residential wood heater s over this time period. We ask for co mments and data that wo uld 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 b y all appliances within that category, and then divided b y 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
27 Market Research and Report on North American Residential Wood Heaters, Fireplaces, and Hearth Heating Products Market. Prepared b y Frost & Sullivan. April 26, 2010, p p . 31 - 32. 28 2013 Global Outlook projections prepared b y the Conference Board in November 2012; http://www.conference - board.org/data/globaloutlook.cfm .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 71 of 349 the baseline conditions emission factors ( i.e. , in the absence of a revised NS PS). Using the same procedure, category emissions were then calculated using the emission factors for the proposed NSPS. Table 7 is a summary

of the average emissions reductions over years 2014 through 2022 resulting from implementing the proposed NSPS compared to baseline conditions. Note that we do not have emission impacts from masonry heaters because they are not included in the RWC emission estimation tool. Because o f the rel ativel y high cos t of emission testing versu s the current small number of masonry h e aters sold per manu factur er , and in total, there are sparse em i ssio n test data from masonry heater manuf a cturers and laboratories . Based on the limited data , we believe that nationwide emissions from masonry

heaters are relativel y low, given the low number of sales. Thus, we also believe that the total emission reductions from masonry heaters will be relativel y low . However, the limited data do show that the emission reductions could be significant for some models that do not follo w current best designs, perhaps as high as 70% percent for some designs . We do not know how many of these ty

picall y custom - made heaters already use best practice design s versu s other designs and thu s we d o not have good nationwide esti mates of baseline em i ssions . We ask for comments and data to help us prepare good estimates .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 72 of 349 Table 7. Estimated Annual Average (201 4 - 2022 ) Air Quality Impacts 29 Appliance Ty pe **PM 2.5**  **(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 Sy stems 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

in cludes the emissions during the first ye ar 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, ty pical ly greater than 20 ye ars.

29 See footnote 2 4 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 73 of 349 B. Wh at are the benefits ? Emission reductions associated with the requirements of this rule will generate health benefits b y reducing emissions of PM 2.5 , HAP , as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors, including CO and VOC. VOC are precursors to PM 2.5 and ozone. For this rule, we were onl y able to quantify the health co - benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM 2.5 from directly emitted PM 2.5 . Our benefits reflect the average of annual PM 2.5 emission reductions occurring between 2014 and 2022 (inclusive). We estimate the monetized PM 2.5 - related health b enefits of the proposed residential wood heaters NSPS in the 2014 - 2022 timeframe to be $1,800 million to $4, 1 00 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 alt ernate relationships between PM 2.5 and premature mortality supplied by

experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert - based estimates fall between these two estimates. 30 A summary of the emission reduction and monetized b enefits 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 emissio n reduction estimates and corresponding monetized health benefits for masonry heaters . Table 8. Summary

of Monetized PM 2.5 - related Health B enefits 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) 30 Roman, et al , 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268

– 2274.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 74 of 349 Directl y emitted PM 2.5 4,825 $ 1,800 to $4,200 $ 1,700 to $3,700 PM 2.5 Precursor s 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 PM 2.5 through reductions of PM 2.5 precursors, such as NO X , and directly emitted PM 2.5 . It is important to note that the monetized benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP, direct exposure to NO 2 , exposure to ozone, VOC, ecos ys tem effects or visibility impairment. b PM bene fits 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 em i ssio n re duc tio ns and monetized benefits for masonry heaters are not included in this summ ary . These benefits estimates represent the monetized human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM 2.5 from emission limits established to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this rule. Due to anal yt ical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a “benef it - 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 PM 2.5 precursors into changes in ambient PM 2.5 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), 31 but they

have since been updated to reflect the se studies and population data in

31 Fann, N., K.R. Baker, and C.M. Fulcher. 2012. “Characterizing the PM2.5 - related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S.” Environment International 49 41

– 151.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 75 of 349 the 2012 PM NAAQS RIA. 32 Specificall y, we multiplied the benefit - per - ton estimates from the “Residential Wood Heaters” category by the corresponding emission reduc tions. 33 All national - average benefit - per - ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the emission reductions in this rulemaking, and thus they may not reflect the local variability in population d ensity , meteorology , exposure, baseline health incidence rates, or other local factors for any specific location. More information regarding the derivation of the benefit - per - ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support document, which is referenced in the footnote below and is available in the docket. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equall y potent in causing premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet su fficient to allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit per - ton estimates vary

between precursors depending on the location and magnitude of their impact on PM 2.5 levels, which drive population exposure. It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM 2.5 benefits is largel y driven by the concentration response function for premature mortality . We cite two key empirical

32 U.S. Environme ntal 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 Div ision. December 2012 . Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf. 33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Technical support document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM 2.5 precursors from 17 sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2013.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 76 of 349 studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study 34 and the extended Six Cities cohort study . 35 Inthe Regulatory Impact Analy sis ( 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 Scienc e Assessment for Particulate Matter 36 documents the association between elevated PM 2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased premature mortality. This assessment, which was reviewed twice by the EPA’s independent Science Advisory Bo ard, concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no - threshold model most adequatel y portrays the PM - mortality concentration - response relationship. Therefore, in this anal ys is, 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 PM 2.5 concentrations that coincide with the bulk of the observed PM 34 Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. It o, 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 . 35 Lep eule J, L aden 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. 36 U.S. Environmental P rotection 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/rec ordisplay .cfm?deid=216546 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 77 of 349 concentrations in the epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM 2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark anal ys es ( e.g. , lowest measured level [LML ] or one s tandard deviation below the mean of the air quality data in the study) allow readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual mean PM 2.5 levels at or above different concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM 2.5 mortality

benefits. There are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciabl y 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 anal ys is, policy- specific air quality data are not available due to time or resource limitations . Thus, we are unable to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this specific rule’s emission reductions at each PM 2.5 level. As a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of the population expos ed at each PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 levels at or above the LML of 5.8 μg/m 3
. Using the Lepeule, et al , (2012) study, 67 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 8 μg/m 3 . It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates , population, and change in air quality. Therefore, caution is warranted when interpreting the LML1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 78 of 349 assessment for this rule because these results are not consistent with results from rules that had air quality modeling. Every benefit anal ys is 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 ben efit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit analy sis 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 ai r quality modeling for this rule, and using a benefit per - ton approach adds another important source of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS benefits anal ys is provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assump tions. 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 ecos ys tem effects and visibility impairment. Altho ugh we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for these benef i ts in this rule, we include a qualitative assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA 37 for th is propos al . For more information on the benefits analy sis, please refer to the RIA for this rule, which is available in the docket. C. Wh at are the cost impacts ?

37 Regulatory

Impact Analy sis (RIA) for Residential Wood Heaters NSPS. **[INSERT DATE RULE IS SIGNED]**  .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 79 of 349 In anal yz ing the potential cost impacts of the proposed NSPS, we considered two ty pes of impacts. The first was the impact to the manufacturer to compl y 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 contain s a summary of these costs. For more detailed information , see the manufacturer cost impact memo 38 and unit cost memo 39 in the docket. Unless otherwise specified, all costs are in 2010 dollars. To develop average R& D costs, we reviewed information provided b y manufacturers. Based on this information, we estimated 40 average costs to develop a new model line, including testing, of $356,250 for certified wood heaters and pellet heaters/ stoves. W e 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 furnac es and h ydronic heaters of $356,250 . Finall y, 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 greatl y

38 Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. Residential Heater Manufacturer Cost Impacts. February

22, 2013. 39 Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. Unit Cost Estimates of Residential Wood Heating Appliances. February 21, 2013. 40 Indeveloping average R&D costs, the EPA used the highest industry R&D estimates supplied, in order t o avo i d under - estim ating potential costs per model line and to avoid under stating the number of model lines that would undergo R&D nationwide.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 80 of 349 influence our decisions on BSER, imple mentation 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 ye ars , 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 h ydronic heaters and forced - air furnaces at $20,000 per model line. The masonry

heater compliance costs included implementati on 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 softwar e to the user is approximately

$1,500 for the package with an approximately $450 annual fee that commences in the second year following purchase. In addition, we believe that some manufacturers will use this approach to demonstrate that “similar” model des igns meet the proposed emissions standards. The estimate of the number of model types was derived from information provided b y HPBA, individual manufacturers, and Internet searches of product offerings. For numbers of manufacturers, we started with HPBA data, modified based on Internet searches of manufacturers of the major appliance ty pes. Table 9 is a summary of the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 81 of 349 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 RIA , 41 as well as over the 2013 to 2038 period. The 2013 to 2038 period encompasses the first year of estimated NSPS - related costs (2013) through the lifespan of models designed to meet the NSPS in 2014 and 2019 , as explained further below and in our background anal ys es . 42 Table 9. Summary

of Nationwide Average Annual Cost Increases (2010$) Appliance T ype 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 Sy stems $4,554,152 $2,221,551 Masonry Heaters $ 307,511 $228,896 Total Average Annual Cost $15,6 88 , 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, modified to address additional appliances or subsets of appliances. The 20 - ye ar model design lifespan and 20 - ye ar use/emitting appliance lifespan are based on actual historical design certif i cation and 41 See footnote 36. 42 Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R, Inc. Residential Heater Cost Effectiveness Analy sis. February

26, 2013.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 82 of 349 heater use data . That is, the data show that many models developed for the current 1988 NSPS are still being sold (after 25 ye ars), 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 ye ars and often much longer. Therefore , our anal ys is tracks shipments and costs through year 2038 ( i.e. , 20 years after a model designed to meet the NSPS Step 2 emission limits expected t o be implemented in 2019 has completed development an d 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 f ollowing additional manufacturer price increases per unit based on appliance type:  Certified wood heaters and pellet heaters/ stoves represent a well - developed technology , and we could not identify price differences between models due solely to lower emissi on 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 h ydronic heater, with an average b eing approximately $3,000 (as compared to a ty pical pre - regulation sales price of $7,500).1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 83 of 349  We estimate that the additional price increases to manufacture a certified forced - air furnace will be comparable to the price increase s 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 o f 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 analy sis, 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 a ssume lower sales due to market competi ti on with other wood h e aters or non - wood h e aters. We did not assume lower projected sales for increased prices because of the unce rtainty 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 summ ary of the baseline unit costs, NSPS unit costs, and incremental cost increase.

Table 10. Summary

of Unit Cost Impacts (in 2010 dollars) Appliance T ype Baseline Post -NSPS In cremental In crease 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 - $8401 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 84 of 349 Hydronic Heating S ys tems $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. Inthis case, cost - to - receipts ratios approximate the maximum price increase need ed 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 i ncrease above the cost - to - receipts ratio provides revenues that exceed the compliance costs. These industry

level cost - to - receipts ratios can be interpreted as an average impact on potentially

affected firms in these industries. Cost - to - receipts ratios for the affected product ty

pes 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 es timating 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 this1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 85 of 349 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 pass - through to consumers. More information on how these social costs are estimated can be found in Chapter 5 of the RIA. E. Wh at 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 savin g 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, wood - fueled 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 de gree 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. Wh y are we proposing to expand the scope of appliances subject to the NSPS ?1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 86 of 349 As described in section II, the EPA has had ongoing discussion s 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 ty pes and numbers of appliances that are currentl y 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 b y h ydronic heaters, are the top source of environmental complaints. Inthe case of masonry heaters, we believe EPA certification of these ty picall y cleaner devices, w ould allow them to be e xcellent emission reduction alternative s to replace pre -NSPS wood h e aters and be a good consumer alternative in parts of the country

that currentl y 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 heater s and fuels are substitutes for each other. Regulating onl y 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 cookstoves and fireplaces) to determine what expansions in scope might be needed . 43 The residential wood heater s NSPS is a “standard of performance” as defined by s ection 111(a) of the CAA . The term “standard of performance” means a “ standard for 43 Subpart AAA

— Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters: Revised Draft Review Document. Prepared for EPA b y EC/R Incorporated. Dece mber 30, 2009.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 87 of 349 emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best s ys tem of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non - air quality

health and environmental impact s and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequatel y demonstrated. ” As di scussed earlier, the level of control pre scribed by s ection 111 historically

has been commonly

referred to as “Best Demonstrated Technology” or BDT. T o better reflect that s ection 111 was amended in 1990 to clarify that “best sy stems” may

or may not be “te chnology , ” the EPA is now using the term “best sy stem s 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 s ys tems available at reasonable cost. The residential wood heaters source category

is mass - produced residential consumer products, fundamentally different from the ty

pical NSPS source category that regulated industial processes . T hus, 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 th ose sy stem s 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 s ys tem s meet the emission limits. Indeveloping the proposed rule, we evaluated possible sy stems both at baseline conditions (conditions in the absence of addi tional regulation) and under o ther scenario s . 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 combustion1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 88 of 349 models have greater airflow residence time, better insulation to increase temperatures, and passageway s and directed flows to improve mixing and turbulence. In addition , some heaters also use cataly

tic combustors to reduce emissions. Each manufacturer has a potential my

riad of combinations of specific designs that could incorporate these key aspects. Many s ys tems reduce emissions significantly , increase efficiency , and provide good operator flexibility . The key differences t end 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 . Similarl y, 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 B SER determinations for each heater ty pe, as described below. For certain ty

pes of devices , information is lacking . For example, we have no information or very

limited information on emissions and emission reduction techniques for cookstoves, pizza ovens, chimineas, coal stoves and biomass (other than wood or wo od pellet) stoves/furnaces ( e.g. , fueled with grass, corn, cherry pits) . We are interested in receiving data for contributio ns t o air qu ality , endangerment of public heal th and welfar e, emissions, potential em i ssion red u ctions, 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 sourc es unde r s e ction 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 have1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 89 of 349 access to free or cheap coal, but such stoves are not ty picall y 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 wood burning fireplaces at this time. Fireplaces ty picall y 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 ty picall y 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 insert ed a new EPA certified wood stove into an otherwise open masonry firep lace . In th ose case s , new wood heaters/ st o ve s are regulated under the current 1988 rule and would be regulated by this proposal. Also, some fireplace s have restricted excess combustion air to less than 35:1 air - to - fuel ratio and are certified under the current 1988 NSPS. ) F ireplaces 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 website for more information: http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/participation.html#fireplace . W e 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 source1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 90 of 349 category listi ng and standards under section 111(b) for these devices in the future. We are especiall y 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 sy stems of emission reduction for new fireplaces versus existing fireplaces and costs of current and projected best sy stems versus current costs of fireplaces. Also, we are interested in national data and also 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 so urces covered b y these subparts are fundamentally different from the ty

pical NSPS source category in that residential wood heaters are mass produced residential consumer products whereas most NSPS regulate industrial processes. Discussion s in sections V.B.1 through V.B.4 of this preamble focus on the anal ys is 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 th e 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 appli ance 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 A lternative Approach we considered to reduce PM1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 91 of 349 emissions based on three - step phased - in standards, under which the strongest emission standard would be 8 ye ars after the effective date of th e final rul e rath er than the pro posed 5 ye ars . Section V.B.6 discusses other provision s we considered and for which we request additional data and information from commenters. For these source categories , o ur 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 lifespan and the emitting lifespan 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 lifespan assumption s are essential components for a meaningful cost effectiveness anal ys is. As explained above in section IV.C. and in our background documentation , 44 a model design lifespan of 20 ye ars is supported by the historical data that show that the non - cosmetic 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, c onsumers tend to replace appliances when they no longer serve their functional purpose , not based on whether they

are the cleanest, best performers currentl y available . Wood heaters tend

44 See footnotes 24, 37 and 38.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 92 of 349 to serve the basic function of producing heat for well over 20 years. Table 11 presents o ur estimated cumulative costs, PM 2.5 emission reductions, and associated cost per ton for our proposed limits, based on a model design lifespan of 20 years and an appliance emitting lifespan of 20 ye ars. For all of the standards proposed in this Federal Register notice, the EPA invites specific comments on the data and anal ys e s on which we base the proposed standards. Moreover, the EPA invites specific comments that provide additional data and anal ys e s 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 anal ys e s that su pport a different standard.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Page 93 of 349 Table 11 . Cost Effectiveness of PM 2.5 Emission Reductions of Proposed Standards and Emission Co - Reductions based on Cumulative Analy sis (2013 - 2057) 45 Appliance Type Nationwide

Cumulative Cost (2010$) **PM 2.5**  **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 Furnace s $30,451,763 823,770 $37 349,207 $87 5,491,797 $6 Hydronic Heat ers $57,760,316 360,587 $160 $152,858 $378 2,403,916 $24 Total * $189,841,851 1,546,40 3 $123 1,055,57 8 $180 11,076,253 $17 *Note: Masonry

Heaters are not included in this analy sis because representative emission tons per appliance could not be determined . 45 Analy sis period assum es that manufacturers will incur R&D costs beginning in 2013, in anticipation of final rule. Analy sis i is through 2057, based on assumption that the internal emission - related components of a model designed to meet the proposed Step 2 em i ssion limit will be manufactured/shipped for 20 years, and that shipped models will emit in residences for another 20 years. Se e footnote 40 . PM 2.5 , VOC and CO costs per ton are calculated independentl y for illustrative purposes , even though VOC and CO reductions would actually occur with no additio nal c ost as the P M 2.5 red u ction s are achieved.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

94 of 349 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- to fuel criterion in the rule primarily to exclude ty

pical 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. Th e 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 ty pes of “room heater” appliances: adjustable burn rate wood heaters, pellet heaters/ stoves and single burn rate wood heaters. O ur 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 noncatal ytic heaters and 4.1 g/hr for cataly tic heaters. As discussed in the February 26, 1988, final rule (53 FR 5865) and earlier in this preamble, the EPA considered the performance of cataly

tic heaters and noncataly

tic heaters co - BDT (now called BSER) because the net emissions ov er time were estimated to be similar (even though the initial certification test results are ty picall y lower for cataly

tic models) assum ing possible1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

95 of 349 degradation of the catal yst and lack of catal ys t replacement b y the operator. The EPA considered requiring cataly st replacement on a regular schedule, but determined that enforcement of such a requirement would be difficult. The EPA did require manufacturers to provide 2 - ye ar unconditional warranties on the catal ys ts and prohibited the operation of catal ytic he aters/ stoves without a catal ys t. Additionally , because of these concerns, the EPA wanted to ensure that further development of both noncataly tic and catal ytic technology

would continue. Since the 1988 NSPS was developed, the State of Washington issued stan dards 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” catal ytic and noncatal ytic sy stems and associated emission levels as the proposed Step 1. This analy sis showed that the State of Washington level of 4.5 g/hr is achieved b y 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 (noncataly

tic and cataly

tic models combined). This statistic includes 92 of the 106 certified noncatal ytic wood heater models (87 percent) and 15 of the 15 certified cataly tic models (100 percent). The median certification value for noncatal ytic mode ls was 3.2 g/hr and for all certified models was 3.4 g/hr. Details of the analy sis are in the docket. 46 For the proposed Step 2 ( 5 ye ars after the effective date of the final standard), we considered “state - of

- the - art” s ys tems that achieve a certification value of 1.3 g/hr. This is approximately 50 percent less than the 1995 Washington standard for cataly tic models (2.5 g/hr). The same analysis discussed above showed that a level of 1.3 g/hr is achieved 46 Attachment A of Residential Wood Heaters Manufacturer Cost Memorandum to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R Inc. February 22, 2013.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

96 of 349 by 7 adjustable burn rate wood heater mod e l s in produc tion and sold in the U.S. today (noncatal ytic and catal ytic models combined). This includes 4 certified noncatal ytic wood heater models and 3 certified catal ytic models. There were no apparent break points other than the current State of Washington initial certification level of 4.5 g/hr for noncatal ytic 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. This source category

is fundamentally

different from the ty

pical NSPS source category composed of industrial processes. This source category involves the manufacture and sale of mass - produced residential consumer products that are significantl y affected b y productio n and sales volumes and timing of testing and certification . Thus, w e are proposing implementing the proposed Step 2 BS ER emission limit 5 ye ars after the effective date of the final standard to allow for longer lead times for redesign, testing, field evaluation and certification. This also spread s 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 perform ance 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 noncatal ytic models and 15 out of 15 catal ytic models), and furthermore better than the State of Washington cataly tic 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 noncatal ytic models and 13 out of 15 or approximately 87 percent of cataly

tic models). A s noted earlier and discussed more full y in the paragraphs below, our decisions on BSER for this source category have fully consider ed n ot only the emission performance1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

97 of 349 but also the cost and economic impacts, including the costs to accommodate the best sy stems in additional model line s. The net monetized benefits far exceed the costs of all options considered. The cost impacts of the propo sed Step 1 are very small. This is because, despite being a limit that was originall y developed for only one state, over 85 percent of currentl y EPA - certified non - catalytic and catal ytic 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 manufacturer s , it also would not achieve a large amount of n ew 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 - compl yi ng ad justable 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 pre - State of Washington heaters/ stoves would result in replacement models that m eet the State of Washington levels or better. The proposed Step 1 limit eliminates the distinction between catal ytic and non catal ytic heater models, which we view as progress . It is important to remember that the lower emission level cataly tic standards were initially instituted because of concerns that the earl y generation cataly sts would degrade over time, resulting in eventual real world1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

98 of 349 emission levels comparable to non - catal ytic units. After 25 ye ars of catal ys t heater devel opment experience, manufacturers have demonstrated that the performance of these heaters ty pically remains consistently good over the course of operation because of changes manufacturers have made to improve heater design to protect the cataly sts fro m flam e impingem ent and other factors that previously caused catal ys ts to degrade significantl y . For example, one recent study of four catal ytic combustors from the two selected heaters/ stoves showed that the combustors maintained substrate integrity without substantial PM emissions performance reduction. 47 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 - cataly tic limit could result in “backsliding” of current catal ytic 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 h ave 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 emitting at reasonable cost, especiall y as they compare wood heaters and gas heaters . However, we are requesting comments on

47 The Interim Wood Stove Cataly tic Combustor Longevity Study, Prepared for the Cataly tic Hearth Coalition by

L . Pitzman et al , OMNI Environmental Services. January 4, 2010.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

99 of 349 whether we should maintain a separate, lower limit for catal ytic heater models for the proposed Step 1 emission limits, based on the current State of Washington catal ytic standard of 2.5 g/hr. The proposed Step 2 state - of - the - art BSER cost and economic impacts would be significant , but our anal ysis shows a very reasonable cost per ton of emission reduction when con sidering the ty

pical design and appliance lifespans . 48 Our data show that at the proposed Step 2 BSER emission level of 1.3 g/hr, about 20 percent of cataly tic models and 5 percent of noncataly tic models currentl y 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 compl yi ng models . B ecause we do not know this fraction, because the total of complying units is only 6 percent (combined catal ytic and non - cataly tic 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 anal ys is . Historically , those manufacturers that chose to comply with the 1988 NSPS did so for a full range of models. Thus, our anal ys is shows the potent ial 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

48 See footnote 40 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

100 of 349 develop and test in the laboratory- specific combinations that can be incorporated into the design of specific model lines. Alternativel y, some manufacturers might convert noncatal ytic models to cataly tic models or h ybrids as way s to reduce emissions . We estimated the resulting nationwide costs based on the cost assumptio ns explained in section IV. C . The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of adjustable burn rate wood heaters during the 2014 through 2022 period used in the RIA is approximately

$ 4 . 2 million . Estimated n ationwide annual PM 2.5 emissions , averaged over th is same period ( 2014 - 2022 ) , are projected to be 5 4 8 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 ye ar of em i ssion s for each new heater so ld . Given that limited snapshot for these cost and emission estimates , the average cost of reducing each new ton of PM 2.5 emissions during the 2014 - 2022 period would be approximately $ 26 ,000 per ton annuall y. As explained in section IV.C, the cost - to - sales ratio, which is an indicator of the ability of the manufacturer to successfull y 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 lifespan and appliance emitting lifespan of 20 years ; the overall cost effectiveness is approximately $500 per ton (shown above in Table 11) . 49 Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the two - step BSER when considering total costs and cumulative emission reductions , and given the 6 - ye ar 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

49 See footnote 40.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

101 of 349 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 ye ars 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 analy sis 50 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 anal ys is. Their analy sis 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 analy sis, such as the lack of regulatory

requirements or incentives for the test laboratories to achieve highl y 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

50 Final 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, 2010.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

102 of 349 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 me thod. 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 accuratel y. For example, the State of Washington Departm ent of Ecology has successfull y 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. b. Pellet Heaters/ Stoves Several certified pellet heaters/ stoves are subject to current subpart AAA. However, most models currentl y 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 catal ytic and improved noncatal ytic s ys tems and state - of - the - art s ys tems. Our data set for currentl y manufactured U.S. pellet heaters/ stoves, for which we have reproducible emissions data, contains 24 models, of which 23 woul d 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 manufac turers would meet the State of Washington emission standard. Only three models produced b y 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 s mall cost impact of requiring the proposed Step 1 BSER emission levels of1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

103 of 349 4.5 g/hr for noncataly

tic and catal ytic 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 th e effective data of the final rule, which we expect to occur in 2014 . Pellet heaters/ stoves would incur these testing and certification costs starting in 2013 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 relativel y 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 b e 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 third - party 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 - the - art BSER 5 ye ars 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. We1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

104 of 349 assume that manufacturers will either modify the remaining models or invest in developing new m odel 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. 51 The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of pellet heaters/ stoves during the 2014 through 2022 period used in the RIA is approximately $3.5 million. Estimated nationwide annual PM 2.5 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 - st ep BSER, an average reduction of 49 tons/year , considering onl y 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 PM 2.5 emissions during the 2014 - 2022 period is approximately $71,000 per ton annually as compared to the m onetized health ben e fits o f $360,000 per ton to $810,000 per ton of re ducing direct PM 2.5 in wood smoke . 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

51 See footnotes 37 and 3 8 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

105 of 349 design lifespan and appliance emitting lifespan of pellet heaters/ stoves , the overall cost effectiveness is approximately $1,500 per ton (shown abo ve in Table 11) . 52 Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the proposed two - step BSER when considering total costs and cumulative emission reductions , and given the 6 - ye ar lead time (from the date of these proposed standards) until model line s 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 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 fo r 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 research and development 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 emi ssions, however, one must remember that s ingle burn rate wood heaters are by definition incapable of

52 See footnote 40 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

106 of 349 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 equival ent 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 ty pically higher - polluting 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 modi fications 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 anal ys es, w assum ed 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 anticip ation of the proposed NSPS , and the information that we have from industry is that cleaner designs are nearl y market - ready. 53 Nonetheless, because these devices were previousl y unregulated and may need to transfer technology from adjustable burn rate wood heaters , our cost analy sis assumes that research and development efforts will intensify in 2013 and 2014 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. Specificall y, for single burn rate wood

53 See footnote 3 7 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

107 of 349 heaters , we doubled our R&D estimate of $356,250 per model for other appliances in these years. The nationwide annualized total costs are based on the cost assumptions explained in section IV.B and in the ba ckground documentation. 54 The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of single burn rate heaters during the 2014 through 2022 period used in the RIA is approximately $902,000. Estimated nationwide annual PM 2.5 emissions , averaged over this same period (2014 - 2022), are projected to be 9 32 tons/year under the baseline (unregulated) condition versus 1 78 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 lim i ted snapshot for these cost and emission estimates, the average cost of reducing each new ton of PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 in wood smoke . The cost - to - sales ratio is 6.4 percent, i s calculated based on onl y the initial 5 - ye ar period. However, when considering the total costs and cumulative emission reductions over the more representative full model design lifespan and appliance emitting lifespan, the overall cost effectiveness is approximately $50 per ton (shown above in Table 11). 55 Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the two - step BSER when considering total costs and cumulative emission reductions, and given the 6 - ye ar lead time (from the date of these proposed standards) until new model line s must meet the proposed Step 2 emission limit, we determined that the two - step phased - in limits 54 See footnotes 3 7 and 3 8 . 55 See footnote 40.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

108 of 349 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 ye ars 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 h ydronic heaters and forced - air furnaces . O ur 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 s ys tems (“hydronic heaters”) and forc ed - air furnaces. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the source categories to be regulated by proposed subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR are f undamentally

different from the ty

pical NSPS source category that includes industrial processes whereas subparts AAA, QQQQ, and RRRR include mass - produced residential consumer products . Thus, additional factors are included in the anal ys es presented today . Section V.B.2.a. below discusses hydronic heaters . S ection 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 EPA1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

109 of 349 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 approxi mately

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 an d 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 h ydronic heater voluntary partnership program, 0.32 lb/MMBtu. There are currentl y 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. 56 In almost all cases, the manufacturers developed models that rely upon improved combustion techniques, primaril y 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 exch angers and better insulation to increase temperatures, and passageway s and directed flows to improve mixing and

56 A list of cleaner h ydronic heaters participating in the EPA’s voluntary partnership program is located at http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/owhhlist.html .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

110 of 349 turbulence. In some cases, manufacturers are also using cataly st 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 l evels/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 partner ship 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, w e 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 believe s 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 certification so that sufficient models are ready for sale . W e1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

111 of 349 reviewed all the hydronic heater emission data available, and we found o ur proposed Step 2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu i s already met by 4 hydronic heater models (2 cord wood and 2 pellet models) built by 2 U.S. manufacturers , 57 as well as over 50 European models per test method EN 303 - 05. 58 Our review of the available data also show ed a break point at the emission level of 0.15 lb/MMBtu heat output. We considered this break poi nt as a candidate for interim Step 2 in the three - step Alternative Approach , as discussed in section III above. Several ye ars ago, we discussed the 0.15 lb/MMB tu 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 one half of the Phase 2 voluntary partnership program level. Some of the manufacturers responded quickl y to this informal target and n ow 11 of the 3 6 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 manufacturer s who actively participated in the voluntary partnership program w ere primaril y manufacturers of outdoor units, due to the very large concern about the health effect s 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 57 See footnote 54. 58 European Wood - Heating Technology Survey : An Overview of Combustion Principles and the Energy

and Emissions Performance Characteristics of Commercially Available Sy stems in Austria, Germany , Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; Final Report; Prepared for the New Y ork State Energy Research and Development Authority ; NYSERDA Report 10

–01; April 2010.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

112 of 349 included indoor units to mo re 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 - pollutin g indoor units were avoiding rules that only specified outdoor units. In door and outdoor models compete in the marketplace and h av9ng srtnads on lont outdoor units would be unfair. Indoor and outdoor models both can use currently available improved combustion and improved heat transfer techni ques t o achi eve simil ar emission levels. Given the number of ye ars the voluntary partnersh ip program has already been in existence, w e believe our proposed Step 1 limit upon the effective date of the final rule and the proposed Step 2 limit 5 ye ars 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 produc tion to models that already meet the proposed Step 1 limit . For our cost anal ys is, we assumed that 100 percent of the 120 hydronic heater models would incur NSPS - related R&D costs starting in 2013 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 ye ars1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

113 of 349 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. A s discussed earlier in this preamble, most manufacturers have known of the hydronic heater emission concerns for over 5 years already. W e 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

- the - art 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 Europe an models are tested in Europe by Euro pean laboratories to meet Euro pean standards . Few have been imported to the U.S. (b y U.S. companies) and very few have been tested in the U.S. according to U. S . testing require ments. However, a recent report 59 included an effort to compare the performance of the European models to U.S. ty pe 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 anal ys is protocols, the anal ys is indicates that the top 2 0 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 underl yi ng test data and l imited comparative testing show that over 50

59 See footnote 56 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

114 of 349 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. We request test data and other infor mation to co nfi rm th is conclusion. 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 hydronic heaters during the 2014 through 2022 period used in the RIA is approximately $4.6 million. Estimated nationwide annual PM 2.5 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 onl y the first year of emissions for each new heater sold . Given this lim ited snapshot for these cost and emission estimates, the average cost of reducing each new ton of PM 2.5 e missions during the 2014 - 2022 period is approximately $3,600 per ton annuall y. The annualized cost - to - sales ratio is 3.3 percent for h ydronic heater models. However, when considering the total costs and cumulative emission reductions over the more representative full model design lifespan and appliance emitting lifespan ; the overall cost effectiveness is approximately

$160 per ton (shown above in Table 11). 61 Given the reasonable cost effectiveness of imposing the two - step BSER, and gi ven the 6 - year lead time (from the date of these proposed standards) until model line s 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 th is time. Thus , we are proposing a two - step standard for hydronic heaters , in which Proposed 60 See footnotes 3 7 and 3 8 . 61 See footnote 40.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

115 of 3 49 Step 1 is required upon the effective date of the final rule, and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 ye ars after p ublication 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 ye ar compared to wood - fired hydronic heaters. These units are relativel y eas y t o retrofit into existing structures, and their sales price i s substantially less than h ydronic heaters but greater than gas or oil furnaces . Because they

are whole - house heating s ystems, they have the capacity to generate large amounts of emissions. Also , they compete with wood - fired hydronic heaters, which we prop ose 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 so urce category . Both forced - air furnace s and hydronic heater s compete with oil and gas furnaces . C onsumer choices v ary with con si deratio n of upfront sales price, financing costs , and operating cos ts, e.g, , the cost of obtaining seasoned wood versus oil or gas . Wood - fired, forced - air furnaces are not currently regul ated 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 mechanism s are local and provincial regulations requiring listing per CSA B415.1 - 10, which is the CSA1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

116 of 349 specification for emission performance of solid - fuel - burning heating appliances . 62 All CSA standards are developed through a consensus standards development process approved b y the Standards Council of Canada. This proce ss 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 , 63 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 requir ements, 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 0.928 lb/MMBtu. Manufacturers anticipate that CS A Standard B415.1 - 10 will effectivel y establish the minimum requirements for future units sold in Canada. For example, the province of British Columbia has enacted regulations limiting the sale of wood - burning appliances to those that comply with B415.1 - 10 (or the U.S. NSPS if the EPA issues such a standard), and other provinces and municipalities in Canada are in the process of amending their regulations to appl y to central heating s ys tems, including forced - air furnaces. In developing the B415.1 - 10 emissio ns limit of 0.40 g/MJ (0.928 lb/MMBtu) for solid - fuel central heating sy stems, the CSA committee thoroughl y reviewed the best 62 CSA B415.1 - 10: Performance testing of solid - fuel - burning heating appliances, Canadian Standards Associ ation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. March 2010. 63 Environment 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

117 of 349 sy stems available, developed a test method for such sy stems and supported emission testing of candidate best sy stems. A B415.1 - 10 validation - testing program performed b y 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 (0.928 lb/MMBtu) output corresponds to a 75 percent reduction in emissions when using the average particulate emissions of the conventional furnace tested b y 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; 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 recentl y had an EPA - certified 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 forced - air 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 and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

118 of 349 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 b y the test methods and procedures in CSA B415.1 - 10 , 5 ye ars after the effective date of the final standard . However, we have concerns that only one U.S. manufacturer currentl y has models that have been tested b y 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, how ever, that by 5 ye ars 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 cataly tic model meeting 0.06 lb/MMBtu, w e think the 6 ye ars of lead time is sufficient time in which to conduct R& D to produce comparabl y low er emitting model lines, although we are seeking comment on an alternative 3 - step approach with a longer lead time. Since there are limited emission s data available for forced - air furnaces that reflect hydronic heater proposed St ep 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. 64 The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of forced air furnaces during the 2014 through 2022 period

64 See footnotes 3 7 and 3 8 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

119 of 349 used in the RIA is approximately $2.3 million. Estimated nationwide annual PM 2.5 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 pro posed two - step BSER, an average reduction of 2,610 tons/year , considering onl y 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 in wood smoke . 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 lifespan and appliance emitting lifespan , the overall cost effectiveness is approximately

$40 per ton (shown above in Table 11). 65 Giv en 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 line s 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 effectiv e date of the final rule and Proposed Step 2 is required 5 ye ars 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

65 See footnote 40.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

120 of 349 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 w ood 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, respectivel y (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 onl y s lightly 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 dail y 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 h ot 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. Unfortunatel y, we lack sufficient data to se t 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

121 of 349 We had numerous discussions with states, masonry heater manufacturers, and laboratories on heater designs, test methods and heater emissions an d 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 exampl e, 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 av erage rate of 0.26 g/MJ (0.621 lb/MMBtu). As we discussed e arli e r i n this preamble, we do not h ave good information on how many heaters emit at each of these levels and thus have not developed a good estimate of baseline em issions and we ask for data that would he lp infor m us . However, l ooking at this data set in more detail, we can see that the best “improved combustion” sy stems have an emission level of 0.13 g/MJ (0.32 lb/MMBtu) heat output. We note that this level is consist ent with the proposed Step 1 BSER for h ydronic 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 ty

pical 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 analy ses presented today as compared to ty

pical 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 Enforcem ent Act Panel1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

122 of 349 strongl y 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 co sts. The first group of costs consisted of the two large manufacturers that we know have already developed potentially compl yi ng models and would only

face the costs of certification tests. For the second group of costs, we estimated the costs incurred b y 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. Fin ally , 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 not use current best designs and for thos e heaters there can be an em i ssio n red u ctio n of 70% 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. 66 The average annual cost increase to manufacturers of masonry heaters during the 2014 through 2022 period used in the RIA is approximately $294,000. The estimated cost - to - sales ratio is 4.8 percent. If o ne were to spread the costs over the much longer typical lifetimes of masonry

66 See footnotes 3 7 and 3 8 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

123 of 349 heaters (over 40 ye ars), 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 ye ar) 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 1 5 masonry

heaters per ye ar) would be required to compl y with these standards 5 years after the effective date o f the final rule. We are requesting specific comments on the proposed BSER option and data that might support alternative findings and enhance our impact anal ys es. 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 dail y average over the heating period versus the averaging onl y over the combustion p eriod, 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 catal ytic and noncatal ytic 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 forced - air 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 - step1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

124 of 349 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 , 67 nationwide manufacturer cost estimates , 68 emission reductions , 69 and overall cost effectiveness of the two - step proposal to the three step alternative approach considered. 70 Table 12 compares the unit cost increase, nationwide average cost to manufacturers and the annual particulate emission reductions , during the 201 4 through 2022 period used in the RIA , for appliances currently affected by this proposal , considering onl y the first ye ar 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 co nsidered (assuming no emission reductions for masonry

heaters, for the sake of this analy sis). Additional information on the impacts is included in the RIA in the docket. Table 1 2 . Comparison of Proposal and Alternative Approach (201 4 - 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 67 See footnote 38. 68 See footnote 37. 69 See footnote 24. 70 See footnote 40.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

125 of 349 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 15,6 88,471 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 two - step standard for each of the appliances affected b y 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 b y various models in each appliance category affected by

the proposed rule, is achievable within 5 ye ars of the proposed Step 1 BSER. There is a signi ficant emission reduction achieved b y 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 S tep 1 to the proposed Step 2. In the alternative approach considered , there is a longer transition period of 8 ye ars 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 ye ars after the proposed Step 1 . If we were to g ive a longer timeframe to redesign across model lines to accommodate the best s ystems, test, field evaluate, and certify a wide range of model lines , we believe there would be benefit to establishing required interim limit s to codify1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

126 of 349 progress in reducing emissions and to focus positive attention on earl y achievers as they show compliance in the period between 2014 and 2022. 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 require ment. However, we do not currently see adequate justification for allowing extra time without also requiring satisfactory progress, especiall y 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, w e seek comment , including data and potential environmental and economic justifications, on whether the described A lternative Approach Step 2 emission limits represent BSER within 3 years of the effectiv e date of the final rule. We also seek comment on whether an additional 5 years would be necessary to transition from the A lternative Approach Step 2 to the A lternative 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 - ye ar “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 research and development needs with timely and efficient standards, and so are seeking comment on the alternative approach outlined immediately above and in section I II. 5 . Other Proposed Emissions Testing and Reporting1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

127 of 349 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, includin g efficiency , we lack sufficient data to propose efficiency standards for residential wood heaters at this time. We are proposing onl y 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 Wood - Heating Technology Survey” discussed earlier in th is preamble show that, in general, the same types of improved combustion BSER designs that tend to reduce PM 2.5 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 propose d 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 the y 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 efficiency1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

128 of 349 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 website 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 e lsewhere 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 primaril y b y BSER based on good combustion (and in some cases catal ys ts and hy brids) 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 po ssible CO emissions standard. Also, we ask for comments on whether we should require CO monitor s 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 there1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

129 of 349 can be variable performance . Manufacturers’ data show that some fuel qualitie s have worse burning characteristics and operational characteristics than others, which results not only in heater performance problems but also increased emission s 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 recentl y in 2011 (http://pelletheat.org/wp - content/uploads/2011/11/PFI - Standard - Specificatio n November - 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 p roposed 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 oper ational proble m s and increase em i ssions . The overall intent of the certification process is to increase the consistency and quality

of pelletized fuel throughout the industry , thus reducing appliance operational problems and helping certified appliances perform at the emission levels t o which they are certified. Heater manufacturers have indicated to us that market competition will compel them to specify the widest range of grades for which their heaters will properl y perform. The PFI is also implementing a quality assurance program t o 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 in1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

130 of 349 obtaining certification under the NSPS. Similar to the NSPS quality ass urance 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 speci fications  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 te sting for fuel producers

– “as needed”  Provide testing for samples collected b y 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 s ys tem component  Maintain compliance through periodic audits, inspection and testing1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

131 of 349 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 Ty

pes 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 proposin g to add a list of prohibited fuel ty pes ( e.g. , trash, plastics, yard waste, wood treated with creosote, animal waste) to the wood - burning NSPS subparts to emphasize the responsibility

of owners and operators to use appropriate fuels that will result in th e 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 em issions 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 o peration and maintenance. Manufacturers ty picall y 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 owner s ( direct distribution manufacturers and retailer s ) to provide a moisture meter with the wood heater at the time of sale, along with the owner’s manual and a copy of the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

132 of 349 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 time lines ? The following table summarizes the proposed compliance timelines for the appliances covered b y the three subparts.

Table 1 3 . Summary

of Proposed Compliance Dates Appliance T ype Compliance Date Adjustable Rate Wood Heaters or Pellet Heaters/ Stoves with Current EPA Certification Issued Prior to the E ffective D ate of the Final Rule 1988 require ments 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 currentl y 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 S mall manufacturers : 5 years after the effective date of the final rule1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

133 of 349 The proposed compliance dates are tied to the effective date of the final standards. As stated earlier, an element of the BSER determination i nclude s 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 - ye ar 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 program s , 5 ye ars 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. Finally , we think our proposal for a 6 - ye ar 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 fin al 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 a chieve the Step 1 em i ssion limits .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

134 of 349 For small producers of masonry heaters, we are propos ing an additional 5 - year lead - time . We are not proposing to apply th ese extension s to other sources regulated by this proposal. We do not believe that an additional “sold at retail” provision is needed outdoor and indoor h ydronic heaters and forced - air furnaces. In the case of hydronic heaters, we believe that any delay of the compliance deadline for sales would also res ult 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 - ye ar compliance extension for wood heater manufacturers producing less than 2,000 heaters per ye ar, this proposed rule does not include a compliance extension prov ision 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 likel y 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 impo se 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 - ye ar 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, perhaps1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

135 of 349 50 units. M ost 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 ye arl y 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 onl y 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 installati on 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 anal ys is used a larger es timate ), we have concluded that a manufacturer of a small number of custom site - built model(s) of masonry heaters would likel y be unable to recover the total cost of R&D and certification testing costs in a reasonable timeframe. Similarly, a company

that m akes core components or sells design kits would be unable to recover total costs if only a few such components or kits are sold per ye ar. 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 co mpliance method based on computer simulations. The industry expects1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

136 of 349 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 - ye ar 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 alternativ e, 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 m anufacturer 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 other1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

137 of 349 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 currentl y 36 h ydronic 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 ye ars 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 sale s 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. As discussed above, we recognize there is some concern, as there was with the initial NSPS compliance dates, that testing l aboratories 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 I SO - accredited labs, the advance notice that industry has ha d concerning the NSPS prior to this proposal, and the time between thi s 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 NSP S 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 between1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

138 of 349 avoiding undue economic burdens and the nee d 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 ty pes, 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 way s to use our enforcement resources more effectivel y. We believe that the proposed changes, described in section III.A regarding a third - party certification program b y an IS O - 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 manufacturin g facilities and laboratories. For example, safety certification audits take place quarterly and include the random inspection of manufactured units for1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

139 of 349 compliance with design and safety factors. The experience of the voluntary partnership program s ’ ISO process has shown that the third - party approach can work. We also reviewed the list of design changes (the “k” list ; S ee 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 ty pes 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 sy stems  Dimensions and locations of the baffle, cataly st, refractory /insulation, flue gas exit, and the outer shielding and covering  Dimensions and fit of the gaskets for the door and catal ys t by pass  Fuel feed s ys tem  F orced 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 pro pose 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 as surance criteria ( e.g. , multiple errors in safety tests) are exceeded. We believe that development of a manufacturer

– specific quality

assurance plan with specific criteria1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

140 of 349 and approval b y 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 ty

pe. 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 b y a responsible official that the manufacturer has complied with al l requirements of the subpart and that the manufacturer understands that he or she remains responsible for compliance regardless of noncompliance b y the certifying body . We believe this combination of requirements would provide meaningful EPA oversight, as sign 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 compare s the results to determine inter- laboratory performance. The EPA recogniz es that we have not given this program as much attention as was envisioned in 1988. Thus, we propose to strengthen this program b y specifying that every laboratory conducting certification tests under the NSPS must participate in the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

141 of 349 round robin test s 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 alway s, the EPA may potentiall y use this information to he lp 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 I SO process will help improve inter - laboratory repeatability

and reproducibility . E. Wh at changes and additions to the allowed test methods are we proposing ? As described earlier in this preamble, we are proposing changes to th e test methods required b y subpart AAA. W e 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 te st results to use to show compliance with the emissions standards. Inother words, we are proposing to require manufacturers to conduct two separate test s , 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 c ertify 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 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

142 of 349 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 start - up 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 relat ed issues and any data supporting such issues or concerns. F. Wh at 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, b y 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 primaril y on the current delegation section in subpart AAA. In general, we1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

143 of 349 believe these delegations have worked we ll 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 b e 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 importan ce 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 delegate e s also to be able to enforce the delegated provisions. Also note that the d e legatio n s are upon request, not a require ment by the EPA. We are proposing to replace the current subpart AAA hearing and appeal procedures with a streamlined Petition for Re view 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 b y submitting a written request and supporting1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

144 of 349 documentation to the EPA . This process would allow for expedited review and resolution. We request specific comments on this proposed process and other way s to improve or streamline procedures while preserving the integrity of the program . **V I**  **. 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 enviro nment, public health or safety, or state, local, or trib al governments or communities. The $100 million threshold can be triggered b y either costs or benefits, or a combination of them. Accordingl y, 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 anal ys is of the potential costs and benefits associ ated with this action. This analy sis is contained in the RIA for this proposed rule. A copy of the analy sis 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 perce nt 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 analy sis, please refer to the RIA for this rulemaking, which is1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

145 of 349 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) do cuments 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 I CR number 1176.09. The subpart QQQQ ICR is a new collection, which has been assigned the EPA I CR number 2442 .01. The subpart RRRR I CR also is a new collection, which has been assigned the EPA I CR 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 standard s and produce certified units ac cording 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 certifi cation data , maintain results of quality assurance program inspections and emissions test data, and seal and store the tested appliance. Consistent with the current I CR 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

146 of 349 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 expe cted 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 fo r 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 info rmation collection averaged over the first 3 years of this I CR is estimated to be a total of 6,489 labor hours per ye ar at a total labor cost of $516,188 per ye ar. The ICR estimates that capital and the associated operation and maintenance1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

147 of 349 (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 I CR is estimated to be a total of 2,134 labor hours per ye ar at a total labor cost of $ 169,745 per ye ar. The ICR estimates that capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs would be $ 715,796 per ye ar. 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 I CR is estimated to be a total of 2,044 labor hours per ye ar at a total labor cost of $162,589 per ye ar. The ICR estimates that capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs w ould be $89, 037 per ye ar. 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 I CR,1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

148 of 349 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 IC R - 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 IC R between 30 and 60 d ay s after **[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  **,** a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by **[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  **.** 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) generall y requires an agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility

analy sis of any

rule subject to n otice 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 sm all 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 b y NAIC S code 333414 with fewer than 500 employees, or is primarily1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

149 of 349 engaged in m anufacturing air - conditioning and warm air heating equipment as defined b y NAI CS code 333415 with fewer than 750 employees, or is primaril y engaged in masonry contracting, as defined by NAI CS code 238140 with annual receipts less than 1 4 million dollars (b ased 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 n ot - for - profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Pursuant to s ection 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility anal ys is (IRFA) that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory

alternatives that c ould 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, th e 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 achiev e several objectives, including appl yi ng 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. This1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

150 of 349 proposal do es not include any requirements on heaters that are solel y fired by gas or oil. This proposal does not affect existing heaters. Th is proposal w as developed under the authority

of CAA section 111. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities. As discussed earlier in this preamble, s mall entities that the EPA anticipates being affected b y th is proposal would include almost all manufacturers of residential wood heaters. We estimate that roughl y 250

– 300 U.S. companies manuf acture residential wood heaters. We believe that approximately 90 percent of these manufacturers meet the SBA small - entity definition of having fewer than 500 employees.  Description of reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements are described in the section immediatel y above ( B. Paperwork Reduction Act). As discussed there, the information collection requirements (I CR), 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, w e estimated the potential annual burden averaged over the first 3 ye ars of the I CR to be a total of 6,489 labor hours per year at a total labor cost o f $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 ye ar at a total labor cost of $169,745 per ye ar and an average annual labor burden per response of 32 hours. For subpart RRRR, we estimated 2,044 labor hours per ye ar at a total labor cost of $162,589 per ye ar and an average annual labor burden per response of 19 hours.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

151 of 349  Description of other compliance requirements. As describe d earlier in this preamble, this proposal would apply updated emission limits that reflect the current best sy stems of emission reduction and improve the coverage of the expanded variety of ty pes 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 b y this proposed rule over this same period range from 4.3 percent for manufacture of wood heater/stove models to as much as an 6.4 percent compliance cost - to - sales estimate for manufacture of single burn rate wood heater models. These impacts do not presume any pass - through of impacts to consumers. With pass - through to consumers, these impact estimates to manufacturers will decline proportionate to the degree of pass - through . W e 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 NAI CS 236115, 238140 and 442299 with rec eipts less than $10 million . Those establishments in NAI CS 332510, 333414 and 423720 with cost - to receipt ratios higher than 1 percent account for 80 percent of small entities affected in these industries . Establishments in NAI CS 236115, 238140 and 442299 with cost - to receipt ratios higher than 1 percent account for 9 9 percent of small entities affected in these industries .  Re levant f

ederal rules that may

overla p or conflict with this proposal. There are no other relevant f

ederal rules.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

152 of 349  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 b y s ection 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by the Small Busines s Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA ) , the EPA also convened a Small Business Advocacy

Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements . The fol lowing paragraphs describe the process, the ty pe of small entity representatives, the outreach efforts and the Panel members. Well b efore beginning the formal SBREFA process, the EPA actively engaged in outreach with HPBA and MHA and PFI and many of the ir member companies to discuss the rule under development and to provide these contacts with an early opportunity

to ask questions and discuss their concerns. 72 The EPA provided each small business with general information on the SBREFA process and back ground information on the NSPS rulemakin g 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 ) , f rom residential wood heating appliance manufacturers (wood heater s, pellet heaters/ stoves, hydronic heaters, forced - air furnaces and masonry heaters), other wood - burning appliance manufacturers ( fireplaces, c ookstoves), equipment suppliers, chimney

sweeps, test laboratories , masons and trade associations. Once the 72 Also , 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 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

153 of 349 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 B usiness 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 prop osed rulemaking. Representatives from 26 of the 30 co mpanies and organizations that we selected as potential SERs for this SBREFA process participated in the me eting (in person and by phone). At that meeting , the EPA solicited written comments from the potential SERs, which were later summarized and shared w ith the p anel as part of the convening document. The SBAR Pan el convened on August 4, 2010. The panel consisted of representatives of the EPA, OA/SBA and OIRA/OMB. The p anel 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 p anel 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 p anel 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’ ide as for regulatory flexibility . During the August 25 meeting, SERs voiced general support for the planned proposed rule and shared specific conce rns with the Panel members. As a result of this meeting, the EPA received many useful1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

154 of 349 verbal comments, and the EPA received many helpful written comments by September 10, 2010. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the p anel evaluated the assembled materials and small - entity comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. A cop y of the p anel 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 p anel’s recommendations to the degree we can while also ensuring that the options are practicable, enforceable, environmentally

soun d and consistent with the CAA. For those recommendations not adopted b y the Agency, w e 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 chal lenges that the small businesses will face in having to compl y with standards for all of these source categories at one time. The p anel 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. The EPA has focused our efforts. The p anel noted the adverse effects of the 1988 NSPS on numerous wood heater/ stove manufacturers, and the need to carefully

develop a rule that wi ll minimize business closures, while still achieving si gnificant emission reductions. All panel members believed that the EPA had adequate information t o move forward with developing revisions that apply to the residential wood heater categories that are already regulated b y the 1988 NSPS. However, two panel members recommended that the EPA Administrator consider taking1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

155 of 349 more time to collect additional inf ormation to better determine B SER for the c ertified wood heater category . They concluded that the EPA did present to the p anel enough information to justify

regulation of this sub category, but the EPA did not adequatel y inform the SERs about the other cat e gories. These two panel members believed it wa s unclear whether adoption of a more stringent standard for new sources w ould slow the adoption of new, cleaner burning heater s, 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. Foll owing the Panel’s convening on August 4, 2010, the EPA collected additional information, and we refined the economic and technical anal ys es 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 ye ar, and the distribution of emissions across the unit ty pes 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 recommend ations and how we incorporated them into this proposal :1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

156 of 349  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. Th is proposal focuses on those sources.  The Panel encouraged the EPA to con sider 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. Th is 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 av ailability 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 (I SO) - 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. Additionall y, 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. Th is proposal includes stepped emission limits for different categories and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

157 of 349 a dds ISO- accredited laboratories and ISO- accredited certifying bodies to increase the availability of laboratories and certifiers. Further, th is 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. Th is proposal continues to allow that.
 The Panel recommended that the EPA consider emphasizing that the N SPS will address onl y new units. Th is 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. Th is proposal establishes emission limits for pellet stoves /heaters, which compete with adjustable burn rate wood stoves/heaters in the “roo m heaters ” consumer marketplace . There is conf usion in the marketplace as to why so me pellet stoves are regulated and why some are not. As discussed e arlie r in th is preamble, the potential exclusion of pellet stoves w i th greater than 35 - to - 1 air- to - fuel ratio is an unintended consequence of the 1988 actual intentio n of not setting emission limits for open firep laces w ith high excess co m b ustio n air that do n o t operate as effective heaters . We believe that not mov ing forw ard on pellet sto ves now would contribute to further c onf us io n and an uneven playing field in the m a rke t place . Further, the emission levels we are propo sing for pellet stoves/heaters are at the same level as the proposed wood stove /heater1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

15 8 of 349 standards and are already achieved by most pellet stove/heater models and thus do not impose substantial compliance costs. Similarly, masonry heater s compete in the residential wood heaters consumer marketplace and there is confusion as to why they are regula ted by some s tates, but n o t the EPA , and are even banned by some air districts beca use masonry heaters are not EPA - certified . M ost masonry h e aters are effective heaters and relatively cle an and eff i cient , esp e cia ll y co mpared to pre -NSPS wood stoves . Requiring valid certification testing and reporting and providing that inform atio n to regulators and con sumers and the publi c will help inform all as they strive to make approp riate cho ices on wood heating and air quality . That is, the masonry heaters can be an excellent emissio n red u ctio n choice for repla c ing higher emission pre -NSPS wood stoves and shou ld be enco u raged over old wood stoves in most air sheds . Further, the emission levels we are proposing are already achi e ved by most masonry heater designs and we allow extra time for small manufacturers . This proposal addresses indoor hydronic heaters because they compete with outd oo r hydronic heaters a nd forc ed - air furnaces in the “central heaters” consumer marketplace and there already is confusion as to why some are regulated by some states and so m e are not. Further, the magnitude of their emissions is of great concern and BSER controls are highly justified on cost- benefit 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 ye ar (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,1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

159 of 349 including voluntary

standards to lower emissions.” We considered thi s re c omm endation 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 requirents more stringent than the EPA requirements and all states have con cerns abo u t the lack of resources necessar y to develop and adopt and implement state stan da rds or voluntary programs, especially when most believe it is the EPA ’

s resp onsibility, and some have sued the EPA for failu re 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 bi omass 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 sub categories 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 sub categories. 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 small1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

160 of 349 businesses and other interested parties. W e emphasize that this proposal is not a final rule but rather it is a prop osal f o r publi c review and co mments and we welco m e co mments and data on all aspects of this proposa l that will help us prepare the fin al rulemaking. A s noted earlier, a cop y 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/y r in the 2014 - 2022 timeframe (2010 dollars). Therefore, this proposed rule would not be subject to the requirements of s ection s 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This proposed rule would also not be subject to the requirements of s ection 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 timel y input b y state and local1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

161 of 349 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 no t apply to this proposed rule. Although s ection 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this proposed action, the EPA did consult with representatives of state and local governments in develop ing this action. Inthe 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 benefit1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

162 of 349 tribes, and we conducted outreach and consulted with representatives of tribal offici als 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 dev elopment of the proposed rule. We provided information at the July 2010 , National Tribal Forum/National Tribal Air Association (NTAA) meeting in Albuquerque, N ew M exico, and the November 2010 , EPA Region 10 Tribal Leaders Summit in Juneau, A laska . We al so 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 ). Specificall y, we received input from the EPA/NTAA tribal workgroup members on culturally relevant exclusio ns from the proposed standards . We agreed with their input, clarified that we do not intend to regulate ceremonial fires, and added a definition to the rule to exclude traditional Native American bake ovens . On February

18, 2011, the EPA mailed letters to about 600 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 E PA specificall y solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

163 of 349 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 reasonabl y feasible alternatives considered b y the Agency . This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because the a gency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed b y this ac tion present a disproportionate risk to children. The report,

“ Anal ys is of Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion Emissions for Different Socio Economic Groups, ” 73 shows that on a nationwide basis, cancer risks due to residential wood smoke emissions among disadvantaged population groups generall y 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 ye ars and yo unger.

73 “Anal ys is of Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion Emissions for Different Socio - Economic Groups, Revised Draft Report.” Prepared for Gil Wood, U .S. EPA, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Prepared by EC/R Inc., EPA Contract No. EP - D - 05 - 085, Work Assignment No. 4 - 3. April 22, 2010.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

164 of 349 This proposed rule is expected to reduce environmental impacts for everyone, including children. This action proposes emissions limits at the levels based on B SER , as required b y the CAA . Based on our anal ys is, we believe this rule would not have a disproportionate impact o n children , and, in fact, w ill 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 earl y 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 N SPS to improve technology , including energy efficiency . By

making use of wood fuel less polluting and more efficient, we might see an increase in the use of wood fuel, which would relieve pressure on traditional coal or petroleum based energy sources. Howe ver, as described in s ection 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 ga s. We have not determined the potential conversion to other ty pes 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 Act1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

165 of 349 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 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 website www.astm.org/ epa : E2515 - 10 “ Standard Test Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected b y 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 - 09 “ Standard Test Method for Measurement of Particulate Matter Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Outdoor Solid Fuel - Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances” (See also ASTM WK26581 proposed revision); ASTM E2817 - 11 “ Standard Test Method for Test Fueling Masonry Heaters ; ” ASTM WK26558 “Specification for Calculation Method for C ustom D esigned, S ite B uilt Masonry Heaters . ” Also, we propose to use, in part, the following test method available for review at the CSA website http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/fuel - bur ning - equipment/b4151 - 10/invt/27013322010/ : CSA B415.1 - 10 “Performance Testing of Solid - fuel - burning1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

166 of 349 Heating Appliances . ” Finally , we propose to use , in part, the following test method prepared b y 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 de termine emissions under various operation conditions. For more details on each method, please refer to the discu ssion s in Section III of this preamble. In addition, we determined that the VCS ASTM E871 - 82 (2006), “Standard Test Me thod for Moisture Analy sis 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 d e term in ed 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 the search and review results, are in the docket for this proposed rule. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking . S pecificall y, 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 , Feb ruary 16, 1994) establishes federal executive po licy

on environmental justice. It s main provision directs federal agencies, to1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

167 of 349 the greatest extent practicable and permitted b y 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. As discussed earlier, the report, “ Anal ys is 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 e missions . Thus, we have determined that this proposed rule w ould not have disproportionatel y 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 . 74 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. 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 polices. 74 “Anal ys is of Exposure to Residential Wood Combustion Emissions for Different Socio - Economic Groups, Revised Draft Report.” Prepared for Gil Wood, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Prepared by EC/R Inc., EPA Contract No. EP - D - 05 - 085, Work Assignment No. 4 - 3. April 22, 2010.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

168 of 3491 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

169 of 349 **P age**  **16 2**  **of 34**  **2 -**  **Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New**  **Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced -** **Air Furnaces, and New Residential Masonry Heaters**  **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 :

Gina McCarth y , Administrator .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

170 of 349 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 –**  **[AMENDED]** 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: **Authority:** 42 U.S.C. 7401 - 7671q. **Subpart A —**  **[Amended]** 2. Section 60.17 is amended by : a. Adding paragraphs (a)(9 5 ) through (a)(10 1 ) ; and b. Adding paragraph (p) to read as follows: §60.17 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (a) * * * (9 5 ) ASTM E871 - 82 (2006), Standard Test Methods for Moisture Anal ys is of Particulate Wood Fuels, IBR approved for appendix A: Method 5H and Method 28. (9 6 ) ASTM E2515 - 10, Standard Test Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution Tunnel, IBR approved for §60.534(c), §60.5 476(b) and §60.5488(b). (9 7 ) ASTM E2779 - 10, Standard Test Method for Determining Particulate Matter Emissions from Pellet Heaters, IBR approved for §60.534(a)(2). (9 8 ) ASTM E2618 - 09 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Particulate Matter Emissions and H eating Efficiency of Outdoor Solid Fuel - Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances, IBR approved for §60.5476(a)(2).1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

171 of 349 (9 9 ) ASTM E2780 - 10, Standard Test Method for Determining Particulate Matter Emissions from Wood Heaters, IBR approved for §60.534(a)(2) ( 100 ) ASTM E 2817 - 11, Standard Test Method for Test Fueling Masonry Heaters, IBR approved for §60.5488(a). (10 1 ) 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 approv ed for §60.534(d) and §60.5476(c) and (d). (2) [Reserved

] 3. Part 60 is amended b y revising subpart AAA to read as follows: **Subpart AAA —**  **Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters** Sec. 60.530 Am Isubject to this subpart? 60.531 What definitions must Iknow? 60.532 What standards and associated requirements must Imeet and b y 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?1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

172 of 349 60.535 What procedures must Iuse for laboratory accreditation or certifying body accreditation ? 60.536 What requirements must Imeet for permanent labels and owner's manuals? 60.537 What records must I keep and what reports must Isubmit? 60.538 What activities are prohibited under this subpart? 60.539 What Petition for Re view 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 i n effect in this subpart at the time of certification that are manufactured on or after July 1, 1988 are affected wood heaters. (2) All other residential wood heaters under this subpart manufactured or sold on or after **[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]** are af fected wood heaters.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

173 of 349 (b) Each affected wood heater must compl y 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 fro m 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 - o nl y heaters that meet the definition in §60.531 or corn - onl y pellet stoves) are exempt from the applicable emission limits of §60.532 and the requirements of §60.533. (4) Cookstoves that meet the definition in §60.531 are exempt from the applicable emissi on 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. 1 5 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 furnace s subject to subpart QQQQ of this part. (2) Residential masonry

heaters subject to subpart RRRR of this part.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

174 of 349 (3) Appliances that are not residential heating devices (for example, manufactured or site - built masonry

fireplaces). (4) Traditional Native Ameri can bake ovens that meet the definition in §60.531. §60.531 W

hat 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. Th is definition does not distinguish between heaters that are free standing or fireplace insert s . Accredited test laboratory means a test laboratory that is accredited for wood heater certification testing under §60.535 or is an independent third - party test laboratory that is accredited b y 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 cond

ucting 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 exhau st capable of burning wood or coal intended for use in a tent or other temporary structure used for hunting, camping, fishing,1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

175 of 349 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 b y a nationally recognized accrediting entity under I SO - IEC Standard 17020 to perform certifications , inspections and audits under ISO - IE C Guide 170 65 and approved by the EPA for conducting certification s , 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 emptyingash that is located n ear the bottom or the side of the appliance; (2) A s ys tem that admits air primaril y 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 onl y, 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

176 of 349 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 b yp ass 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 ( PM 10 ) and fine PM ( PM 2.5 ).1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

177 of 349 Pellet stove means an enclosed, solid fuel burning device capable of and intended for residential space heating or domestic water heating that is designed specificall y 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. Sale means the transfer of ownership or control, except that a transfer of control of an affected woo d 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 inle t air sy stem, 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

178 of 349 Valid certification test means a test that meets the following criteria: (1) The Administrator was notified about the test in accordance with §6 0.534(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 ener gy

content. §60.532 W

hat 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 b y the applicable test methods and proc edures in §60.534(a) through (c) until the current certification expires as specified in §60.533(h)(1), or it is revoked b y the Administrator as specified in §60.533(l), whichever is first. After the certificat e expires or is revoked , individual wood1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

179 of 349 heate rs 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 t est run at any burn rate that is required to be used in the weighted averag e 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), 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 K 1 = 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. Partic ulate 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 matte r1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

180 of 349 emissions must not exceed 18 g/hr (0.040 lb/hr) during any t est 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) 2014 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 li mits 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 D**  **ATE OF FINAL RULE]** must comply with the emission limit specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Compliance for all sources must be determined b y 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 cataly tic combustor must not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in excess of a weighted average of 4 .5 g/hr (0.0 1 lb/hr). (2) An adjustable burn rate wood heater or pellet sto ve that is an affected wood heater not equipped with a catal ytic combustor and capable of making burn rate1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

181 of 349 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 (0.0 1 lb/hr). (c) 2019 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 DA TE OF**  **FINAL RULE]**  must not discharge into the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in excess of 1.3 g/hr (0.00 3 lb/hr) for any burn rate . Compliance for all sources must be determined b y 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

onl y burn pellets that have been produced under a licensing agreement with the Pellet Fuel s Institute or an equivalent organization approved by the EP A. 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;1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

182 of 349 (5) Ash content: no more than 2 percent ; and (6) A quality assurance process licensed b y the Pellet Fuel s Institute or equivalent organization approved b y 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, ply wood, 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 previousl y 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 clearl y specify

that operation in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s manual would violate the warranty.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

183 of 349 (h) Temperature Sensor Requirement . An affected wood heater equipped with a catal ytic combustor must be equipped with a temp erature sensor that can monitor combustor gas stream temperatures within or immediately downstream [within 2.54 centimeters (1 inch)] of the catal ytic combustor surface. §60.533 W

hat compliance and certification requirements must I meet and by when? (a) Ce rtification Requirement . Each affected wood heater must be certified to be in compliance with the applicable emission standards and other requirements of this subpart. For each model line manufactured or sold by a single entity , e.g. , company or manufacturer , compliance with applicable emission standards of §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 appl y 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 a fter **[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]**  , the manufacturer must sub m it the info rmation 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 appl y t o the Administrator for a certificate of compliance for each model line. The application must be submitted to: XXXX Compliance Program at1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

184 of 349 xxxx.gov/yyyy . 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, affi liation, phy sical 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 teste d 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 reasonabl y be anticipated to cause wood heaters in the model line to exceed the applicable emission limits. The drawin g s must id entify how the emission critical parts, such as air tubes and catal ys t, can be readily

inspected and replaced. The drawings may be submitted either in hard cop y 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 informati on necessary to1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

185 of 349 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 d ata 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 clearl y 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 cop y of the warrant ies 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 req uirements 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 aft er 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 pres cribed in §60.536.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

186 of 349 ( iii) Accompanied b y an owner’s manual that meets the requirements in §60.536. In addition, a cop y of the owner’s manual must be submitted to the EPA and be available on the manufacturer’s website . (9) A statement that the manufacturer h as entered into a contract with an accredited laboratory that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section. (10) A statement that the accredited certifying body is allowed to submit information on behalf of the manufacturer. (c)(1) Adminis trator Approval Process . The Administrator will electronically issue a certificate of compliance for a model line if the Administrator determine s , based on all information submitted by the applicant and any

other relevant information available , that: (i ) A valid certification test demonstrate s 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 s pecified in those paragraphs may not reasonabl y 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 determine s 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 basi s for this determination.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

187 of 349 (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 E PA 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 se lects 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 en sure that units within a model line accuratel y reflect emission - critical 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

wi th the applicable requirements of this subpart for the model line.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

188 of 349 (A) After testing b y an accredited test laboratory is complete, certification of conformity

with the emission standards in §60.532 must be performed b y 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 en sure that units within the model line will be similar in all material respects to the wood heater submitted fo r 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, tes t 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 electronicall y issue to the manufacturer a certificate of compliance for a model line if it is determine d, 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; and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

189 of 349 (ii) Any tolerances or mat erials for components listed in paragraph (k)(2) or (3) of this section that are different from those specified in those paragraphs may not be reasonabl y anticipated to cause wood heaters in the model line to exceed the applicable emission limits. (iii) Th e requirements of paragraphs (b) of this section have been met. (iv) A valid certificate of co nformity for the model line has been prepared and submitted. (3) The Administrator will deny certification if the Administrator determine s 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 conditi ons: (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 i dentify 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 the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

190 of 349 model line meet the applicable standard specified in §60.532(b). This option is only pot entially available a maximum of on e 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 d ate 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 e very 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 of an affected wood heater may appl y to the Administrator for potential renew al of their certificate by submitting the material specified in §60.533(b) and following the procedures specified in §60.533(f) or b y affirming in writing that the wood heater ha s been subject to no changes that would impact emissions and requesting a potential waiver from certification testing. ( 2 ) If the Administrator grant s a renewal o f certification, the Administrator will give written notice to the manufacturer setting forth the basis for the determination and issue a certification renewal .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

191 of 349 (3) If the Administrator denies the request for a renewal o f 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 Administrator may potentially waive this requirement upon written request by the manufacturer, if it is determine d that the change may not reaso nabl y 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 line ar dimension and ±5 percent for any cross - sectional area relating to air introduction sy stems and catal ys t by pass gaps unless other dimensions and cross sectional areas are previously approved b y the Administrator under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section : (i) Firebox: Dimensions; (ii) Air introduction sy stems: Cross - sectional area of restrictive air inlets and outlets, location and method of control; (iii) Baffles: Dimensions and locations;1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

192 of 349 (iv) Refractory

/insulation: Dimensions and location; (v) Catal ys t : Dimensions and location; (vi) Cataly st by

pass mechanism and catal ys t by pass gap tolerances (when by pass mechanism is in closed position): Dimensions, cross - sectional area, and location; (vii) Flue gas exit: Dimensions and location; (viii) Door and catal y st by pass gaskets: Dimensions and fit; (ix) Outer shielding and coverings: Dimensions and location; (x) Fuel feed s ys tem: For wood heaters that are designed primarily to burn wood pellets and other wood heaters equipped with a fuel feed s ys tem, the fuel fe ed rate, auger motor design and power rating, and the angle of the auger to the firebox; and (xi) Forced air combustion sy stem: 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 catal ys t bypass gaskets. (4) A change in the make, model, or composition of a cataly st is presumed to affect particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions and efficiency , unless the change has been approved in advance b y the Administrator, based on test data in the same model stove that demonstrate that the replacement catal ys t is equivalent to or better than the original catal ys t in terms of particulate matter emission reduction. (l) Criteria for Revocation of Certification .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

193 of 349 (1) The Administrator may revoke certification if it is determine d 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; (i ii ) Failure b y the manufacturer to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements under §60.537; ( i v) Phy sical examination showing that a significant percentage (as defined in the quality assurance plan , but no larger than 1 percent) of production units inspected is no t 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 re view under §60.539. (m) Quality Assuranc e Program .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

194 of 349 (1) On or a fter **[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]** , f or each certified model line, the manufacturer must conduct a quality assurance program that satisfies the requirements of this section The quality a ssurance p rogram requirements of this section supersede the quality

assurance plan requirements specified in §60.533( o ) of the 1988 rule. By **[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]** , for model lines that had a valid EPA certification on **[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]**  , manuf acturers 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 en suring that units within a model line accuratel y reflect emission - critical components of the model line design and meet the emissions standards in §60.532. (ii) Th e quality

assurance plan must be approved within 30 day s 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 quarterl y unannounced audits under IS O IEC Guide 170 65 and ISO - EC Standard 17020 to en sure that the manufacturer’s quality control plan is being implemented. (v) The certifying entity must prepare a report for each audit under ISO - IE C Guide 170 65 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 the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

195 of 349 authoriz ation and requirement to submit all such reports to the EPA within 30 day s . 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 wi thin 30 day s 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 b y 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 und er §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 t o 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 legall y unable to honor the contract. The manufacturer will also bear the cost1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

196 of 349 of audit testing if the manufacturer ha s 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 tes t. (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 emissio n 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 b y the Administrator. Th e 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 revocati on, 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

197 of 349 (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 day s 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 day s 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 cop y 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 day s of the completion of testing, if a wood heater exceeds the applicable emission limit in §60.532. The test laboratory must provide the Adminis trator and the manufacturer, within 30 day s 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 expens e, 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,1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

198 of 349 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 accordingl y. (vii) The Administrator may withdraw any proposed revocation, i f the Administrator finds that an audit test failure has been rebutted b y information submitted by the manufacturer under paragraph (n)(4)(iv) of this section and/or (n)(4)(v) of this section or b y any other relevant information available to the Administrator . §60.534 W

hat 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:1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

199 of 349 (a)(1) Method 28 of appendix A - 8 of this part must be used to establish the certification test conditions and the particulate m atter 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 2014 particulate matter standards specified in §60.532(b) , you must conduct testing according to paragraph s §60.53 4 ( 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 §60.53 7 for certification compliance. (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) F or affected wood heaters subject to the 201 9 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 yo u should first test Burn Rate Categories 1 and 4 and then test 2 more times for whichever burn rate category is w orse 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 of1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

200 of 349 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 2014 and 201 9 particulate matter standards specified in §60.532(b) and (c) , emission concentrations mu st 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 b y email to XXXX Compliance Program at xxx.gov/yyyy. This notice must be received b y the EPA at least 30 day s before the start of testing. The notification of testing must include the manufacturer's name and phy sical and email address es , the accredited test laboratory's name and phy sical and email address es , 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 p retest 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 s eries. Written communications between the manufacturer and laboratory personnel may

be exchanged during the certification test only if deviations from the test procedures are observed that1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

201 of 349 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 te sts that would not be relevant to owners or regulators . §60.535 W

hat 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 I SO - 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 Administrat or; (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 b y the Administrator) at the cost normall y charged to manufacturers if it is selected to conduct the compliance audit test of a model line originall y tested for certification at another laboratory.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

202 of 349 (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 conducte d 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 determine d that the laboratory : (i) Is no longer is accredited by the nationally

recognized I SO 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 Admin istrator 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

203 of 349 (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 ye ars from the date of issuance. (2) Laboratories accredited by the EPA by **[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]**  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

acc redited by

the Administrator must seal any wood heater on which it performed certification tests, immediately upon completion or suspension of certification testing, b y 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 b y submitting credentials demonstrating that they have been accredited b y a nationally recognized accrediting entity to perform certifications and inspections under ISO - 17025, I SO - IEC Standard 17065 and I SO - IEC Standard 10720. (2) As part of the application, the certifying entity must:1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

204 of 349 (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 periodicall y 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 testin g conducted pur suant 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 b y 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 certifyingentity; (i) Is no longer accredited by the nationally

recognized I SO certifying entity1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

205 of 349 (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 bas is 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. 53 6 Wh at 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 per manent 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 uni t; (ii) Model name or number; and (iii) Serial number. (3) The permanent label must: (i) Be affixed in a readil y 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 wood heater;1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

206 of 349 (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. 5 3 6(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 co mply

with 1990 particulate emission standards. Not approved for sale or operation after **[6 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]** 1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

207 of 349 or U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply

with 2014 particulate emission standards. Not approved for sal e or operation after **[5 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]**  or U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Certified to comply

with 2019 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 201 4 particulate emiss ion 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 2019 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 AGENCY1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

208 of 349 Export stove. May

not be sold or operated within the United States. (2) If an affected wood heater i s 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 operatio n 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 Thi s unit is not a certified residential wood heater. The primary use for this unit is for cooking or baking. (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 onl y. (e) The permanent label for all certified wood heaters must also contain the following statement:1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

209 of 349 “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) Ea ch affected wood heater offered for sale by a commercial owner must be accompanied b y an owner's manual that must contain the information listed in paragraph s ( f )(2) and ( f

)(3) of this section. Such information must be adequate to enable consumers to achi eve 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 website and upon request to the EPA . (2) Installation information: Requirements for ach ieving 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, cardboa rd, solvents, trash and garbage. (ii) Fire st arting procedures (iii) Proper use of air controls (iv) Ash removal procedures1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

210 of 349 (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 catal ytic models, information on the following pertaining to the cataly tic combustor: Procedures for achieving and maintaining catal ys t activity , maintenance procedures, procedures for determining deterioration or failure, procedures for replacement, and information on h ow to exercise warranty rights (vii) For catal ytic models, the following statement

— “This wood heater contains a catal ytic 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 cataly tic element is deactivated or removed.” (viii) For noncatal ytic models, the following statement

— “This wood heater needs periodic inspection and r epair 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 EPA - recommended language contained in appendix Iof 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 li ne.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

211 of 349 (i) Wood heaters that are affected b y this subpart, but that have been owned and operated b y a noncommercial owner, are not subject to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section when offered for resale. §60.537 W

hat 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 this paragraph (a) with respect to that model line. (2) All documentation p ertaining 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 inspection s required b y §60.533(m). (4) For emissions tests conducted pursuant to the quality assurance program required b y §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, in cluding 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 I SO IEC accreditation credentials to the Administrator.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

212 of 349 (c) Each manufacturer must retain each wood heater upon which certification tests were performed based upon which certification was gr anted under §60.533(c) o r (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 f or 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 in clude 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: XXXX Compliance Program at xxxx.gov/yyyy. (f) Within 60 day s after the date of completing each performance test, each manufacturer or accredited test laboratory or certifying entity must submit performance test data electronicall y to the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) b y 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 the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

213 of 349 final rule is publi shed. 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 commonl y 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 clearl y marked as CBI and mailed to U .S. EPA/ OAQPS /CORE CBIOffice, 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 W

hat 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 permanentl y labeled under §60.536 (b) or (c) unless: (i) The affected wood heater has been certified to comply with 2019 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 cop y of the warranty and a moisture meter.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

214 of 349 (2) No commercial owner is permitted to advertise for sale, offer for sale, or sell an affected wood heater permanentl y labeled under §60.536(d)(3), unless the affected wood heater ha s been certified to comply with 2019 particulate emission . This prohibition does not apply to wood heaters affected by this subpart that have been previously

owned and operated b y 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 th e 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 gi ve 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

).1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

215 of 349 (f) No person is permitted to operate an affected wood heater that was originall y equipped with a catal ytic combustor if the catal ytic element is deactivated or removed. (g) No person is permitted to operate an affected wood heater that has been phy sicall y 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 W

hat 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) I ssues 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 af fected may

submit to the EPA, a Petition for Re view request under this section within 30 day s 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 Re view request under this section with the time limits set out in §60.533(p)(4). (b) Any Petition for Review reque st must be in writing, must be signed b y 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

216 of 349 (c) Upon receipt of a Petition for Re view under paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator shall provide a written response within 45 day s. §60.539a W

ho implements and enforces this subpart? (a) In delegatin g implementation and enforcement authority to a s tate under section 111(c) of the Act, the authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained b y the Administrator and not transferred to a s tate. (b) Authorities that must not be delegat ed 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 W

hat 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. Part 60 is amended b y adding subpart QQQQ to read as follows: **Subpart QQQQ –**  **Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced**  **- Air Furnaces**  Sec. 60.5472 Am Isubject to this subpart? 60.5473 What definitions must Iknow? 60.5474 What standards and requirements must Imeet and by when?1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

217 of 349 60.5475 What complianc e 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 Iuse for laboratory accreditation? 60 .5478 What requirements must Imeet for permanent labels and owner's manuals? 60.5479 What records must Ikeep and what reports must I submit? 60.5480 What activities are prohibited under this subpart? 60.5481 What Petition for Re view 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? **Subpart QQQQ –**  **Standards of Performance for New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced**  **- Air Furnaces**  §60.5472 Am I s ubject 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 hydroni c 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 §60.5475.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

218 of 349 (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 af fected residential hydronic heaters or forced - air furnaces manufactured per model line may be exempted for this purpose. (3) Appliances that do not burn wood or wood pellets (such as coal - onl y h ydronic heaters or forced - air furnaces that meet the definitio n 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 forced - air 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 W

hat 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 third - party

test laboratory

that is accredited by

a nationall y recognized accrediting entity

under ISO - IEC Standard 17025 to perform testing using the test methods specified in §60.5476 and approved b y the EPA for conducting certification t ests under this subpart.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

219 of 349 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 ty

picall y through pip es. Unless otherwise specified, these devices include residential forced - air furnaces and residential hydronic heaters. Certifying entity means an independent third party that is accredited b y a nationally recognized accrediting entity under I SO - IEC Standard 17020 to perform certifications , inspections and audits under ISO - IE C Guide 170 65 and approved by the EPA for conducting certifications , inspections and audits under this subpart . Coal- only hydronic heater or forced - air furnace means an enclosed, coal - burning 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 onl y, 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

220 of 349 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 b y a single manufacturer that are similar in all material respects as defined in this section. Particulate matter (PM) means total particulate matter including PM 10 and PM 2.5 . 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 hydroni c 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, b y the distribution of air heated b y 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, ty

pically 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 le ss.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

221 of 349 Similar in all material respects means that the construction materials, exhaust and inlet air sy stem, 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 forced - air 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 W

hat 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 201 4 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 certified to meet the 201 9 particulate matter emission limit in paragraph (b)( 2 ) of this section.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

222 of 349 ( 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 201 4 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 unles s it has been certified to meet the 201 9 particulate matter emission limit in paragraph (b)( 4 ) of this section. (b)(1) 201 4 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) 201 9 residential h ydronic heater particulate matter emission limit: 0.06 lb/million Btu (0.026 g/megajoule) heat output as determined b y the test methods and procedures in §60.547 6. ( 3 ) 201 4 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 b y the test methods and procedures in §60.5476. (4) 2019 forced - air furnace particulate matter em ission 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 residenti al h ydronic heaters, or residential forced - air furnaces that are certified to burn pellet fuels may

only burn pellets that have been produced under a licensing1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

223 of 349 agreement with the Pellet Fuel s 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 b y the Pellet Fuel Institute or equivalent organiz ation approved b y 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, ply wood or particleboard. The prohibition against burning these materials does not prohibit the use of fire starters made from paper,1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

224 of 349 cardboard, saw dust, wax and similar substances for the purpose of st arting 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) Unseas oned 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 clearl y specify that operation in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s manual would violate the warranty. §60.5475 W

hat compliance and certification requirement s 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 mode l 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 forced - air 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

225 of 349 (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 pur suant 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 is suance. (d) Renewal of Certification . (1) Any manufacturer of an affected residential hydronic heater or forced - air furnace may

appl y to the Administrator for potential renewal of a certificate of compliance b y 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 se ll that model, then the manufacturer must submit a statement to the EPA for that model. A manufacturer may apply for potential renew al of their certificate b y 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

226 of 349 (3) If the Administrator grant s or waiv es 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 o f 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 determine d 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 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;1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

227 of 349 (iv) Failure b y the manufacturer to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of §60.5479; (v) Phy sical 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 affec t ed 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 re view under §60.5481. (g) Quality Assurance Program . For each certi fied 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). F or 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 W

hat test meth ods and procedures must I use to determine compliance with the standards and requirements for certification?1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

228 of 349 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 c ompliance 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 2014 particulate matter standards specified in §60.5 474(a)(1) and is equipped with an external heat storage unit, you must conduct testing according to paragraph §60.5 476 ( 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 §60.5 479 for certification compliance. (i) Conduct testing us ing crib wood as specified in Method 28 WHH . The heat input and heat output measurements must be performed according to ASTM method E2618 - 09 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) mus t 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 201 9 particulate matter standards specified in §60.5474(a) ( 2 ) and is equipp ed with an external partial heat storage unit, you must1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

229 of 349 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 P articulate 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 em ission rate (lb/million Btu heat output) of outdoor and indoor residential hydronic heaters , except that for the 2019 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 separatel y 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 2019 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 resul ts 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 XXXX Compliance Program at xxx.gov/yyyy . This notice must be at least 301 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

230 of 349 day s 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 accredi ted 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 co mmunications 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 n ot be relevant to owners. §60.5477 W

hat procedures must I use for laboratory accreditation? The accreditation procedure specified in §60.535 must be used to certify test laboratories under this subpart. §60.5478 W

hat requirements must I meet for permanent labels and owner's manuals? (a) Permanent Label Requirements .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

231 of 349 (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 perm anent 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 readil y 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 la

bel 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 or1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

232 of 349 tol erances 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 201 4 particulate emission standards. or U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT ION AGENCY Certified to comply

with 2019 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 ope ration. 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 furnac e individually tested for emissions by

the manufacturer under §60.5475(f), it met the applicable emission limit.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

233 of 349 (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 residenti al hydronic heater or forced - air furnace is a non wood burning h ydronic 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 b y 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 instructions1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

234 of 349 provided b y the manufacturer to the accredited test laboratory for operating the residential h ydronic 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 website. (2) Installation information: Requirements for a chieving 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, cardboa rd, 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 f ollowing 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 manufa cturer 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 onl y such changes as are necessary to ensure accuracy

for the particular model line.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

235 of 349 (i) Residential hydronic heaters and forced - air furnaces that are affected b y this subpart but have been operated b y a noncommercial owner are not subject to paragraph ( f ) of this section when offered for resale. §60.5479 W

hat 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 al l 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 b y §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. (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 under1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

236 of 349 §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 h ydronic 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 b y 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: XXXX Compliance Program at xxxx.gov/yyyy. (f) Within 60 day s after the date of completing each performance test, each manufacturer or accredited test laboratory or certifying entity must submi t performance test data electronicall y to the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) b y 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 use1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

237 of 349 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 clearl y m arked 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 W

hat 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 affix ed 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 lab el 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

238 of 349 (c)(1) No commercial own er 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 ha s been certified to comply with 2019 particulate emission standards . This prohibition does not apply to affected residential hydronic heaters or forced - air furnaces regulated under this subpart that have been previously owned and operated b y 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 cop y of the warranty and a moisture meter. (2) A commercial owner other than a manufacturer complies with the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of th is 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 commerc ial owner is permitted to sell any residential hydronic heater or1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

239 of 349 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 onl y 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 phys icall y 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 W

hat Petition for Review procedures apply to me? (a) In any case where the Administrat or: (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 re view under this section pursuant to the procedures specified in §60.539 within 30 day s following receipt of the required notification of the action in question.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

240 of 349 (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 Re view request under this section with the time limits set out in §60.533(p)(4). §60.5482 W

ho implements and enforces this subpart? (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a s tate 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 s tate. (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 W

hat 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. Part 60 is amended b y adding subpart RRRR to read as follows: **Subpart RRRR –**  **Standards of Performance for New Residenti al Masonry Heaters**  Sec. 60.5484 Am Isubject to this subpart? 60.5485 What definitions must Iknow? 60.5486 What standards and requirements must Imeet and by when?1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

241 of 349 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 Iuse for laboratory accreditation? 60.5490 What requirements must Imeet for permanent labels and owner's manuals? 60.5491 What records must Ikeep and what reports must Isubmit? 60.5492 What activities are prohibited under this subpart? 60.5493 What Petition for Re view 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 compl y 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 the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

242 of 349 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 - onl y heaters) are exempt from the applicable emission limits of §60.5486 and the requirements of §60.5487. (c) The following are not affected ma sonry 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 Wh at definitions must I know? As u sed 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 §60.548 9 or is an independent third party t est laboratory that is accredited b y 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 certific ation 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 b y a nationally recognized accrediting entity under I SO - IEC Standard 17020 to perform1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

243 of 3 49 certifications and inspections under I SO - IEC Guide 170 65 and approved by the EPA for conducting certifications , inspe ctions 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 onl y, 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 PM 10 and PM 2.5 . Pellet fuel means refined and densified wood shaped into small pellets or briquettes that are uniform in size, shape, moisture, density and energy

content.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

244 of 349 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 h as a core constructed primarily of manufacturer - built, supplie d, or specified masonry

materials (such as stone, cemented aggregate, clay , tile, or other non combustible, 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 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 heat er (or average of net internal duct lengths for multiple pathway s 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 verticall y to the center of the oppo site 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 dis tance traveled is included in the total duct length; and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

245 of 349 (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 air- controlling 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 arrestin g screens) to one or more inlets as prescribed b y 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 sy stem, 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;1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

246 of 349 (3) The test was conducted on a residential masonry heater similar in all material respects as defined in this section to other res idential 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 W

hat standards and requirements must I meet and by when? (a) Particulate M

atter 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 EF FECTIVE 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 §60.5488.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

247 of 349 (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 b y the Pellet Fuel Institute or equivalent organization approved b y 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;1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

248 of 349 (8) Paper products, cardboard, ply wood, 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 oth er previousl y 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 clearl y specify that operation in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s manual would violate the warranty . §60.5487 Wh at 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. I f one entity licenses a model line to another entity , each entity ’s model line must be certified. If an entity ch anges the name of the entity or the name of the model, the manufacturer must appl y 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 certificatio n procedure specified in §60.533(f) except that, for the purposes of this paragraph, the reference in §60.533(f)1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

249 of 349 to the emission limits in §60.532 must be understood to refer to the emission limits in §60.5486(b) and the associated test methods are those s pecified 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 subs equent 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 website. (b) Waiver from Submitting Test Results . (1) An applicant for certification may app ly 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) Alternativel y, 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 ye ars 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 wil l be valid for the life of the model line unless it is revoke d by the Administrator. (d) Renewal of Certification .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

250 of 349 (1) Any manufacturer of an affected masonry heater may appl y to the Administrator for potential renewal of a certificate of compliance b y 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 m anufacture 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 renew al 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 waiv es 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 n ot apply .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

251 of 349 (f) Criteria for Revocation of Certification. (1) The Administrator may revoke certification of a model line if it is determine d 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 o r marketing information does not comply with the requirements of §60.5490; (i ii ) Failure b y the manufacturer to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of §60.5491; ( iv ) Phy sical 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 (v) 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 fo r Re view under §60.5493.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

252 of 349 (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 appl y to small manufacturers a s 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 Wh at 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

253 of 349 (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 spe cified 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 th e date that certification testing is to begin , by email , to XXXX Compliance Program at xxxx.gov/yyyy. This notice must be received at least 30 day s 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 may1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

254 of 349 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 Wh at procedures m ust I use for laboratory accreditation? The accreditation procedure specified in §60.535 must be used to certify test laboratories under this subpart. §60.5490 Wh at requirements must I meet for permanent labels and owner's manuals? (a) Permanent Label Requ irements . (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 readil y 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);1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

255 of 349 (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 co mbined 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 20 1 4 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 AG ENCY 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 DAT E OF FINAL RULE]**  .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

256 of 349 (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 pro gram 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 mas onry 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 affe cted 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 AGENCY1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

257 of 349 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 b y an owner's manual that must contain the information listed in paragraph ( f )(2) of this se ction (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 mus t also make current and historical owner’s manuals available on the company website. (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, cardboa rd, solvents, trash and garbage.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

258 of 349 (ii) Fire starting procedures ( iii) Proper use of air controls (iv) Ash removal procedures (v) Instructions for replacement of ga sket 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 agains t 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. ( g ) Residential masonry

heaters that are affected by this subpart but have been operated b y a noncommercial owner are not subject to paragraph (f) of this section when offered for resale. §60.5491 Wh at records must I keep and what reports must I submit? (a) Each manufacturer who holds a certif icate of compliance pursuant to §60.5487(a)(2) for a model line must maintain records containing the information required b y this paragraph (a) with respect to that model line. (1) All documentation pertaining to the certification test or computer simulati on used to obtain certification.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

259 of 349 (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 computer - generated 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 b y §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 b y 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 te st 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 grant ed pursuant to §60.5487(a)(2) at the manufacturer’s facility for as long as the model line is manufactured. Each masonry1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

260 of 349 heater must remain sealed and unaltered. Any such residential masonry heater must be made available upon request to the Administrator f or 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 req uired under this subpart must be made to: XXXX Compliance Program at xxxx.gov/yyyy. (f) Within 60 day s 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, electronicall y 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 mail1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

261 of 349 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 th e 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 commonl y 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 A dministrator, 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 Wh at 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 a ffixed 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 §60.5490.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

262 of 349 (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 affecte d masonry

heater permanentl y labeled under §60.5490(b) unless: (i) The affected appliance regulated under this subpart was previously owned and operated b y 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 cop y 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: (i) Receives the re quired 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 A dministrator may give noti ce of that revocation and the grounds for it to all commercial owners.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

263 of 349 (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 b y 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 onl y using fuels for which the unit is certified . (f) No person is permitted to operate an affected masonry heater that has been phy sicall y 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 Wh at Petition for Re view 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 Re view request under this section pursuant to the proced ures specified in §60.593 within 30 day s 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 Re view request1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

264 of 349 under this section pursuant to the procedures specified in §60.5493 with the time limits set out in §60.533(p)(4). §60.5494 Wh o implements and enforces this subpart? (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a s tate 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 s tate. (b) Authorities that must not be delegated to states: (1) Section 60.5473, Definition s; (2) Section 60.5475, Compliance and certification; (3) Section 60.5476, Test methods and procedures; and (4) Section 60.5477, Laboratory accreditation. §60.5495 Wh at 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 b y adding Method 28R to follow Method 28A to read as follows: **Test Method 28R for Certif ication 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 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

265 of 349 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 b y 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 L ocation” and EPA Referen ce Method 5H “Determination of Particulate Emissions From Wood Heaters From a Stack L ocation” 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 ;1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

266 of 349 (b) The fuel load weight shall be 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) The range for the test - initiation coal - bed weight shall be 22 percent +/ - 1 percent of the fuel load weight. 7. Part 60 Appendix A - 8 is amended b y adding Method 28 WHH to follow Method 28A to read as follows: **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 h ydronic heating appliances. The units ty picall y 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 b y 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 b y this test method include both pressurized and non pressurized heating appliances intended to be fired with wood. These products are wood -1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

267 of 349 fired h ydronic heating ap pliances that the manufacturer specifies for indoor or outdoor installation. They

are often connected to a heat exchanger b y 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 Ty pically 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 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 provi ded. 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 Standards1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

268 of 349 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 s ys tem 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 appli ance. 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. M easured 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

269 of 349 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 Pie ces, the bottom spacer may

be one continuous piece. 3.1.10 Test Fuel Piece − A single 4 x 4 (4 ± 0.25 inches b y 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 L oss 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 accuratel y measured. Samples of the dilution tunnel flow stream are extracted at a con stant 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

270 of 349 4.2 Efficiency . The efficiency test procedure takes advantage of the fact that this ty pe 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 b y w eight 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 m odulate 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 .1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

271 of 349 4.3.4 Category

IV: Manufactur er’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 b y 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. Itis 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 a ssociated parts and accessories when completel y 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 sy stem under test.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

272 of 349 6.3 Water Temperature Difference Measurement. A Ty pe –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 ty pe of thermopile is equal to or less than ± 0.50 oF (± 0. 25 oC). Other temperature measurement methods may be used if the temperature difference measurement uncertainty is equal to or less than. ± 0.50 oF (± 0. 25 oC). 6.4 Water flow meter. A wat er 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 - 2 010, Clause 6.2.2.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

273 of 349 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. **7.0 Safety** 7.1 These tests involve combustion of wood fuel and substantial release of heat and products of combustion. The heating s ys tem also produces large quantities of very hot water and the potential for steam production and sy stem 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 instr

uctions 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 appl iance shall be fitted with the ty pe of chimney

recommended or provided b y 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 s ystem is recommended or provided b y the manufacturer, connec t the appliance to a flue of a diameter equal to the flue outlet of1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

274 of 349 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 b y 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 b y placing dead weights on the platform and verifying the s cale’s accuracy . 9.5.2 Lo cate thermocouples to measure the water temperature at the inlet and outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger. 9.5.3 In stall 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

275 of 349 9.5.4 In stall 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 poly styrene (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 ( TF avg and TI avg ). Installation of a water flow meter in the supply side of the s ys tem is optional. 9.6 Fill the sy stem w ith 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 properl y. **10.0 Calibration and Standardization** 10.1 Water Temperature Sensors. Temperature measuring equipment shall be calibrated before initial use and at least semi - annually thereafter. Calibrations shall be in compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST) Monograph 175, Standard Limit s 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 NI ST Traceable methods . Verify the calibration1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

276 of 349 of the water flow meter be fore 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 collec tion 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 Anal yz ers – Inaccordance with CSA B415.1 - 2010, Clause 6.8. **11.0 Conditioning** 11.1 Prior to testing, the noncatal ytic appliance is to be operated for a minimum of 10 hours using a medium heat draw rate. Cataly tic 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 req uirement. I f 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 noncatal ytic appliances and 50 hours for catal ytic appliances. Record and report hourl y1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

277 of 349 flue gas exit temperature data and the hours of operation. The aging procedure shall be conducted and documented by a te sting 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 appropriatel y sized, wire chimney brush before each certificatio n 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 x 4 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. Pieces are to be spaced 3⁄4 inches (19 mm) apart on all faces. Th e first fuel layer may be assembled using fuel units consisting of multiple 4 x 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 onl y three layers. In that instance onl y the top layer must consist of single units. Three - quarter in ch (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 x 4s an additional 3⁄4 inch (19 mm) thick by 1.5 inch (38 mm) wide spacer shall1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

278 of 349 be attach ed to the vertical face of each end of one 4 x 4, such that the 3⁄4 inch (19 mm) space will be maintained when two 4 x 4 units or pieces are loaded side b y s ide. In cases where a layer contains an odd number of 4 x 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 x 4s such that the edge of the spacer is 1 ± 0.25 inch from the end of the 4 x 4s in the previous layers. Spacers shall be red or white oak and will be attached with either nails (non - galvanized), brads or 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 sh all 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 th e 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 previousl y dried fuel pieces except by storage under high humidity

conditions and temperature up to 100oF. 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 firewood1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

279 of 349 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 b y 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 b y 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 determ ined b y multiplying the firebox volume by

10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft 3 (28L), or a higher load density as recommended b y the manufacturer’s printed operating instructions, of wood (as used wet weight). Select the number of pieces of standard fuel that most nearl y 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 x 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 b y ASTM E2515 - 10 “Standard Test Method For Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected In a Dilution Tunnel .” 12.4 Appliance Start - Up. 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 co ntrol1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

280 of 349 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 C ycle. Reload appliance with oak wood and allow it to burn down to the specified coal bed w eight. 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 b y an absence of large pieces of burning wood in the coal bed and the remaining fuel pi eces 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 pr e - 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 m etal 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 - minute1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

281 of 349 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 adjustm ent 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 onl y 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 normall y 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 s hall 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 s ys tems. 12.5.1.1 Record all water temperatures, differential water temperatures and water flow rate s at time intervals of one minute or less. 12.5.1.2 Record particulate emissions data per the requirements of ASTM E2515.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

282 of 349 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 (CO 2 ) 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 reco rd 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 o utput 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 sh all 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 a1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

283 of 349 measurable (1 lb or 0. 5 kg ) weight change while the operating control is in the demand mo de. 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 c harge 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 . I f 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. 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 . I f an appliance cannot be operated in the category

Iheat output range due to stopped combustion, two test runs shall be conducted at heat output rates within C ategory II. When this is the case, the weightings for the weighted averages indicated in Table 2 shall be the average of the category Iand II weightings and shall be applied to both category II results. Appliances1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

284 of 349 that are not capable of operation within Category II (<25 percent of maximum) cannot be evaluated b y this test method. 1 2.5.6.1 Stopped Fuel Combustion. Evidence that an appliance cannot be operated at a category

Iheat 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 Icannot 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 Icannot be achieved. 12.5.7 Appliance Overheating. Appliances shall be capable of operating in all heat outp ut 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 s ys tem or activation of a pressure or temperature relief valve in a pressurized sy stem.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

285 of 349 12.6 A dditional 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 two - thirds of the test runs in that heat output rate category shall be used in calculating the weighted average emission rate ( S ee 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 E T – Total particulate emissions for the full test run as determined per ASTM E2515 in grams E g/MJ – Emissions rate in grams per mega joule of heat output. E lb /mmBtu output – Emissions rate in pounds per million Btu’s of heat output. E g/kg – Emissions factor in grams per kilogram of dry fuel burned. E g/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) ΔT

– Temperature difference between water entering and exiting the heat exchanger. Q out − Total heat output in BTU’s (mega joules). Q in − Total heat input available in test fuel charge in BTU’s (mega joules). M − Mass flow rate of water in lb/min (kg/min). V i – Volume of water indicated by a totalizing flow meter at the i th reading in gallons (liters).1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

28 6 of 349 V f – Volumetric Flow rate of water in heat exchange s ys tem in gallons per minute (liters/min). Θ

– Total length of test run in hours ti − Data sampling interval in minutes. η del – Delivered heating efficiency in percent. F i − 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 exchan ger. 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. TI avg − Average temperature of the appliance and water at start of the test. TI avg = (T1 + T2)/2 at the start of the test, °F Eq.1 TF avg – Average temperature of the appliance and water at the end of the test. TF avg = (T1 + T2)/2 at the end of the test, °F Eq.2 MC

– Fuel moisture content in percent dry basis. MC i – Average moisture cont ent of individual 4 x 4 fuel pieces in percent dry basis. MC sp – Moisture content of spacers assumed to be 10 percent dry basis. σ – Density

of water in pounds per gallon. C p – Specific Heat of Water in Btu /lb ° - F. C steel − Specific Heat of Steel (0.1 Btu / lb - oF) W fuel – Fuel charge weight in pounds (kg) W i – Weight of individual fuel 4 x 4 pieces in pounds (kg) W sp – Weight of all spacers used in a fuel load in pounds (kg) W app − Weight of empty appliance in pounds1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

287 of 349 Wwat – Weight of water in supply side of the s ys tem in pounds 13.2 After the test is completed, determine the particulate emissions E T in accordance with ASTM E2515. 13.3 Determine Average Fuel Load Moisture Content MC Ave = [[ Σ W i x MC i ] + [ W sp x MC sp ]] ÷ W fuel , % Eq. 3 13.4 Determine heat input Q in = (W fuel/(1+(MC/100))) x HHV, BTU Eq. 4 Q in LHV = (W fuel/(1+(MC/100))) x LHV, BTU Eq. 5 13.5 Determine heat output and efficiency 13.5.1 Determine heat output as: Q out = Σ [Heat output determined for each sampling time interval]+ Change in heat stored in the appliance. 

#   ) ( ) ( ) ( avg avg water pa Steel app i i i pi out 

### TI TF W C C W t M T C Q

          

#   , BTU Eq. 6 Note: The subscript (i) indicates the parameter value for sampling time interval ti . M i = Mass flow rate = gal/min x Density of Water (lb/gal) = lb/min M i =V fi · σ i , lb/min Eq. 7 Σ i = (62.56 + ( - .0003413 x T3 i ) + ( - .00006225 x T3 i 2 )) 0.1337, lbs/gal Eq. 8 C p = 1.0014 + ( - .000003485 x T3 i ) Btu/lb - oF Eq. 9 C steel = 0.1 Btu/lb - oF C pa = 1.0014 + ( - .000003485 X (TI avg +TF avg)/2) , Btu/lb - oF Eq. 10 V fi = (V i –V i - 1 )/(t i - t i - 1 ), gal/min Eq. 111 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

288 of 349 Note: V i is the total water volume at the end of interval i and V i - 1 is the total water volume at the beginning of the time interval. This calculation is necessary when a totalizing ty pe water meter is used. 13.5.2 Determine Heat output rate as: Heat Output Rate = Q out

/ 

### Θ , BTU/hr Eq. 12 13.5.3 Determine Emission Rates and Emission Factors as: E g/MJ = E T/(Q out x 0.001055), g/MJ Eq. 13 E lb /MM BTU output = (E T/453.59)/(Q output x 10 - 6 ), lb/MMB tu Out Eq. 14 E g/kg = E T/(W fuel/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg Eq, 15 E g/hr = E T/ 

### Θ , g/hr Eq. 16 13.5.4 Determine delivered efficiency as: 

### η del = (Q out

/Q in) x 100 , % Eq. 17 

### η del LHV = (Q out

/Q in LHV) x 100, % Eq. 18 13.5.5 Determine 

### η SLM - Overall Efficiency (SLM) using Stack Loss For determination of the average overall thermal efficiency (

### η SLM ) 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 overal l 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

289 of 349 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 (F i ) are derived from an anal ys is 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. Weighted average delivered efficiency : 

### η avg = 

### Σ η i x F i , % Eq. 17 Weighted average emissions: E avg = 

### ΣE i x F i , % Eq. 18 13.7 Average Heat Output (Q out - 8hr) and Efficiency ((

### η avg - 8hr) for 8 hour burn time. 13.7.1 Units tested under this standard ty pically 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 C alculations: Q out - 8hr = X1 + { ( 8 - Y1 ) x [ ( X2 - X1 ) / ( Y2 - Y1 ) ] }, % Eq. 19 η avg - 8hr = η del1 + { ( 8 - Y1 ) x [ (η del2 - η del1 ) / ( Y2 - Y1 ) ] }, % Eq. 20 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 Y21 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

290 of 349 η del1 = Average Delivered Efficiency for duration Y1 η del2 = Average Delivered Efficiency for duration Y2 13.7.2.1 Determine the Test Durations and Actual Load for each Category as recorded in Ta

ble 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 η del1 = 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 η del2 = Average Delivered Efficiency for this data point. 13.7.2.4 Example: Category Actual Load Duration Category Actual Load Duration ηdel (Btu/Hr) (Hr) (%) 1 15,000 10.2 70.0 2 26,000 8.4 7 5.5 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, η del1 = 75.5% and Y1 = 8.4 Hrs Category 3 Duration i s just below 8 hours, therefore: X2 = 50,000 BTU/hr, η del2 = 80.1% and Y2 = 6.4 Hrs1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

291 of 349 Q out - 8hr = 26,000 + {(8 - 8.4) x [(50,000 - 26,000) / (6.4 - 8.4)]} = 30,800 BTU/hr η avg - 8hr = 75.5 + {(8 - 8.4) x [(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 appl y 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 qu ality

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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

292 of 349 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 documentatio n shall be retained b y the laboratory for a minimum of 7 years. **15.0 Precision and Bias** 15.1 Precision

—Itis not possible to specify the precision of the procedure in Draft Test because the appliance operation and fueling protocols and the appliances thems elves 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**1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

293 of 349 16.1 Solid fuel, hydronic heating appliances, wood - burning hydronic heaters. Table 1A. Data Summary Part A

Table 1B. Data Summary Part B

Table 1C: Hang t ag Information

Table 2. Year Round Use Weighting1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

294 of 3491 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

295 of 3491 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

296 of 349 8 . Part 60 Appendix A - 8 is amended b y adding Method 28 WHH - PTS t o follow Method 28 WHH to read as follows: 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 wood - fired h ydronic heating appliances with heat sto rage 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 do cument, the term “water” will be used to denote any of the heat transfer liquids approved for use b y 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 b y the manufacturer and verified under this test method. 1.3 PM emissions are measured b y the dilution tunnel method as specified in the EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards referenced therein with the excep tions 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 i ts higher heating value (HHV). Delivered efficiency does not attempt to account for pipeline loss.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

297 of 349 1.4 Products covere d by

this test method include both pressurized and non pressurized 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 b y insulated pipes and normally includes a pump to circulate heated liquid. These s ys tems 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 Ty pically 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 s ys tem, ty picall y water, which is not large enough to accept all of the heat produced when a full load of wood is burned and the sto rage sy stem 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 s ys tem which includes thermal storage. The manufacturer specifies the minimum amount of thermal s torage required. However, the storage s ys tem1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

298 of 349 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 ( S ee s ection 4.3). 1.6 The values stated are to be regarde d 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 h ydronic heating appliance burning a prepared test fuel ch arge 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 s ys tem 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

299 of 349 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 s ys tem 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 e xpressed 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 m odel of hydronic heating appliance is capable of supplying at its design capacity as verified by

testing, in accordance with s ection 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 NI ST

– 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

300 of 349 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 ty picall y 125 o to 130 o 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. 3.1.1 5 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). 3.1.1 6 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 tim e from the end of the steady state period to the end of the test. 3.1.1 7 Thermopile - A device consisting of a number of thermocouples connected in series, used for measuring differential temperature. 3.1.1 8 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** 1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

301 of 349 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 accuratel y 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 ty pe of s ys tem delivers heat through circulation of the heated liquid (water) from the sy stem to a remote heat exchanger ( e.g. baseboard radiators in a room) and back to the sy stem. Measurements of the cooling water temperature difference as it enters and exits the test sy stem 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 d

uring 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:1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

302 of 349 4.3.1 Catego ry

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 sy stem by way of the load heat exc hanger installed for the test. The output fro m just the boiler/heater part of the sy stem 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 appli ance is brought to operating temperature and a coal bed is established prior to the addition of the test fuel charge and measurements are made fo r each test fuel charge cycle. The measurements are made under constant heat draw conditions within pre - determi ned 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

Iand II runs, the unit is tested with a “cold start . ” At the manufacturer’ s option, the Category I I and III runs may be waived and it may be assumed that the particulate emission values and efficiency values determined in the start - up, steady- state, and end phases of Category I are applicable in Categories II and III for the pur

pose of determining the annual averages in lb/MM Btu and g/MJ ( S ee s ection 13). For the annual average in g/hr, the length of time for stored heat to be drawn from1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

303 of 349 thermal storage shall be determined for the test load requirements of the respective Category . All test operations and measurements shall be conducted b y 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 me thod widely

used in the practice of air pollution control. 5.1.1 These measurements, when approved b y 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 Meas urement of heating efficiency provides a uniform basis for comparison of product performance that is useful to the consumer. Itis also required to relate emissions produced to the useful heat production. 5.3 This is a laboratory

method and is not intende d to be fully represent ative of all actual field use. Itis 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 int erest of providing a reliab le and repeatable test method. **6.0 Test Equipment**1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

304 of 349 6.1 Scale. A platform scale capable of weighing the boiler/heater under test and associated parts and accessories when completel y 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 sy stem under test. 6.3 Water Temperature Difference Measurement. A Ty pe –T ‘speci al limits’ thermopile with a minimum of 5 pairs of junctions shall be used to measure the temperature difference in water entering a nd leaving the heat exchanger. The temperature difference measurement uncertainty of this type of thermopile is equal to or le ss than ± 0.50 oF (± 0.25 oC). Other temperature measurement methods may be used if the temperature difference measurement uncertainty is equal to or le ss than ± 0.50oF (± 0.25oC). This measurement uncertainty shall include the temperature sensor, sensor well arrangement, piping arrangements, lead wire, and measurement / recording sy stem. The response time of the temperature measurement s ystem shall be less than half of the time interval at which temperature measurements are recorded. 6.4 Water Flow Mete r. A water flow meter shall be installed in the inlet to the lo ad side of the heat exchanger. The flow meter shall have an accuracy of ± 1 percent of measured flow. 6.4.1 Optional - Ap pliance 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

305 of 349 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 L ab 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 Tes t Room Te mperature 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 anal yz er shall meet the zero and span drift requirements of CSA B415.1 - 2012. In additi on 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 he at and products of combustion. The heating sy stem also produces large quantities of very hot water and the potential for steam production and sy stem 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** 1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

306 of 349 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, in stallation and operating instructions, and design and assembl y drawings shall be provided when the product is to be placed under certific ation 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 u se the specific storage system that the boiler/heater will be marketed with. However, the capacity of the s ys tem used in the test cannot be greater than that specified as the minimum allowable for the boiler/heater . 8.3 All sy stem control settings shall b e 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 us er 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 s imple baseboard heating sy stem. This is the configuration t o 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**1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

307 of 349 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 ty pe of chimney

recommended or provided b y 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 s ystem is recommended or provided b y the manufac turer, 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 b y the manufacturer. The pump shall not be ins talled 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 sp ecific 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 and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

308 of 349 instrument wires in a manner that does not influence the weighing accuracy of the scale as indicated b y placing dead weights on the platform and verifying the scale’s accuracy . 9.5.2 L ocate thermocouples to measure the water temperature at the inlet and outlet of the load side of the heat exchanger. 9.5.3 In stall a thermopile (or equivalent instrumentation) meeting the requirements of s ection 6.3 to measure the water temperature difference between the inlet and outlet of the l oad 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 poly styrene (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 s ection 6.6 shall be installed in the app liance outlet and return lines. The average of the outlet and return water temperature on the supply

side of the sy stem shall be considered the average appliance temperature for calculation of heat storage in the appliance ( TF avg and TI

avg). Installation of a water flow meter in the suppl y side of the s ys tem 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 to1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

309 of 349 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 ty pically be done before the start of a test or following completion of a test to determine the end of test average tank temperature. The nom inal 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 sy stem 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 properl y. **10.0 Calibration and Standardization** 10.1 Water Temperat

ure Sensors. Temperature measuring equipment shall be calibrated before initial use and at l east semi - annually thereafter. Calibrations shall be in compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST) Monograph 175, Standard Limits of Erro r. 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 NI S T - traceable methods. Verify the calibration of the water flow meter before and af ter each test run and at least once during each test run by comparing the water f

low rate indicated b y the flow meter to the mass of water collected from the outle t of the heat exchanger over a timed interval. Volume of the collected water sh all be de termined based on the water density calculated from s ection 13, Eq. 12, usin g the water temperature measured at the flow meter. The uncertainty in1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

310 of 349 the verification procedure used shall be 1 percent or less. The water flow rate de termined 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 Anal yz ers – Inaccordance with CSA B415.1 - 2010, Clause 6.8. **11.0 Conditioning** 11.1 Prior to testing, a non - catal ytic appliance is to be operated for a minimum of 10 hours using a medium heat draw rate. Cataly tic 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 s ection 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 - cataly tic appliances and 50 hours for catal ytic appliances. Record and report hourly flue gas exit temperature data and the hours of operation. The aging procedure shall be conducted and documented b y a testing laboratory. **12.0 Procedure** 12.1 Appliance Installation. Assemble the appliance and parts in conformance with th e manufacturer's written installation instructions. Clean the flue with an appropriatel y 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 mo isture content on a dry basis. Piece length shall be 80 percent of1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

311 of 349 the firebox depth rounded down to the ne arest 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 i nches 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 le vel 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, s ection 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” to 3⁄4” thick. One sli ce 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. Immediatel y measure the mass of each piece in pounds. Dry

each slice in an oven at 220°F for 24 hours or until no furth er 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 s hall be calculated as: MC slice = 100 ∙ ( W

SliceWet – W

SliceDry) W SliceDry Where: W SliceWet = weight of the slice before drying in pounds W SliceDry = weight of the slice after drying in pounds1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

312 of 349 MC Slice = moisture content of the slice in % dry basis The average moisture content of the entire test load (MC) sh all 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 averag e 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 condition s and temperature up to 100oF. Fuel moisture measurement shall begin within four hours of using the fuel batch for a test. Use of a pin - ty

pe 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 b y 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 b y 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 calcul ated b y 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 b y multiplying the firebox volume by

10 pounds (4.54 kg) per ft 3 (28L), or a higher load dens ity as recommended b y 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 target1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

313 of 349 weight. However, the test fuel charge cannot be less than the target of 10 po unds (4.54 kg) per ft 3 (28L). 12.3 Sampling Equipment. Prepare the particulate emission sampling equipment as defined b y EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards referenced therein. 12.4 Appliance Start - Up. 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 fue l, zero the scale and verify the scale s accuracy

using dead weights. 12.4.1 Start - up Procedure for Category III and IV test runs, “hot - to - hot” 12.4.1.1 Pre - Test Burn Cycle. Following appliance start - up ( s ection 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 o f the test fuel charge weight. Piece size and length shall be selected such that charcoalization is achieved b y the time the fuel charge has burned down to the required coal bed weight. Pieces with a maximum thickness of approximately 2 inches h ave 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 charc oal 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 heat1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

314 of 349 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 Adju stments. 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 p oor 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 charg e when the coal bed weight is between 10 percent and 20 percent o f the test fuel charge weight. Coals may

be raked as necessary

to level the coal bed but may onl y be raked and stirred once between 15 to 20 minutes prior to the addition of the test fuel cha rge. 12.4.1.4 Storage. The Category I II 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 gre ater at the start of the test. The storage may be heated during the pre - test burn cycle or it m ay be heated b y 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 ti mes the tank volume and the difference between the temperature at the top and bottom of the storage tank (TS 1 and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

315 of 349 TS 2 ) is less than 1 °F. These two temperatures shall then be recorded to determine the starting average tank temperature. The total volume pump ed may be based on the nominal flow rate of the destratifi cation pump ( S ee s ection 9.6). If the Category I II and IVruns 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 uni form 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 ac tual maximum output of the boiler/heater exceed the manufacturer’s rated output.) A second storage tank may be used temporaril y to enable the boiler/heater to operate during this last hour of the pre - burn period as i t 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 Start - Up Procedure for Category Iand 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 b y external means. 12.4.2.2 Fi rebox 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 i s in addition to the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

316 of 349 fuel load. Further, up to 10 percent of the fuel load ( i.e. , included in the 10 lb/ft 3 ) may be smaller than the main fuel. This startup fuel shall still be larger than 2”. 12.4.2.3 Storage. The Category Iand 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 (TS 1 and TS 2 ) 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 ( S ee s ection 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 s ys tem is used, flow of water from the boiler/heater shall be divided between the storage tank and the heat exchanger such that the temperature change of the circulating water across the hea t exchanger shall be 30 ± 5°F, ave raged over the entire test run. This is ty pically adjusted using the s ys tem 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 normall y and the pretest coal bed weight has reached the target value per 12.4.1, tare the scale and load the full t est charge into the appliance. Time for loading1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

317 of 349 shall not exceed 5 minutes. The actual weight of the test fuel charge shall be measured and recorded withi n 30 minutes prior to loading. Start all sampling sy stems. For Category

Iand II runs: once the appliance has reached the starting temperature, tare the scale and load the full test charge, including kindling into the appl iance. 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 sy stems. 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 (CO 2 ) 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).1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

318 of 349 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 b y m anufacturer’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 exchange r to compensate. Make changes as infrequentl y as possible while maintainin g 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 rat ed 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 minute s 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 I II and IV, “hot - to - ho t” test runs, the test run is completed when the remaining weight of the test fuel charge is 0.0 lb (0.0 kg). ( W

FuelBurned = W

fuel) 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

319 of 349 For the Category

Iand 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 ( W FuelBurned > 0.99 ∙ W fuel) ; (b) The automatic control s ystem on the boiler/heater switches to an off mode. In this case the boiler/heater fan (if used) is ty pically stopped, and all air flow dampers are closed by the control s ys tem. Note that this off mode cannot be an “overheat” or emergency

shutdown which ty

pically 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 , ” S ee s ection 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 exce eds 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 , S ee s ection 13.1). The total volume pumped may be based on the nominal flow rate of the destratification pump ( S ee s ection 9.6). 12.5.3.3 For the Category Iand II test runs, there is a need to determine the energy content of the unburned fuel remai ning in the chamber if the remaining mass in1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

320 of 349 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 He at 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 an d testing is to be terminated. In such cases, the tests may be restarted using a lower heat output capacity if requested by

the manufacturer. Alternativel y, 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 mat ch 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 O utput Rate for Category I . If an appliance cannot be operated in the Category

Iheat output range due to stopped combustion, two test runs shall be conducted at heat output rates within Category I I. When this is the case, the1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

321 of 349 weightings for the weighted av erages indicated in s ection 15.1.14 shall be the average of the Category

Iand 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

Iheat output rate due to stopped fuel combustion shall include documentation of two or more attempts to operate the appliance in heat output rate Category Iand 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 te st 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 Icannot be achieved. 12.5.7 Appliance Overheating. Appliances with their associated thermal storage shall be capable of operating in all heat out put 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 a1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

322 of 349 safety control device (independent from the operating control

– ty picall y requires manual reset), boiling water in a non - pressurized s ys tem or activation of a pressure or temperature relief valve in a pressurized s ys tem. 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 Irun shall be assumed to apply also to Category

II and Category

III. It is envisioned that this option would be applicable to s ystems which have sufficient thermal storage such that the fuel load in the Cat I test can be completel y consumed without the system reaching its upper operating temperature limit. Inthis 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 Irun. It may be assumed that the particulate emission values and efficiency values determined in the start - up, steady- state, and end phases of Category Iare applicable in Categories II and III, for the purpose of determining the annual averages in lb/MMBtu and g/MJ ( S ee s ection 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 Separatel y During the Startup , Steady- State and End Phases. With one of the two parti culate sampling trains used, filter changes shall be made at the end of the startup phase and the steady state phase ( S ee s ection 3.0). This shall be done to1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

323 of 349 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 Me thod 28 WHH and the standards referenced therein on Averaging Period for Determination of Efficiency by the Stack L oss Method. The methods currently defined in Method 28 WHH allow averaging over 10 minute time periods for flue gas temperature, flue gas CO 2 , and flue gas CO for the determination of the efficiency with the Stack L oss 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 b urner on period divided by 10. The averaging period need n ot be shorter than one minute. During the off period, under cycling operation, averaging periods as specified in EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards refe renced therein may

be used. Where short averaging times are used, however, the averaging period for fuel consumpti on may still be at 10 minutes. This average wood consumption rate shall be applied to all of the smaller time intervals included. 12.6 Additi onal Test Runs. The testing laboratory may conduct more than one test run in each of the heat output catego ries specified in s ection 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 te st 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.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

324 of 349 **13.0 Calculation of Results** 13.1 Nomenclature. CO s – Carbon monoxide measured in the dilution tunnel at arbitrary time in ppm dry basis. CO g/min – Carbon monoxide emission rate in g/min. CO T – 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. E T – Total p articulate emissions for the full test run as determined per EPA Method 28 WHH and the standards referenced therein in grams. E 1 = Startup period particulate emissions in grams. E 2 = Steady- state period particulate emissions in grams. E 3 = End period particulate emissions in grams. E 1_g/kg = Startup period particulate emission index in grams per kg fuel. E 2_g/kg = Steady- state period particulate emission index in grams per kg fuel. E 3 _g/kg = End period particulate emission index in grams per kg fuel. E 1_g/hr = Startup period particulate emission rate in grams per hour. E 2_g/hr = Steady- state period particulate emission rate in grams per hour. E 3_g/hr = End period particulate emission rate in grams per hour. E g/MJ – Emission rate in grams per MJ of heat output. E lb/mmBtu output – Emissions rate in pounds per million Btu’s of heat output. E g/kg – Emissions factor in grams per kilogram of dry fuel burned.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

325 of 349 E g/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). ΔT

– Temperature difference between cooling water entering and exiting the heat exchanger. Q out − Total heat output in Btu ’s (MJ). Q in − Total heat input available in test fuel charge in Btu’s (MJ). Q std – Volumetric flow rate in dilution tunnel in dscfm. M − Mass flow rate of water in lb/min (kg/min). V i – Volume of water indicated b y a totalizing flow meter at the i th reading in gallons (liters). V f – Volumetric flow rate of water in heat exchange s ys tem in gallons per minute (liters/min). Θ

– Total length of burn period in hours (Θ 1 + Θ 2 + Θ 3 ). Θ 1 – Len gth of time of the startup period in hours. Θ 2 – Len gth of time o f the steady state period in hours. Θ 3 – Len gth of time of the end period in hours. Θ 4 – Len gth of time for stored heat to be used following a burn period in hours. ti − Data sampling interval in minutes. η del – Delivered heating efficiency in percent. F i − 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 sid e of the heat exchanger, °F.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

326 of 349 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 suppl y 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. TI avg − Average temperature of the appliance and water at start of the test. TI avg − (T5 + T6)/2 at the start of the test, °F. E q. 1 TF avg – Average temperature of the appli ance and water at the end of the test. TF avg − (T5 + T6)/2 at the end of the test, °F. Eq. 2 TI S 1 − Temperature at the inlet to the storage s ys tem at the start of the test. TI S 2 − Temperature at the outlet from the storage sy stem at the start o f the test. TFS 1 − Temperature at the inlet to the storage s ys tem at the end of the test. TFS 2 − Temperature at the outlet from the storage sy stem at the end of the test. TI S avg − Average temperature of the storage s ys tem at the start of the test. TI S avg − (TIS 1 + TIS 2 )/2 at the end of the test. Eq. 3 TFS avg − Average temperature of the storage s ys tem at the end of the test. TFS avg − (TFS 1 + TFS 2 ) /2. Eq. 4 MC

– Fuel moisture content in percent dry basis. σ – Density

of water in pounds per gallon.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

327 of 349 σ In itial – Density

of water in the boiler/heater sy stem at the start of the test in pounds per gallons. σboiler/heater – Density

of water in the boiler/heater sy stem at arbitrary time during the test in pounds per gallon. C p – Specific heat of water in Btu /lb ° - F. C steel − Specific heat of steel (0.1 Btu/ lb - oF). Vboiler/heater – total volume of water in the boiler/heater sy stem on the weight scale in gallons. W fuel – Fuel charge weight, as - fired or “wet”, in pounds (kg). W fuel_1 − Fuel consumed during the startup period in pounds (kg). W fuel_2 – Fuel consumed during the steady state period in pounds (kg). W fuel_3 – Fuel consumed during the end period in pounds (kg). W FuelBurned – 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 sy stem on the scale in pounds (kg). W RemainingFuel – weight of unburned fuel separated from the ash at the end of a test. Useful only for Cat I and Cat II tests. W app − Weight of empty appliance in pounds (kg). Wwat – Weight of water in supply side of the s ys tem in pounds (kg). W ScaleI nitial – weight reading on the scale at the start of the test, just after the test load has been added in pounds (kg). W Scale – Reading of the weight scale at arbitrary time during the test run in pounds (kg). W StorageTank − Weight of the storage tank empty in pounds (kg).1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

328 of 349 W WaterStorage − Weight of the water in the storage tank at TIS avg 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 tes t: W FuelBurned = ( W

ScaleInitial – W

Scale ) + V

Boiler/heater · ( σ

Initial

– σ

boiler/heater) Eq. 5 Water density , σ, is calculated using Equation 12. 13.4 Determine Average Fuel Load Moisture Content. MC = ∑ W

SliceWet_i – MC

Slice _i Eq. 6 ∑ W SliceWet _i 13.5 Determine heat input. Q in = (W fuel/(1+(MC/100))) x HHV, Btu (MJ). Eq. 7 Q in LHV = (W fuel/(1+(MC/100))) x LHV, Btu (MJ). Eq. 8 13.5.1 Correction to Q in for the Category Iand II tests, where there is greater than 1 percent of the test fuel charge in the chamber at the end of the test period. Q InCorrected = Q in – W Remaining ∙ 12,500 Btu Eq. 9 lb 13.6 Determine heat output, efficiency , and emissions 13.6.1 Determine heat output as: Q out = Σ [Heat output determined for each sampling time interval] + Change in heat stored in the appliance + Change in heat in storage tank. Qout = Σ[C

pi · Δ T i · M i · ti ] + ( W

app · C steel + W

water · C

pa ) ∙ ( TF

avg – TI

avg) + ( W StorageTank · C

steel + W

WaterStorage · C

pa ) · ( TFS

avg – TIS

avg) Btu (MJ) Eq. 101 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

329 of 349 Note: The subscript (i) indicates the parameter value for sampling time interval ti . M i = Mass flow rate = gal/min x Density of Water (lb/gal) = lb/min. M i =V fi · σ i , lb/min. Eq. 11 σ i = (62.56 + ( - .0003413 x T3 i ) + ( - .00006225 x T3 i 2 )) 0.1337, lbs/gal. Eq. 12 C p = 1.0014 + ( - .000003485 x T3 i ) Btu/lb - oF. Eq. 13 C steel = 0.1 Btu/lb - oF. C pa = 1.0014 + ( - .000003485 X (TI avg +TF avg)/2), Btu/lb - oF. Eq. 14 V fi = (V i –V i - 1 )/(ti - ti - 1 ), gal/min. Eq. 15 Note: V i is the total water volume at the end of interval i and V i - 1 is the total water volume at the b eginning of the time interval. This calculation is necessary when a totalizing ty

pe water meter is used. 13.6.2 Determine Heat Output Rate Over Burn Period (Θ 1 + Θ 2 + Θ 3 ) as: Heat Output Rate = Q out/Θ, Btu/hr (MJ/hr). Eq. 16 13.6.3 Determine Emission Rates and Emission Factors as: E g/MJ = E T/(Q out x 0.001055), g/MJ. Eq. 17 E lb/MM Btu output = (E T/453.59)/(Q out x 10 - 6 ), lb/MMBtu Out. Eq. 18 E g/kg = E T/(W fuel/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg. Eq. 19 E g/hr = E T/(Θ 1 + Θ 2 + Θ 3 + Θ 4 ), g/hr. Eq. 20 Θ 4 = ( W

StorageTank · C

steel + W

WaterStorage · C

pa ) · ( TFS

avg – TIS

avg)/ ( Q out / Θ) Eq. 21 If thermal storage is not used in a Category III or IV run, then Θ 4 = 0 E 1_g/kg = E 1 /(W fuel_1 /(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg E 2_g/kg = E 2 /(W fuel_2/(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg E 3_g/kg = E 3 /(W fuel_3 /(1+MC/100)), g/dry kg E 1_g/hr = E 1 / Θ 1 , g/hr1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

330 of 349 E 2_g/hr = E 2/ Θ 2 , g/hr E 3_g/hr = E 3 /Θ 3 , g/hr 13.6.4 Determine delivered efficiency as: η del = (Q out/Q In Corrected) x 100, %. Eq. 22 η del LHV = (Q out/Q in LHV) x 100, %. Eq. 23 13.6.5 Determine η SLM - Overall Efficiency , also known as Stack Loss Efficiency , using Stack Loss Method (SLM). For determination of the average overall thermal efficiency (η SLM ) 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, s ection 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 o verall efficiency SLM is less than 2 percentage points lower than the overall efficiency based on load side measurements, 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.]1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

331 of 349 13.6.6 Carbon Monoxide Emi ssions For each minute of the test period, the carbon monoxide emission rate shall be calculated as: CO g/min = Q

std · CO

s · 3.298x10 - 5 Eq. 24 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, CO T , 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 spe cified heat output categories. The weighting factors (F i ) are derived from an analy sis 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 se ason. The values used in this method represent an average of data from several cities located in the northern United States. Weighted average delivered efficiency : η avg = Σ η i x F i , %. Eq. 25 Weighted average emissions: E avg = Σ E i x F i , % Eq. 26 If, as discussed in s ection 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 averag es. **14.0 Report** 14.1.1 The report shall include the following:1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

332 of 349 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 sy stem. 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 speci fied setpoint temperature. 14.1.5. A statement that the test results appl y 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 de scription of the test procedures and test equipment including a schematic or other drawing showing the location o f 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 the ir 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 i ncluding piece size, moisture content and weight.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

333 of 349 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

anal yz ed and cal culations easil y verified. Formulas used for all calculations shall be accessible for review. 14.1.14 For each test run, Θ 1 ,Θ 2 , Θ 3 , the total CO and particulate emission for each of these three periods, and Θ 4 . 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 o f 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 b y the laboratory for a minimum of 7 years.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

334 of 349 **15.0 Precision and Bias** 15.1 Precision − It is not possible to specify the precision of the procedure in this test metho d 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 p resented 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 - bur ning h ydronic heaters, partial thermal storage.1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

335 of 349 **Table 1A. Data Summary Part A**  Θ W fuel MC ave Q in Q out Category Run

No Load % Capacity Target

Load Actual Load Actual Load Test Duration Wood

Weight as - fired Wood

Moisture Heat

Input Heat Output 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**  T2 Min E T E E E g/hr E g/kg η del Η SLM Category Run

No Load % Capacity Min

Return Water Tem p. Total PM Emissions PM

Output Based PM

Output Based PM Rate PM Factor Delivered Efficiency Stack

Loss Efficiency °F g lb/MMB

tu Out g/MJ g/hr g/kg % % I < 15% of

max II 16 - 24%

of max III 25 - 50%

of max IV Max

capacity1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

336 of 349 **Table 1C. Data Summary Part C** 

Θ 1 Θ 2 Θ 3 CO _1 CO _2 CO _3 CO T
Category Run

No Load % Capacity 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

capacity1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

337 of 349 **Table 1D. Data Summary Part D**

E 1 E 2 E 3 E 1_g/kg E 2_g/kg E 3_g/kg

Category Run

No Load % Capacity 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

capacity1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

338 of 349 **Table 1E: Hang Tag Information** 

MANUFACTURER: MODEL NUMBER: ANNUAL EFFICIENCY RATING: η avg **(Using higher heating value)** (Using lower heating value) PARTICLE EMISSIONS: E avg GRAMS/HR (average) LBS/MILLION Btu/hr OUTPUT **Table 2.**  **Annual Weighting** Category Weighting

Factor (F i ) η del,i x F i E g/MJ,i x F i E g/kg,i x F i E lb/MMBtu Out,i x F i E g/hr,i x F i
I 0.437 II 0.238 III 0.275 IV 0.050 Totals 1.000 Figure 1. Schematic of Equipment Test Setup1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

339 of 3491 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

340 of 349 Figure 2. Schematic of Test Equipment Set - up

Note: Illustrated appliance pump location and flow path through the appliance. 9 . Part 60 is amended b y revising Appendix I 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 Introduction1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

341 of 349 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 operatio n 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 forced - air 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 s pecific 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) Cataly st information and warranty (if catal ys t equipped) ; (d) Fuel selection ; (e) Achieving and maintaining catal ys t light - off (if cataly st equipped) ; (f) Cataly st monitoring (if cataly st equipped) ; (g) Troubleshooting catal ytic equipped heaters (if cataly st equipped) ; (h) Cataly st replacement (if catal ys t equipped) ; (i) Wood heater operation and maintenance ; and (j) Wo od 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 (where1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

342 of 349 applicab le) 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 parti cular 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 generall y 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 catal ytic equipped wood heater. This heater meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's emission limits for wood heaters sold after January 1, 2014 . Under specific test conditions this heater has been shown to deliver heat at rates ranging from 8,000 to 35,000 Btu/hr.” 2 .3.2 Tamper Warning1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

343 of 349 The following statement must be included in the owner's manual for catal ys t equipped units: “This wood heater contains a catal ytic combustor, which needs periodic inspection and replacement for proper operation. It is against the law t o operate this wood heater in a manner inconsistent with operating instructions in this manual, or if the catal ytic element is deactivated or removed.” 2 .3.3 Cataly st Information The following information must be included with or supplied in the owner's an d warranty manuals: (a) Catal ys t manufacturer and model ; (b) Catal ys t 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 cataly

tic combustor warranty

also supplied with this wood heater. Warranty claims should be addressed to: Stove or Cataly st Manufacturer____________________ Address____________________ Phone #____________________” 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:1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

344 of 349 (a) Instructions on acceptable fuels; and (b) Warning against inappropriate fuels. Exhibit 3

—Examp le Text covering (a) and (b): “This heater is designed to burn natural wood onl y. Higher efficiencies and lower emissions generall y result when burning air dried seasoned hardwoods, as compared to softwoods or to green or freshl y 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 catal ytic 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 Catal ys t Light - Off Owner's manuals must describe in detail proper procedures for: (a) Operation of catal ys t by pass (stove specific), (b) Achieving catal ys t light - off from a cold start, and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

345 of 349 (c) Achieving cataly st light - off when refueling. 2 .3.5.1 No example text is supplied for describing operation of catal ys t by pass mechanisms (Item (a) above) since these are typically stove - specific. Manufacturers must provide instructions specific to their model describing: (1) By pass position during start - up, (2) By pass position during normal operati on, and (3) By pass 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 catal ytic activity to be initiated. During the start - up of a c old stove, a medium to high firing rate must be maintained for about 20 minutes . This ensures that the stove, cataly st, 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 catal ys t reaches approximately 600 °F.” 2 .3.6 Cataly st Monitoring Owner's manuals must include:1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

346 of 349 (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 catal ytic combustor to ensure that it is functioning properl y and to determine when it needs to be replac ed. 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 phys ical 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 Catal ys t Troubleshooting section of this owner's manual. • This catal ytic heater is equipped with a temperature probe to monitor cataly st operation. Properly functioning combustors ty picall y maintain temperatures in excess of 500 °F, and often reach temperatures in excess of 1,000 °F. If cataly st temperatures are not in excess of 500 °F, refer to Cataly st Troubleshooting section of this owner's manual. • You can get an indication of whether the cataly st is working by comparing the amount of smoke leaving the chimne y when the smoke is going through the combustor and1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

347 of 349 catal ys t 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

—Li ght stove in accordance with instructions in 3.3 .5 . Step 2

—With smoke routed through the catal ys t, go outside and observe the emissions leaving the chimney . Step 3

—Engage the b ypass mechanism and again observe the emissions leaving the chimney . Significantl y more smoke should be seen when the exhaust i s not routed through the combustor (b ypass mode). Be careful not to confuse smoke with steam from wet wood.” 2 .3.7 Cataly st Troubleshooting The owner's manual must provide clear descriptions of sy mptoms and remedies to common combustor problems. It is reco mmended that photographs of cataly st 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 Cataly st Replacement The owner's manual must provide clear step - by- step instructions on how to remove and replace the cataly tic combustor. The section should include diagrams and/or photographs. 2 .3.9 Wood Heater Operation and Maintenance Owner's manual must include: (a) Recommend ations about building and maintaining a fire ; (b) Instruction on proper use of air controls ;1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

348 of 349 (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. Manufact urers should provide diagrams and/or photographs to assist the consumer. Gasket ty pe 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 from all combustible materials, pending final disposal. The ashes should be retained in the closed container until all cinders have thoroughl y cooled.” Exhibit 8

—Example Text covering Item (e): “DO NOT OVERFIRE T HI S HEATER”1 1 - 1 5 - 13 DRAFT * * * E.O. 12866 Review - Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

349 of 349 “Attempts to achieve heat output rates that exceed heater design specifications can result in permanent damage to the heater and to the catal ytic 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 geograph y, nearb y obstructions, and other factors. Too much draft may cause excessive temperatures in the appliance and may damage the catal ytic combustor. In adequate draft may ca use backpuffing into the room and ‘plugging’ of the chimney or the catal ys t .” 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.”