Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

52998

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 183 / Friday, September 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
60-minute period exceeds 4 grams per hour using a tapered element oscillating microbalance TEOM following procedures set out in the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management NESCAUM Standard Operating Procedures; or 2 no reported valid test run measurement one-hour filter data exceeds 6 grams per hour from the EPA certification report for the device. See 18 AAC 50.077cbii.
The commenters assert that the new test requirements at 18 AAC
50.077cbii are not reliable indicators of device performance, and that there is insufficient information to approve the use of these test requirements. One commenter, Jotul, states that the one-hour emissions limit established by ADEC is completely arbitrary, and Jotul considers it of utmost importance that any new regulations be developed and promulgated based on sound scientific principles combined with robust data to support the conclusions for establishing new emissions limits and testing protocol.
Hearth & Home Technologies, Inc., Jotul, Kozy Heat Fireplaces, Woodstock Soapstone Company, Myren Consulting, Inc., FPI, Travis Industries, and United States Stove Company do not support relying on the TEOM method.
According to these commenters, TEOM
is a new test that has not undergone significant testing and research and relies on NESCAUM guidance documents that have not undergone peer review.
Blaze King Industries, Inc. and Woodstone Soapstone Company also note the difficulty working with the TEOM device, which might jeopardize the potential for a qualified sample catch and invalidate an otherwise valid test run. Woodstone Soapstone Company notes that there is no definitive method that correlates results captured from a TEOM to results from Method 28 EPA-approved woodstove device test method. Kozy Heat Fireplaces states that the TEOM
equipment has not been tested or incorporated into the Federal certification process and has shown significant variances in testing. An anonymous commenter notes that different stoves burn differently and the total amount of emissions over a burn cycle should be the relevant metric, rather than a one-hour measurement.
Myren Consulting states that the 6
grams per hour limit is arbitrary and capricious because it does not differentiate between the two applicable test methods, EPA M28/28R and American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM E3053, which have
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:01 Sep 23, 2021

Jkt 253001

drastically different operating and fueling protocols. Myren Consulting also notes that the 6 gram per hour limit is being applied in an ex post facto manner and that, had manufacturers known about this limit in advance, they would have had the opportunity to change their woodstove designs and bring their stoves into compliance.
Further, HPBA, Innovative Hearth Products IHP, Kozy Heat Fireplaces, Woodstock Soapstone Company, Myren Consulting, Inc., New Buck Corporation, Rais, FPI, Travis Industries, United States Stove Company, and four anonymous commenters assert that the additional device requirements for new woodstoves and pellet stoves, included in 18 AAC 50.077cbii, are inconsistent with the Federal NSPS
requirements and that the hourly measurements depart from the weighted average emissions limit methodology relied on by the EPAs NSPS. IHP states that individual test runs are conducted as part of a calculation that establishes an overall weighted emissions average that is then compared to standards that have been developed as per ASTM
methods. The commenters state that individual test runs cannot in and of themselves establish a weighted average and therefore cannot determine the overall usage expectancy of any multirate appliance and that any such conjectures by the State of Alaska are erroneous and without merit.
Blaze King Industries, Inc. asserts that the one-hour filter pull requirement for all test runs has eliminated one of the cleanest burning woodstoves 30.2
series by Blaze King, based on an EPA
weighted average. Blaze King Industries, Inc. provides data to support the contention that, during one woodstove device test, the wood did not collapse uniformly, with one piece shifting slightly forward, which resulted in a one-hour filter pull of 8 grams per hour.
Blaze King Industries, Inc. states other stoves that are approved for sale in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area have weighted emissions averages more than twice that of the particular Blaze King device. Woodstock Soapstone Company and Rais also provide an example each of a woodstove that has one of the lowest weighted average emissions of all EPA-certified woodstoves, but due to one test run exceeding 6 grams per hour, would not be approved for sale in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
Another anonymous commenter states that non-catalytic stoves are more userfriendly and require less maintenance, but they are more likely to be rejected under this one-hour requirement because non-catalytic stoves require
PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

more heat to burn cleanly, and they take time to heat up and start burning cleanly. Hearth & Home Technologies, Inc. asserts that the clearest path to cleaner air in the Fairbanks PM2.5
Nonattainment Area is by removing older, pre-1988 wood-burning devices, not by prohibiting certain EPA-certified devices that do not meet Alaskas revised requirements in 18 AAC 50.077.
Response 1: For the ensuing reasons, the comments do not demonstrate that approval of Alaskas revisions to 18
AAC 50.077 is inconsistent with the CAA; therefore, the EPA is finalizing its approval as proposed. Regarding Alaskas rule revisions for wood-fired heating device emission standards under 18 AAC 50.077, the EPA
proposed to find that the revisions submitted by ADEC are more stringent than the current EPA-approved rules.
For the reasons stated in our proposal and in this response, we find that Alaska was not unreasonable in requiring additional testing requirements as a method of regulating the installation and operation of woodstoves. As stated in a prior EPA
action on November 27, 2018 83 FR
60769, approving the Alaska SIP as meeting specific infrastructure requirements for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA disagrees with the premise that states cannot regulate a source category more stringently than may be required in a Federal regulation. The EPAs role is to review and approve state choices if they meet the CAA requirements. There is nothing in the CAA that prevents SIP
provisions from being more stringent than Federal NSPS standards. To the contrary, CAA section 116 explicitly authorizes states to regulate sources more stringently than the EPA does through Federal regulations. Thus, the fact that 18 AAC 50.077 is more stringent than the NSPS for new residential wood heaters does not impact the approvability of these control measures as SIP-strengthening.
In addition, ADEC addressed similar comments during the States public comment period on the SIP revisions. In the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservations Response to Comments on the proposed regulations ADEC Response to Comments,2 ADEC asserted that the purpose of these additional testing requirements is to better reflect actual emissions of wood heaters in the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.
2 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Response to Comments on May 14, 2019, Proposed Regulations, November 19, 2019.
Pages 3738, 5153.

E:FRFM24SER1.SGM

24SER1