Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
Posted Date: 2018-11-30T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61585-61593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26082]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196; FRL-9987-39-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU07

Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New 
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
soliciting comment on several aspects of the 2015 Standards of 
Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic 
Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (2015 NSPS) in order to inform future 
rulemaking to improve these standards and related test methods. This 
action does not propose any changes to the 2015 NSPS, but does take 
comment on a number of aspects of the rule, including the compliance 
date for the Step 2 emission limits, Step 2 emission limits for forced-
air furnaces, hydronic heaters and wood heaters, Step 2 emission limits 
based on weighted averages versus individual burn rates, transitioning 
to cord wood certification test methods, compliance audit testing, 
third-party review, electronic reporting tool, and warranty 
requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 13, 
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the 
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your 
comments on or before January 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for details about how the EPA treats submitted comments. 
Regulations.gov is our preferred method of receiving comments. However, 
the following other submission methods are also accepted:
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0196 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0196.
     Mail: To ship or send mail via the United States Postal 
Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196, Mail 
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: Use the following Docket Center 
address if you are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand 
delivery, or courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Delivery

[[Page 61586]]

verification signatures will be available only during regular business 
hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action, 
contact Ms. Amanda Aldridge, Outreach and Information Division, Mail 
Code: C304-05, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5268; fax number: (919) 541-0072; 
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the 
applicability of the new source performance standard (NSPS) to a 
particular entity, contact Dr. Rafael Sanchez, Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC 
South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7028; and email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 
1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0196. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. This 
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
    The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The http://www.regulations.gov website allows you to submit your 
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 
http://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 
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should not include special characters or 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of 
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the digital storage media the specific information that is 
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments 
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the 
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for 
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit any digital storage media 
that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage 
media 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 Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information 
identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control 
Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196.
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. The Agency uses multiple 
acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this may not be an 
exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference 
purposes, the following terms and acronyms are defined here:

BSER Best System of Emission Reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon Monoxide
CSA Canadian Standards Association
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
g/hr grams per hour
HPBA Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association
ISO International Organization for Standardization
lb/mmBtu pound(s) per million british thermal units
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (U.S. EPA)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFI Pellet Fuels Institute
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Particulate Matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 
2.5 micrometers or less (``fine particles'')
R&D Research and Development
RTC Response to Comments
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code

    Organization of this Document. The information presented in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Background
    A. Statutory Background
    B. Regulatory Background
III. Request for Comment
    A. Test Methods--Transition to Cord Wood
    B. Feasibility of Step 2 Compliance Date of May 15, 2020
    C. Step 2 Emission Limit for Forced-Air Furnaces
    D. Step 2 Emission Limit for Hydronic Heaters

[[Page 61587]]

    E. Step 2 Emission Limit Based on Weighted Averages Versus 
Individual Burn Rates for Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces
    F. Step 2 Emission Limit for Wood Heaters
    G. The EPA Compliance Audit Testing
    H. ISO-Accredited Third-Party Review
    I. Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
    J. Warranty Requirements for Certified Appliances
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists categories and entities that are the 
subject of this notice. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be 
affected by this proposed action. The issues described in this notice, 
and any changes considered in future rulemakings, would be directly 
applicable to sources as a federal program. Other federal, state, local 
and tribal government entities are not directly affected by this 
action.

           Table 1--Source Categories Affected by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Wood Heating.......          333414  Manufacturers, owners,
                                                  and operators of wood
                                                  heaters, pellet
                                                  heaters/stoves, and
                                                  hydronic heaters.
                                         333415  Manufacturers, owners,
                                                  and operators of
                                                  forced-air furnaces.
Testing Laboratories...........          541380  Testers of wood
                                                  heaters, pellet
                                                  heaters/stoves, and
                                                  hydronic heaters.
Retailers......................          423730  Warm air heating and
                                                  air-conditioning
                                                  equipment and supplies
                                                  merchant wholesalers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the 
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this action at https://www.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters/final-new-source-performance-standards-residential-wood-heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Industry Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post 
the Federal Register version of this notice at this same website.

II. Background

A. Statutory Background

    Section 111 of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to list 
categories of stationary sources that, in his or her judgment, cause or 
contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA must then 
issue ``standards of performance'' for new sources in such source 
categories. The EPA has the authority to define the source categories, 
determine the pollutants for which standards should be developed, and 
identify within each source category the facilities for which standards 
of performance would be established.
    Section 111(a)(1) of the CAA defines ``a standard of performance'' 
as ``a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
best system of emission reduction (BSER) which (taking into account the 
cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirement) the Administrator 
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' This definition makes 
clear that the standard of performance must be based on measures that 
constitute BSER, while taking into account multiple statutory factors. 
The standard that the EPA develops, based on the BSER, is commonly a 
numerical emission limit, expressed as a performance level. As provided 
in CAA 111(b)(5), the EPA does not prescribe a specific technology that 
must be used to comply with a standard of performance. Rather, sources 
generally can select any measure or combination of measures that will 
achieve the emission level of the standard. Where certain statutory 
criteria are met, the EPA may promulgate design, equipment, work 
practice or operational standards instead of a numerical standard of 
performance. See CAA 111(h)(1) and (2).
    The Residential Wood Heaters source category is different from most 
NSPS source categories in that it applies to mass-produced residential 
consumer products. Thus, an important consideration in determining the 
emission limit that is achievable through the application of the BSER 
here is the cost to both manufacturers and consumers as well as any 
potential environmental impact of delaying production while wood 
heating devices with those systems are designed, tested, field 
evaluated and certified.
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that the standards be 
effective upon promulgation of the NSPS. Given this statutory 
requirement, as discussed more fully in the Federal Register notice for 
the 2015 NSPS rulemaking (80 FR 13672), the EPA adopted the stepped 
(phased) approach for residential wood heaters, hydronic heaters and 
forced-air furnaces to provide sufficient implementation time for 
manufacturers and retailers to comply with the Step 2 limits. That is, 
for the 2015 NSPS rulemaking, the EPA determined that certain emission 
limits phased in over time reflect the degree of emission limitation 
achievable through the application of BSER.

B. Regulatory Background

    Residential wood heaters were originally listed under CAA section 
111(b) in February 18, 1987 (see 52 FR 5065). The NSPS for wood heaters 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA) was proposed on February 18, 1987 (see 52 
FR 4994) and promulgated on February 26, 1988 (see 53 FR 5859) (1988 
Wood Heater NSPS). The NSPS was amended in 1998 to address an issue 
related to certification testing (see 63 FR 64869).
    On February 3, 2014, the EPA proposed revisions to the NSPS (see 79 
FR 6330) and published notice of its final rule making revisions on 
March 16, 2015 (see 80 FR 13672). The final 2015 NSPS updated the 1988 
Wood Heater NSPS emission limits, eliminated exemptions over a broad 
suite of residential wood combustion devices, and updated test methods 
and the certification process. The 2015 NSPS also added a new subpart 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQQ) that covers new wood burning residential 
hydronic heaters and new forced-air furnaces.
    For this action, the term ``wood heaters'' refers to all appliances 
covered in 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAA, and the terms ``hydronic 
heaters'' and ``forced-air furnaces'' refer to appliances covered in 40 
CFR part 60, subpart QQQQ. Also, for this action, the term ``wood 
heating devices'' refers to all units, collectively, regulated by the 
2015 NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subparts AAA and QQQQ).
    In promulgating the 2015 NSPS, the EPA took a ``stepped compliance 
approach'' in which certain ``Step 1''

[[Page 61588]]

standards would become effective in May 2015, and more stringent ``Step 
2'' standards would become effective five years later, in May 2020. 
Considering that over 90 percent of wood heating device manufacturers 
and retailers are small businesses, the Agency adopted this two-phased 
implementation approach to try to provide manufacturers adequate lead 
time to develop, test, field evaluate and certify technologies across 
their product lines to meet the Step 2 emission limits.
    The Step 1 standard reflected demonstrated wood heater technologies 
at the time. For wood heaters, the Step 1 limit was based on the 
Washington State standard that had been in effect since 1995 and had 
been met by most wood heater manufacturers. For hydronic heaters, the 
Step 1 emission limit was based on the 2010 Phase 2 Voluntary Hydronic 
Heater Program. The Step 1 standard for forced-air furnaces was what 
the EPA concluded would be immediately achievable based on a limited 
dataset (see 80 FR 13693).
    For the Step 1 standards, the EPA provided a ``sell-through'' 
period of seven and a half months, until December 2015, to allow 
retailers additional time after the effective date of the rule to sell 
the non-compliant wood heaters and hydronic heaters remaining in 
inventory (see 80 FR 13685). Specifically, the 2015 NSPS allowed non-
compliant wood heaters and hydronic heaters manufactured before May 15, 
2015, to be imported and/or sold at retail through December 31, 2015 
(see 40 CFR 60.532(a) and 60.5474(a)(1)).\2\ For the Step 2 standards, 
the EPA did not provide a sell-through period following the May 2020 
compliance date. The EPA concluded at the time that the 5-year period 
leading up to the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date would provide 
manufacturers with sufficient lead time to develop, test and certify 
Step 2-compliant wood heating devices (see 80 FR 13676). However, in 
light of concerns raised by manufacturers, in a separate rulemaking 
action, the Agency is proposing a 2-year sell-through period for 
certain types of wood heating devices that are manufactured before the 
May 2020 compliance date to be imported and/or sold at retail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA did not provide any sell-through period for forced-
air furnaces because the EPA determined that the requirements that 
became effective for these heaters in May 2015 (to revise the owner 
manuals, and training and marketing materials) could be accomplished 
without disrupting sales and creating undue burden on manufacturers 
or retailers (see 80 FR 13682 and 13685).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A major component of demonstrating compliance with both the Step 1 
and Step 2 standards is a certification test, using an EPA-specified 
test method, for a given wood heating device. Among other requirements, 
the emissions from the certification test cannot exceed the emission 
limit for the standard for which it is certifying (either Step 1 or 
Step 2). It is worth noting that, because these certification test 
methods were developed outside of the 2015 NSPS, they have their own 
requirements independent of the 2015 NSPS, such as fuel requirements.
    Another important point is that the EPA-specified test methods may 
not reflect how a typical consumer uses the device. Some test methods 
require the use of crib wood,\3\ which is air-dried dimensional lumber, 
rather than typical cord wood,\4\ or firewood. Additionally, the EPA-
specified test methods direct the certification laboratory to target 
specific burn rate categories for performance assessment purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Crib wood fuel is air dried, dimensional cut Douglas fir 
lumber, arranged in the firebox per the EPA Method 28R.
    \4\ Cord wood fuel is traditional firewood cut to nominal 
commercial sale length and air dried.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Comment

    The EPA has worked with a wide array of stakeholders, including but 
not limited to industry, states, and non-governmental organizations, in 
implementing the 2015 NSPS and received feedback from these 
stakeholders on how to improve the 2015 NSPS. Based on this feedback, 
the EPA is soliciting comments on the following 10 topics:

A. Test Methods--Transition to Cord Wood

    As discussed at 80 FR 13678, 13684 and 13690 in the 2015 NSPS, the 
EPA contemplated requiring ``real world'' cord wood test methods for 
the Step 2 standards in the final rule. However, the Agency determined 
that it was premature to require a cord wood based-Step 2 emission 
limit (except for forced-air furnaces for which CSA B415.1-10 already 
specified cord wood as the test fuel) because no cord wood test method 
for wood heaters was available at that time. Rather, the EPA based the 
Step 2 emission limit on crib wood test data but included a voluntary 
alternative cord wood compliance option and emission limit to encourage 
manufacturers to certify with cord wood as soon as possible to provide 
consumers with better information for actual in-home-use performance. 
Recently, the EPA approved the use of ASTM 3053-17, finalized in 
November 2017, through the EPA's Broadly Applicable Test Methods 
approval process. Broadly applicable test methods Alt-125 and Alt-127 
(https://www.epa.gov/emc/broadly-applicable-approved-alternative-test-methods) are now available for manufacturers wishing to use this 
voluntary cord wood compliance option.
    As the 2015 NSPS did not include a new test method intended to 
provide ``real world'' data through cord wood compliance testing, the 
EPA has received many informal comments and taken part in several 
discussions concerning the differences between the existing compliance 
test methods and ``real world'' cord wood compliance testing. These 
discussions have led the EPA to review existing wood appliance test 
methods and conduct research into the data sets provided by those test 
methods. In doing so, the Agency recognizes a need to better understand 
what compliance test procedures are necessary in order to provide a 
cord wood emissions test data set that serves both the compliance test 
benchmark (pass/fail) and ``real world'' data collection to support 
other regulatory needs. Our review of existing test methods has focused 
on two distinct facets of the testing procedures: (1) Particulate 
collection and measurement during the testing; and (2) operation and 
fueling of an appliance during the testing. Each of these two pathways 
is currently represented in our compliance testing paradigms by a 
separate test methodology. For example, ASTM E2515-11 serves as the 
particulate collection and measurement test method for all existing 
NSPS compliance test requirements, but this test method is always used 
in conjunction with any one of several different operation and fueling 
protocols, such as the EPA Method 28R for crib wood fuel testing of a 
wood heater or the EPA Method 28WHH for crib wood fuel testing of a 
hydronic heater. There is inherent variability in each facet of the 
testing, and the overall variability of the testing result combines the 
variability inherent to each facet. The EPA recognizes that moving away 
from a crib wood fuel compliance testing paradigm to a cord wood fuel 
compliance paradigm involves the introduction of the additional 
variability inherent to cord wood fuel including the use of various 
species of cord wood fuel across different regions of the U.S. and in 
different countries where compliance testing may occur. In that light, 
a review of test method processes and procedures is appropriate with 
respect to handling this additional and unknown variability,

[[Page 61589]]

and the Agency is seeking public comment regarding the direction and 
extent to which the EPA should undertake such evaluations of existing 
test methods, including the scope of test method, appropriateness of 
testing procedures, validation of test methodology, and revision and/or 
developing new compliance test methods not currently associated with 
the existing NSPS standards. To inform comments, the Agency would point 
out that the EPA has an existing guideline covering Validation and Peer 
Review of test methods: (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/chemical_method_guide_revised_020316.pdf). While the 
EPA Methods 5H and 5G (both particulate test methods) underwent a 
similar review prior to their publication in the 1988 NSPS (see: R. Gay 
and J. Shah, Technical Support Document For Residential Wood 
Combustion, EPA-450/4-85-012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1986), those are the only wood 
burning appliance test methods upon which the EPA has collected such 
data and done such analysis. The EPA Method 5G is closely related to 
the current ASTM E2515-11, which is required for measuring particulate 
throughout the 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAA and QQQQ, and so some 
understanding of this method variability of ASTM E2515-11 exists 
through our understanding of the EPA Method 5G. Beyond particulate 
measurement, the EPA's Method 28, Method 28R, Method 28WHH, Method 
28WHH-PTS and all other operation and fueling protocols required by 40 
CFR part 60, subparts AAA and QQQQ have not been individually validated 
or assessed through such a process.
    In addition to the lack of information surrounding the validation 
of these operating and fueling protocols, the Agency recognizes the 
need to understand the variability introduced to a compliance test 
protocol through the combustion of various fuel species. Beyond this, 
the Agency seeks comment on the need to develop a thorough 
understanding of appliance use and emissions from typical appliance 
operations such as startup, refueling (adding logs) and other common 
modes of operation more representative of actual in-home use than the 
``high burn, mid burn, and low burn'' modes currently required by 
Method 28R and/or similar operating conditions required by the various 
operating and fueling protocols throughout 40 CFR part 60, subparts AAA 
and QQQQ. The Agency realizes that ``real-world'' data collection stems 
from an understanding of the actual in-home use of the appliance, and 
any compliance test paradigm relies on consistent application of 
appliance fueling and operation during performance tests and, while our 
existing compliance paradigms provide some testing consistency, the 
Agency would like information supporting their use or specific 
information as to more appropriate compliance operation and fueling 
protocol direction for this program.
    The EPA seeks comment on whether existing operation and fueling 
protocols are suited to deliver an appropriate compliance test result 
and if existing operation and fueling protocols are suited to deliver 
``real world'' emissions data where such data are a necessary output of 
this program. The EPA also seeks comment on the need to validate 
existing operation and fueling protocols and/or expend time and 
resources to develop new validated operation and fueling protocol 
methods in support of cord wood fuel compliance testing and providing 
such ``real world'' emissions data from those tests. Relatedly, the EPA 
also seeks comment with respect to developing new emission standards to 
correspond with new test methods, if new test method development is 
found to be necessary. Commenters should provide relevant information 
and data to support their comments.

B. Feasibility of the Step 2 Compliance Date of May 15, 2020

    While some manufacturers have begun manufacturing Step 2-compliant 
units, the EPA has learned of issues with compliance with these 
emission limits by the May 15, 2020, deadline. In the 2015 NSPS, the 
EPA concluded that the 5-year period leading up to the May 2020 Step 2 
compliance date would provide manufacturers with sufficient lead time 
to develop, test and certify Step 2-compliant wood heating devices (see 
80 FR 13676).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA provided further explanation in the 2015 Response to 
Comments (RTC) document (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734-1775). On 
page 99 of the RTC, the EPA noted that the 5-year period from 2015 
to 2020 ``matches the window of time many manufacturers noted they 
would require to conduct research and development (R&D) and bring a 
new model to market,'' and on page 231 of the RTC, the EPA concluded 
that the Step 2 standards provide ``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 new model lines.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Step 1 emission standards reflected demonstrated wood heater 
technologies at that time. Step 2 standards were deemed to be 
reasonable levels of emission control five years after promulgation. As 
a part of the 2015 rulemaking, the EPA identified the percentage of 
wood heaters estimated to be meeting the Step 2 standards prior to 
promulgation of the 2015 NSPS as 70 percent of pellet stoves and 26 
percent of wood stoves. Similarly, 18 percent of hydronic heaters were 
meeting the Step 2 standards prior to promulgation of the 2015 NSPS, 
while the limited dataset for forced-air furnaces showed no models 
meeting the Step 2 standards prior to promulgation of the 2015 NSPS. As 
of March 20, 2018, there were a total of 78 (44 pellet and 34 crib/cord 
wood) models that when certified for the Step 1 and Step 2 standards 
reported emission levels that met the Step 2 standard for wood heaters 
(as required under 40 CFR 60.532(b) or 60.532(c)). In addition, there 
are nine models that met the Step 2 standard for hydronic heaters (as 
required under 40 CFR 60.5474(a)(2) or (b)(3)) and one model that met 
the Step 2 standard for forced-air furnaces (as required under 40 CFR 
60.5474(a)(6)) based on the Step 2 certification process. The inventory 
of certified models as of March 2018 is provided in the document 
titled: ``List of EPA certified Wood Heating Devices March 2018,'' 
which is available in the docket and at the website https://www.epa.gov/compliance/wood-heater-compliance-monitoring-program. The 
EPA requests comment and information regarding the percentage of models 
referenced above that the agency projects are meeting standards for 
each type of equipment.
    Recently, some manufacturers have indicated that they need more 
time to develop, test, and certify wood heating devices that meet the 
Step 2 standard and that the costs of Step 2 compliance are beyond what 
the industry can bear. As a result of this input, the EPA is soliciting 
comment on whether it is feasible/practicable for manufacturers to meet 
the Step 2 emission limits by May 15, 2020. Commenters should discuss 
whether the Step 2 compliance date is achievable or not and should 
provide relevant information and data to support their position. For 
example, commenters may wish to address the following questions:
    1. Are there other factors that have changed or that the Agency did 
not consider when issuing the 2015 NSPS that have influenced whether 
some manufacturers are able to comply, and others are not? Why are some 
manufacturers able to comply with the Step 2 emission limits by May 
2020 and others cannot comply by then?
    2. For manufacturers expecting to achieve Step 2 emission limits by 
May 2020, what is the time and cost to bring

[[Page 61590]]

the model to market and how does this compare to the EPA's 2015 NSPS 
estimates? Were there other timing considerations associated with new 
state level requirements that were issued in the intervening time 
between 2015 NSPS promulgation and the May 2020 deadline that may have 
changed the design timeline? Do manufacturers, considering the size of 
their businesses, typically sell different models to meet differing 
state standards or do manufacturers typically have just one model for 
the nation? Does the manufacturer's business model and distribution 
chain affect their ability to comply by the compliance deadline? If so, 
please provide specific information on how this occurs. What is the 
typical engineering design cycle for small businesses and did five 
years provide enough time?
    3. For manufacturers that do not expect to achieve the Step 2 
emission limits by May 2020, what factors are preventing your model(s) 
from meeting the emission limits? Are there other factors that have 
changed or that the Agency did not consider when issuing the 2015 NSPS 
that have had an effect on meeting the May 2020 emission limits? Are 
there features of wood heating devices that make meeting Step 2 
standards more challenging or more expensive? Does a lack of desirable 
consumer features lead to delays in replacing older dirty stoves or 
promote switching to other fuels?
    The EPA is also soliciting comment on how much the compliance date 
should be extended, if at all. Commenters should provide relevant 
information and data to support any request for an extension of the 
compliance date. For example, commenters may wish to address the 
following questions:
    1. What new factors resulted in the need for time beyond the five 
years of the 2015 NSPS? The Agency seeks comment and information 
explaining how cost affects meeting the Step 2 emission limits by May 
2020, including why cost projections have changed since the 2015 NSPS, 
along with relevant data on the cost of research and development, 
certification testing, and bringing a model to market. Are there other 
cost considerations such as material costs, warranty costs, 
installation costs, or maintenance costs that were unexpected or 
different from what the Agency estimated in the 2015 NSPS? Have there 
been any other unforeseen impacts on costs for manufacturers due to 
changes in consumer preferences or attitudes towards the devices and 
products that would be needed to comply with Step 2? For example, would 
any of the new designs needed to meet the May 2020 standards impact the 
size of the unit, how much it would cost consumers to operate it, or 
change the maintenance frequency or cost?
    2. If more time is needed to meet the Step 2 emission limits, the 
EPA seeks comment on the time and resources devoted to research and 
development of a Step 2 model since 2014. Commenters should include 
information regarding time spent on emissions testing, and the number 
of runs/tests passed versus the number failed. Both manufacturer-
produced test data and certified laboratory test data are of interest 
to the EPA. The Agency is also interested in receiving information 
regarding emission reduction efforts and any other information 
outlining attempts to develop a Step 2-compliant model.
    3. If more time is needed to meet the Step 2 emission limits, then 
how much additional time is needed? For example, the Agency solicits 
comments and detailed information regarding the timetable for 
conducting research and development, additional testing, developing 
saleable products, marketing, and any other relevant information and 
data that supports a request for a delayed compliance date.
    The EPA also solicits comment on the environmental consequences and 
public health effects, if any, of delaying compliance.

C. Step 2 Emission Limit for Forced-Air Furnaces

    At the time of the 2015 NSPS, the EPA expected most forced-air 
furnace manufacturers to transfer technology and knowledge from wood 
heaters and hydronic heaters to design Step 2-compliant forced-air 
furnaces by the 2020 compliance date; however, the EPA is only aware of 
one manufacturer that has received EPA certification as being Step 2 
compliant, see website: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/wood-heater-compliance-monitoring-program. Prior to the 2015 NSPS, some small 
forced-air furnace manufacturers had already transferred technology 
from wood heaters to forced-air furnaces to achieve good performance as 
discussed at 80 FR 13687. Several manufacturers, however, question 
whether it is feasible to transfer technology from hydronic heaters. 
These manufacturers point to the fact that space limitations may affect 
their ability to adequately insulate models that may be installed in 
close proximity to combustibles. The Agency requests comment on the 
installation of cord wood-fired indoor hydronic heaters without large 
volumes of thermal insulation around the firebox, and whether this 
approach is feasible and cost effective for forced-air furnaces. The 
EPA also seeks comment on whether technology transfer is necessary for 
forced-air furnaces to meet the Step 2 emission limit, and on the 
technological feasibility and costs of alternatives to thermal 
insulation around the firebox. The EPA solicits comment on the 
feasibility of the Step 2 limit for forced-air furnaces and what 
factors the Agency should consider concerning the feasibility and costs 
of transferring technologies from other wood heater devices to forced-
air furnaces. Comments should include information and data supporting 
their perspective.
    Also, since promulgating the 2015 NSPS, the EPA has received 
feedback from some manufacturers that complying with the Step 2 
emission limit is cost prohibitive. Therefore, the EPA is soliciting 
comment on whether, regardless of technical feasibility concerns, it is 
economically feasible to comply with the Step 2 emission limit for 
forced-air furnaces. Commenters should explain the issues regarding 
costs and the feasibility/practicability for achieving the Step 2 
emission limit and whether changing the Step 2 emission limit would 
alleviate these issues, along with data supporting the position. The 
EPA is also soliciting comment on the environmental and public health 
effects, if any, of modifying the Step 2 emission limit for forced-air 
furnaces.
    As noted earlier, the EPA is also soliciting comment on the 
feasibility of the Step 2 compliance date of May 15, 2020. The EPA is 
soliciting comment on whether to extend the Step 2 compliance date for 
forced-air furnaces. Commenters should provide relevant information and 
data to support any request for a delayed compliance date. The EPA is 
also soliciting comment on the environmental and public health effects, 
if any, of potential extensions of the Step 2 compliance date for 
forced-air furnaces.

D. Step 2 Emission Limit for Hydronic Heaters

    For the 2015 NSPS, the EPA set the Step 2 emission limits based on 
its determination of the BSER, which takes into account the cost of 
achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements (See 80 FR 13687). Since 
promulgation, however, the EPA has received comments from industry 
representatives that the cost of compliance with Step 2 emission limits 
for hydronic heaters is exceeding the EPA's original estimation. The 
EPA

[[Page 61591]]

estimated a yearly cost of $46 million (2013$), that would be incurred 
from 2015 to 2020, for implementation of the 2015 NSPS. Details of how 
costs of the 2015 NSPS were estimated can be found in Chapter 5 of the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for that standard.\6\ Furthermore, these 
comments have indicated that the excess costs have made complying with 
the Step 2 emission limit cost prohibitive. Are there other cost 
considerations such as material costs, warranty costs, installation 
costs, maintenance costs, or other costs that were unexpected or 
different from what the Agency estimated in the 2015 NSPS? Have there 
been any other unforeseen impacts on costs for manufacturers due to 
changes in consumer preferences or attitudes towards the devices and 
products that would be needed to comply with Step 2? Therefore, the EPA 
is soliciting comment on the feasibility of complying with the Step 2 
emission limit for hydronic heaters. Commenters should explain the 
issues regarding the practicability of achieving the Step 2 emission 
limits, whether the EPA's estimated costs are being exceeded \7\ or if 
there are other aspects of the costs that the Agency had not previously 
considered, and whether changing the Step 2 emission limit will 
alleviate these issues. Commenters should provide relevant information 
and data to support their positions. The EPA is also soliciting comment 
regarding the potential environmental and public health effects, if 
any, of modifying the Step 2 emission limits for hydronic heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA) for the Residential Wood Heaters NSPS Revision. Final 
Report. EPA-452/R-15-001. Available on the internet at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/docs/ria/wood-heaters_ria_final-nsps-revision_2015-02.pdf.
    \7\ Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R Inc. Estimated 
Residential Wood Heater Manufacturer Cost Impacts. January 30, 2015. 
Available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of March 20, 2018, there are nine models that meet the Step 2 
standard for hydronic heaters (as required under 40 CFR 60.5474(a)(2) 
and 60.5474(b)(2) or (b)(3)), and one model that meets the Step 2 
standard for forced-air furnaces (as required under 40 CFR 
60.5474(a)(6) and 60.5474(b)(6)) based on the Step 2 certification 
process. These models are listed in the document titled ``List of EPA 
certified Wood Heating Devices March 2018,'' which is in the docket at 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196. Also see link https://www.epa.gov/compliance/wood-heater-compliance-monitoring-program.
    The EPA is requesting comment regarding these models and models 
that have not met the Step 2 standard for hydronic heaters and what 
they demonstrate about achieving the standard at a reasonable cost. 
Specifically, for manufacturers expecting to be unable to design a 
hydronic heater to meet the Step 2 standard, the EPA is interested in 
whether the Step 2 standard applicable to your device is achievable at 
a reasonable cost by the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date. The Agency is 
also interested in receiving information regarding efforts undertaken 
to design hydronic heaters to meet the applicable Step 2 standard, 
including cost, and if one or more models are expected to be ready for 
certification by the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date, when you expect 
to submit your application(s) for certification to the EPA.
    As noted earlier, the EPA is also soliciting comment on the 
feasibility of the Step 2 compliance date of May 15, 2020. The EPA is 
soliciting comment on whether to extend the Step 2 compliance date for 
hydronic heaters. Commenters should provide relevant information and 
data to support any request for a delayed compliance date. The EPA is 
also soliciting comment on the environmental and public health effects, 
if any, of potential extensions of the Step 2 compliance date for 
hydronic heaters.

E. Step 2 Emission Limit Based on Weighted Averages Versus Individual 
Burn Rates for Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces

    For hydronic heaters, the 2015 NSPS retained the proposed Step 1 
emission cap of 18 grams per hour (g/hr) for all burn rates. For 
forced-air furnaces, the 2015 NSPS does not require an emission cap for 
any burn rates for Step 1. The Step 2 requirements for hydronic heaters 
did not retain the g/hr cap. Instead, to balance industry's concern 
with the g/hr cap with concerns about very large emissions at 
individual burn rates, the Step 2 emission standards for hydronic 
heaters and forced-air furnaces require the devices to meet the 
emission limits for crib wood and cord wood, at each individual burn 
rate (see 80 CFR 13684 and 13690).
    The emission limits for hydronic heaters reflect the data available 
for the 2015 NSPS rulemaking, when 18 percent of hydronic heaters in 
the EPA's Voluntary Hydronic Heater Program already met the Step 2 
standard. For forced-air furnaces, the EPA determined that research and 
development would be needed in order to meet the Step 2 limits.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Memo to Gil Wood, USEPA, from EC/R Inc. Estimated 
Residential Wood Heater Manufacturer Cost Impacts. January 30, 2015. 
Available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2014 NSPS proposal, the EPA proposed a weighted average 
approach for compliance. But, because of the large emissions that could 
potentially result from individual burn rates, along with the proposed 
weighted average approach, the EPA also proposed a g/hr cap for the 
certification test. Comments received from industry representatives in 
2014 suggested that the g/hr emission cap would be too difficult to 
meet. To accommodate these concerns, and after considering other public 
comments, the EPA finalized the emission standards without a g/hr cap 
but required the devices to meet the emission limit at each individual 
burn rate to prevent large emission discharges.
    Based on concerns raised since promulgating the 2015 NSPS, the EPA 
is soliciting comment on determining compliance with weighted averages 
instead of individual burn rates. Commenters should describe the 
relevant issues pertaining to compliance with the Step 2 emission limit 
with individual burn rates versus a weighted average and also include 
data to support their position. Commenters should also discuss and 
support with data how a weighted average would impact emissions and 
compliance costs.

F. Step 2 Emission Limit for Wood Heaters

    As of March 20, 2018, there were a total of 78 models that when 
certified for the Step 1 and Step 2 standards reported emission levels 
that meet the Step 2 standard for wood heaters (as required under 40 
CFR 60.532(b) or 60.532(c)). These models are listed in the document 
titled ``List of EPA certified Wood Heating Devices March 2018,'' which 
is in the docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0196. Also see link https://www.epa.gov/compliance/wood-heater-compliance-monitoring-program.
    The EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of the costs 
associated with the Step 2 standards for wood heaters compared to the 
costs estimated by the EPA in the 2015 NSPS and whether Step 2 is 
achievable at a reasonable cost. The EPA requests comment on the 
potential cost difference for consumers to operate different types of 
wood heaters and, in particular, the cost of operating a pellet wood 
heater compared to the cost of operating a cord/crib wood heater.
    If you are a manufacturer that has been unable to design a wood 
heater to

[[Page 61592]]

meet the Step 2 standard, the EPA is interested in whether you think 
the Step 2 standard applicable to your device is achievable at a mean 
capital cost per model of $162,300 (for wood stoves and pellet stoves, 
in 2016 dollars) by the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date and whether 
this cost is reasonable.\9\ The EPA is requesting comment on the 
technical feasibility of achieving the Step 2 standards for 40 CFR part 
60, subpart AAA wood heaters including both pellet and cord/crib wood 
heaters and whether the Agency should consider creating separate source 
categories for these different wood heaters types.\10\ Since more 
pellet stoves meet Step 2 than crib/cord wood stoves, the EPA is 
interested in hearing from manufacturers and the public on the concept 
of different emission standards for pellet-fired and crib/cord wood-
fired heating devices. The Agency is also interested in receiving 
information regarding the efforts you have undertaken to design a wood 
heater, both for pellet and crib/cord wood heaters, to meet the 
applicable Step 2 standard, including the cost of your efforts to do 
so. In addition, the EPA requests information on how many models of 
pellet and crib/cord wood heaters you expect will be and will not be 
ready for certification by the May 2020 Step 2 compliance date, and 
when you expect to submit your application(s) for certification to the 
EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Estimate is based on the mean capital cost per model in 
Table 5-1, p. 5-5 of that RIA, escalated to 2016 dollars from the 
original 2013 dollar estimate of $156,000. Escalation uses the 
annual value of GDP implicit price deflator, which is 1.04127 higher 
in 2016 than 2013.
    \10\ In the 2015 final rule, the EPA noted that it was ``making 
a single determination of BSER for catalytic, noncatalytic, hybrid, 
cord wood and pellet heaters and furnaces in order to not restrict 
open market competition.'' Furthermore, as noted in the Response to 
Comment document: ``It is up to manufacturers to decide what 
combustion technology/wood fuel to use to meet the emission limits 
and up to consumers to decide what types of heaters they wish to 
purchase that are certified to meet those limits.'' Performance 
standards may drive competition in the marketplace; however, 
maintaining just one source category for these wood heaters may 
distort the marketplace and raise costs for both manufacturers and 
consumers if only a limited number of wood heaters or predominantly 
one type of wood heater can meet the Step 2 standards. Pellet wood 
heaters may be more readily able to meet more stringent standards 
due to the consistent fuel type and continual operating mode 
compared to crib/cord wood heaters that may require more costly 
redesigns to meet the Step 2 standards. In addition, the agency did 
not consider the lifetime operating costs in the 2015 NSPS as the 
difference in fuel costs between operating a crib/cord wood and 
pellet wood heater could be considerable over the lifetime of the 
wood heater if consumer choice is limited to just pellet stoves due 
to the Step 2 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA has received informal comments from several 
parties regarding emissions testing variability and, along with those 
discussions, issues have been raised regarding the units or format of 
the Step 2 emission limit in 40 CFR 60, subpart AAA. One issue raised 
is that the existing emission limit in units of grams per hour (g/hr) 
increases variability in that the duration of the performance test 
directly impacts the g/hr result, thus incentivizing longer test 
periods. The EPA is soliciting comments on this form of the standard 
(g/hr) and whether it is appropriate for the purpose of defining the 
compliance limit and, if not, what form of a standard would be more 
appropriate and reasons supporting those positions. Other possible unit 
options for the emission limit could be g/kg or lb/mmBtu. Commenters 
are asked to provide relevant information and data (where available) to 
support their comments.

G. The EPA Compliance Audit Testing

    The EPA seeks comment with respect to the EPA compliance audit test 
provisions in the current rules (2015 NSPS), found at 40 CFR 60.533(n) 
(80 FR 13708) for wood heaters and at 40 CFR 60.5475(n) (80 FR 13721) 
for hydronic heaters and forced-air furnaces. Specifically, the Agency 
is seeking comment on whether revisions to the current compliance audit 
test provisions are necessary to ensure compliance. First, the Agency 
is seeking comment on 40 CFR 60.533 (n)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 
60.5475(n)(2)(i) regarding if it is appropriate for the EPA to select a 
lab to perform the audit test from any approved test laboratory, and 
whether the EPA should also consider using a federal laboratory. 
Alternatively, the EPA seeks comment on whether audit tests should be 
performed by the same lab that did the certification test for a given 
wood heater appliance. If the audit test should be done by the 
certifying lab, the EPA seeks comment on how to handle situations where 
the original certifying lab is out of business or unable to accommodate 
the audit test. Commenters should include any relevant information and 
data that support their views and comments.
    Second, as some variability is inherent in emissions testing, the 
Agency is seeking comment (and information) on whether and, if so, to 
what degree, the EPA should consider this variability when assessing 
the result of an audit test to determine if a wood burning appliance 
successfully passed the test, or not. Please provide relevant 
information and data to support your comments.
    Third, the Agency is seeking comment on establishing (as well as 
how best to manage the regulatory cost of), through NSPS regulation, a 
program using ASTM E691-99 ``Standard Practice for Conducting an 
Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method.'' 
The intent of such a program would be to develop and establish wood 
heating device audit test acceptability criteria, and to provide data 
useful to the EPA in both refining wood heating device test methodology 
development and in aiding the regulatory data collection with respect 
to wood heater, forced-air furnace, and hydronic heater emissions and 
standards setting processes. The EPA is also requesting comment on the 
cost or any concerns with specifying a specific certification lab and 
any discussion of the use of a federal versus a private lab. For the 
2015 NSPS, the EPA estimated a cost of $63,564 for each compliance 
audit conducted for each hydronic heater and forced-air furnace over 
the period of 2015 to 2017, an estimate documented in the Supporting 
Statement for the standard.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NSPS for New 
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (40 CFR part 
60, subpart QQQQ) (Final Rule). January 2015. Pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. ISO-Accredited Third-Party Review

    In the 2015 NSPS, the EPA included a new feature to improve the 
process by which manufacturers of wood heating devices apply for 
certification (see 80 FR 13684, and the ISO-accredited third-party 
review at 80 FR 13706 and 80 FR 13719). The ISO-accredited third-party 
review was included in the 2015 NSPS to streamline and speed up the 
review process.
    The EPA is seeking comment on whether third-party review has 
streamlined the process for manufacturers to submit their certification 
applications and/or what issues and problems stakeholders have 
experienced with third-party review process. The EPA also solicits 
suggestions for improving the third-party review and reducing 
regulatory burden, including what specific rule changes would be 
appropriate, and why. Commenters should provide relevant information 
and data to support their comments and suggestions.
    The current process allows the EPA-approved certifying lab to also 
act as the third-party reviewer for a given appliance. Some external 
stakeholders have raised concerns about allowing a lab to act as both 
the certifying test lab and third-party reviewer for a given 
certification test. The EPA solicits comments as to whether an EPA-
approved lab should be allowed to act

[[Page 61593]]

as both the certifying lab and third-party reviewer. Commenters should 
address whether this is a problem and provide available data to support 
their position.

I. Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)

    The EPA seeks comment on establishing electronic reporting for 
submitting the non-confidential business information (CBI) 
certification application, including the compliance test data, rather 
than via hard copy, to relieve manufacturer burden and enhance 
efficiencies. One possibility is the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT). The ERT is a Microsoft Access[supreg] application that generates 
electronic versions of source test reports. Information on the ERT can 
be found at https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert. The EPA believes that using the ERT will 
relieve the burden on manufacturers in the certification application 
process by standardizing the reporting format by having specific data 
elements reported, thereby helping to ensure completeness and accuracy 
of the data submitted. As a result, the electronically submitted 
application with complete and accurate data will enable an efficient 
and timely review. In addition, because the ERT performs the required 
method calculations, certification test report errors will be reduced 
and the burden of performing these calculations manually will be 
eliminated for the manufacturers as well as for the third-party 
certifiers and the EPA reviewers. If the ERT were used, it would 
generate a non-CBI test report (in pdf format) along with the ERT-
generated Access database (accdb) file that could be submitted to the 
EPA for certification and once certified, posted to the manufacturer's 
website. This ERT-generated test report would include a list of 
attachments in the ERT file but not the attachments themselves. The 
attachments would be contained in the ERT accdb file and if posted to 
the manufacturer's website would be available to the public. Posting 
the pdf will also address the version control concerns of the ERT-
generated database file. These two components could satisfy the 
reporting requirements in 80 FR 13713 and 13725. The EPA seeks comment 
on whether to include the option of using the ERT to create a non-CBI 
and a CBI test report and certification package (pdf and .accdb file) 
that satisfies the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 60.537(f) and 
60.5479(f), which requires the manufacturer to submit the results of a 
certification test within 60 days of completing each performance test. 
If the EPA changes the current provisions, the Agency expects that the 
manufacturers would still be required to post the full non-CBI test 
report (pdf with all attachments or ERT generated pdf with the Access 
database (accdb) file) on the manufacturer's website and submit the CBI 
test report separately to the EPA. Manufacturers, who claim that some 
of the information being submitted is CBI (e.g., design drawings), 
could also utilize the same non-CBI test report generated by the ERT 
and add the design drawings as an attachment to be submitted to the EPA 
as CBI in order to satisfy the requirements under 40 CFR 60.537(f) and 
60.5479(f). Similarly, the non-CBI report with no CBI information 
attached could be posted to the manufacturer's website within 30 days 
of receiving a certification of compliance to satisfy 40 CFR 60.537(g) 
and 60.5479(g). Please provide as much detailed information as possible 
to support your comments regarding this approach.

J. Warranty Requirements for Certified Appliances

    The 2015 NSPS requires owners or operators to operate wood heating 
devices consistent with the owner's manual (see 40 CFR 60.532(f)(13) 
and (g) and 60.5474(f)(13) and (g)). The 2015 NSPS also requires 
manufacturers to provide an owner's manual that clearly states that 
operation in a manner inconsistent with the manual, such as burning 
prohibited material or pellets that do not meet the minimum 
requirements of the 2015 Rule, would void the warranty (see 80 FR 
13751, appendix I to Part 60). The cost of this requirement to provide 
an owner's manual is an average of $3,750 per hydronic heater or 
forced-air furnace model over the time period of 2015 to 2017, 
according to the Supporting Statement for the 2015 NSPS.\12\ Although 
numerous states expressed their support for these requirements as a 
mechanism to help enforce the 2015 NSPS, some stakeholders have 
questioned whether the EPA has the statutory authority to impose these 
requirements. Stakeholders have also raised other issues regarding the 
warranty requirements. The EPA is, therefore, soliciting comments 
regarding retention, revision, or elimination of the warranty 
requirements. For example, the EPA would be interested in hearing 
whether such requirements are necessary for the safe and efficient 
operation of the wood heater devices. Commenters supporting retention 
of the requirements should address whether any changes are recommended 
to the warranty requirements along with data, as appropriate, and an 
explanation to support their position. Commenters supporting 
elimination of the requirements should provide an explanation to 
support their position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NSPS for New 
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces (40 CFR part 
60, subpart QQQQ). January 2015. pp. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 
12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the docket for this action. Because this action does not 
propose or impose any requirements, and instead seeks comments and 
suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a 
subsequent proposed rule, the various statutes and Executive Orders 
that normally apply to rulemaking do not apply in this case. Should the 
EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, the EPA will address 
the statutes and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure.

    Dated: November 21, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-26082 Filed 11-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P