UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document 

for

EPA’s Direct Final Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

Butte County Air Quality Management District 

Rule 207 Wood Burning Devices

Prepared by: Rynda Kay

November 2012

 
2

RULE IDENTIFICATION 

Agency: Butte County Quality Management District (BCAQMD)

SIP Approved Rule: There are no previous versions of this rule in the SIP

Superseded Submittals: There are no previous submittals of this rule

Subject of this TSD: Rule 207 - Wood Burning Devices

Adopted - December 4, 2008 

Submitted - April 25, 2012

RULE SUMMARY 

Rule 207 is designed to minimize the impacts of smoke and other air pollutants generated during 

the use of wood burning devices within Butte County. The rule establishes the following 

requirements:

1. Retailers of wood burning devices must provide public awareness materials with the 

purchase of each wood burning device including information on operation/maintenance, 

size selection, fuel use, weatherization methods, fuel storage, and health benefits of lowemission devices. 

2. No wood burning device can be installed in a new or existing interior space, unless it is 

District-approved. A post-installation inspection by a District official is required.

3. All outdoor wood-fired boilers installed within the District must be certified to meet EPA 

standards or equivalent standards as approved by the Control Officer. 

4. No person shall advertise, sell, supply, or transfer ownership of a used wood burning 

device, unless it has been deemed permanently inoperable or is a District-approved device.

5. Fuel for use in wood burning devices is restricted to firewood or other wood/plant-based 

products designed and marketed for this purpose.

6. Criteria for District-approval of wood burning devices is clearly outlined. 

7. Wood burning cook stoves, devices deemed of historical significance, and devices 

transferred via property sale are exempt from the requirements of this rule. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA - The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted rule. . 

1. Enforceability - The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, 

Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (Guidance 

Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, 

August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) 

requirement for enforceability. 

2. SIP Revisions - CAA §110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA §193 
3

prohibits the modification of any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before 

November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area.

3. Rule Stringency - Effective December 14, 2009, EPA designated Chico, California, a 

portion of Butte County, as nonattainment for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 40 C.F.R. § 81.305 (2010); 74 FR 58688, 58705-58706

(November 13, 2009). For this nonattainment area, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal addressing implementation of all Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable, including Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for existing sources, was due December 14, 2012. CAA § 172(b) & 

(c)(1), 74 FR at 58689. On October 30, 2012, EPA published a proposed determination

that the Chico (Butte County) nonattainment area had attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

based on complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that 

this area had monitored attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 

monitoring period. See 77 FR 65651. If EPA finalizes the determination of attainment, the 

requirement for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, together with RACM, a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for failure to meet RFP 

and attainment deadlines would be suspended for as long as this area continues to attain the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If EPA does not finalize the determination of attainment for the Chico nonattainment area, 

the BCAQMD will need to adopt as RACM/RACT any potential PM2.5, SO2, or NOx

control measures that are reasonably available considering technological and economic 

feasibility and that would, considered collectively, advance the attainment date by one year 

or more in the Chico nonattainment area. Id. For purposes of implementing the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA recommends that states evaluate potential RACM/RACT control measures 

for sources of direct PM2.5 (including condensable PM), SO2, and NOx in the specific 

nonattainment area, consistent with the approach to evaluating RACM/RACT provided in 

EPA’s implementing regulations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z. 

See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards to Regional Air Directors, Regions I-X, “Implementation Guidance for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).”

If RACM/RACT is required, because Rule 207 regulates direct PM2.5 emissions from

residential wood-burning devices, the BCAQMD would need to consider whether RACM 

for these emission sources could, in combination with other RACM, advance attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the area by at least one year. Below, we identify several 

additional control options that are generally reasonably available (see “Additional 

Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision”).

EPA EVALUATION 

1. Enforceability - The rule requirements and applicability are clear, and the monitoring, 

recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions sufficiently ensure that affected sources and 

regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rule 207 consistently. 

2. SIP Revisions - We propose to determine that our approval of the submitted rule would 

comply with CAA §110(l) because the Butte County portion of the California SIP does not 

contain any control requirement for wood-burning devices, and our approval of Rule 207

into the SIP would neither alter any existing SIP requirement nor interfere with the ongoing process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are 
4

met. Section 193 of the Act does not apply to our proposed action because this is a new 

rule to the SIP and does not modify any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before 

November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area.

3. Rule Stringency - It is not clear at this time that further measures are needed to fulfill 

RACM or other analogous CAA requirements. 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION 

The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended for 

the next time the rule is amended. We believe many or all of these control options are reasonably 

available considering technological and economic feasibility based on the General Preamble, 

Appendix C2--Available Residential Wood Combustion Control Measures, 57 FR 18072 (April 28, 

1992), and successful implementation of analogous requirements in other areas. 

 Establishing fuel moisture requirements: Many California district rules require that all 

wood sold labelled as “seasoned wood” meet specific moisture criteria (e.g., SMAQCD 

Rule 417, Section 303 and SJVAPCD Rule 4901, Section 5.4). Additionally, several 

Districts have banned the use of unseasoned wood as fuel for wood burning devices (e.g., 

BAAQMD Rule 6-3, Sections 6-3-305, 6-3-306, 6-3-404 and PCAPCD Rule 225, Section

305.1.11).

 Establishing a curtailment program: The District has a successful voluntary curtailment 

program in place and the city of Chico has passed an ordinance making this curtailment 

mandatory within city limits, both of which have likely contributed to recent reductions in 

PM 2.5 NAAQS violations. These programs, however, have not been included in 

provisions approved into the Federally-enforceable SIP. We recommend that the 

provisions detailing voluntary curtailment be included in the Rule and that, if necessary, 

the City of Chico ordinance be included in future EPA submissions.

 Establishing visible emissions limitations: Many California District rules include a 

provision limiting visible emissions outside of fire start-up to <20% opacity (e.g., 

BAAQMD Rule 6-3, Section 6-3-302 and PCAPCD Rule 225, Section 304.2) or other 

opacity measures (e.g., SMAQCD Rule 401, Section 301).

 Requiring the replacement of non-approved devices upon home sale (e.g., PCAPCD Rule 

225, Section 303 and SJVAPCD Rule 4901, Section 5.2).

We also note, additional approaches that may be useful for reducing residential wood smoke are 

presented in the “Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke”, EPA Document # EPA456/B-09-001, October 2009.

EPA ACTION

We propose to determine that BCAQMD Rule 207 fulfils the applicable CAA §110 requirements. 

Therefore, under section 110(k) of the CAA, EPA staff recommends full approval of BCAQMD 

Rule 207. 
5

REFERENCES 

1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” (a.k.a., 

Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988 (web citation).

2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., 

Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 

(http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf).

3. “Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards to Regional Air Directors, Regions I-X, “Implementation Guidance for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

4. “Technical Information Document for Residential Wood Combustion Best Available 

Control Measures”, EPA-450/2-92-002, September 1992.

5. “General Preamble”, Appendix C2--Available Residential Wood Combustion Control 

Measures, 57 FR 18072, April 28, 1992.

6. “Strategies for Reducing Residential Wood Smoke”, EPA Document # EPA-456/B-09-

001, October 2009.

7. Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 417 (October 26, 2006).

8. San Joaquin Valley Unified AQCD Rule 4901 (October 16, 2008).

9. Bay Area AQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3 (July 9, 2008).

10. Placer County APCD Rule 225 (December 13, 2007).