UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document 

for 

EPA’s Direct Final Rulemaking 

for the 

California State Implementation Plan 

Feather River Air Quality Management District Rule 2.0 

Open Burning 

Prepared by: Rynda Kay 

September 2014 
2

RULE IDENTIFICATION 

Agency: Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD 

or the District) 

Submitted Rule: Rule 2.0 – Open Burning 

Amended – October 6, 2008 

Submitted - August 7, 2014 

Rules Previously Approved into the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) to be 

Superseded: 

In the late-1970s and 1980s, Sutter County and Yuba County adopted open burning 

regulations which were approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

inclusion into the California SIP as detailed below. In March 2004, these rules were 

locally merged into FRAQMD Rule 2.0, to apply District-wide and amended again locally 

in October 2008. On August 7, 2014, California Air Resources Board submitted Rule 2.0 

to the EPA for inclusion into the California SIP, specifying this rule would supersede the 

current California SIP rules listed below. 

Sutter County Portion Rules: 

 Rule 2.1, Exceptions to Rule 2.0 (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved 

on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.2, APCO May Issue Burn Permit (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule 

approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.3, Burning on "No-Burn" Days (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule 

approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.4, Exception to Rule 2.3 (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on 

April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.5, Permit Regulations (adopted October 15, 1985, submitted February 10, 

1986, SIP rule approved on February 3, 1987, 52 FR 3226). 

 Rule 2.6, Burning Hours (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 

12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.7, Agricultural Burning Requirement (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule 

approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.8, Range Improvement and Property Being Developed for Commercial or 

Residential Purposes (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 

1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.82, Open Burning of Waste Wood on Property Where Grown (submitted 

February 25, 1980, SIP rule approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550). 

 Rule 2.9, Prohibited Burning (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on 

April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.10, Exceptions (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 

1982, 47 FR 15585). 
3

 Rule 2.11, Fire Prevention (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on 

April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.12, Designated Agencies (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved 

on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.14, Reduction of Odorous Matter (submitted June 30, 1972, SIP rule 

approved on September 22, 1972, 37 FR 19812). 

 Rule 2.15, Orchard and Citrus Heaters (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule 

approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

 Rule 2.16, Cost of Putting Out a Fire (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule 

approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 

Yuba County Portion Rules: 

 Rule 2.0, Open Fires (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP 

rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

 Rule 2.1, Exception to Rule 2.0 (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 

1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

 Rule 2.2, APCO May Issue Burn Permit (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule 

approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550). 

 Rule 2.3, Burning on "No-Burn" Days (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 

16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

 Rule 2.4, Exception to Rule 2.3 (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved on 

January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550 (all except 2.4(a)) and April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585 

(2.4(a)). 

 Rule 2.5, Permit Regulations (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, 

SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

 Rule 2.6, Burning Hours (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP 

rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

 Rule 2.7, Agricultural Burning Requirement (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted 

October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

 Rule 2.8, Forest Management, Range Improvement and Property Being Developed 

for Commercial or Residential Purposes (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule 

approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550). 

 Rule 2.9, Prohibited Burning (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, 

SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

 Rule 2.10, Exceptions (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved on January 

26, 1982, 47 FR 3550). 

 Rule 2.11, Fire Prevention (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, 

SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

 Rule 2.12, Designated Agencies (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved 

on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550). 

 Rule 2.14, Pressure Tank (submitted June 30, 1972, SIP rule approved on 

September 22, 1972, 37 FR 19812). 

 Rule 2.15, Orchard and Citrus Heaters (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule 

approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550). 

 Rule 2.16, Cost of Putting Out a Fire (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 
4

16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523). 

RULE SUMMARY – 

FRAQMD Rule 2.0 is designed to minimize the impacts of smoke and other air pollutants 

generated by open burning conducted within Sutter and Yuba Counties and to assure that 

it is managed consistent with state and federal law. Rule 2.0 allows open burning on 

permissive burn days, provided a permit is obtained; details the types of open burning that 

can be authorized; sets burn time, drying-time, and ignition requirements; establishes burn 

plan requirements for prescribed burns; limits burn acreage for agricultural burning; and 

lists exemptions to rule requirements. 

 

Changes from the approved SIP rules include: 

1. Added numerous definitions in Section E and other editorial changes to improve 

clarity. 

2. Increased stringency by adding requirements for exempted burn types; prohibiting 

open burning at commercial properties, solid waste disposal facilities, burning in 

burn barrels, and burning for the disposal of most commercial and residential 

wood waste; expanding the list of prohibited materials; and removing the 

exemption for fires above specified elevations. 

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 

federal Clean Air Act (CAA) §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability. 

 2. SIP Relaxation - 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 prohibits the modification of any SIP-approved control 

requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area. 

3. Stringency - Open burning emits PM10 and PM2.5 directly, as well as volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are precursors to 

ozone and PM2.5. 

FRAQMD regulates a portion of the Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment area, 

which is classified as Severe-15 under the 1997 and 2008 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (40 CFR § 81.305). . CAA §172(c)(1) 
5

requires nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, FRAQMD must 

implement RACM for open burning if those measures will advance attainment of 

the NAAQS for ozone, when considered collectively with other reasonable 

measures. Additional control measures may be required pursuant to CAA 

§172(c)(1) if both: (1) additional measures are reasonably available; and (2) these 

additional reasonably available measures will advance attainment in the area when 

considered collectively. EPA acts on the State’s RACM demonstrations separately 

based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their 

overall potential to advance the applicable attainment date in Feather River. 

Below, we identify additional control options that may be reasonably available 

(see “Additional Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision”). 

FRAQMD is currently designated attainment for PM10 (40 CFR § 81.305). 

Accordingly, FRAQMD is not subject to the requirement to implement RACM or 

Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for PM10 and PM10 precursors in 

CAA§ 189(b) and (e). Therefore, we are not evaluating Rule 2.0 for compliance 

with RACM or BACM requirements with respect to PM10. 

Effective December 14, 2009, EPA designated the Yuba City-Marysville area, 

which is under FRAQMD jurisdiction, as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). As a result, the area was 

required to implement RACM for PM2.5. On January 10, 2013 (78 FR 2211), 

EPA issued a determination that the area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 

standard based on complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring 

data for the 2009–2011 monitoring period. Under EPA's Clean Data Policy and the 

regulations that embody it, 40 CFR 51.1004(c) (for PM2.5), an EPA determination 

that an area is attaining the relevant standard suspends the area's obligations to 

submit RACM for as long as the area continues to attain. As a result, we are not 

evaluating Rule 2.0 for compliance with RACM requirements for PM2.5 at this 

time. In addition, on May 23, 2013, CARB requested that EPA redesignate the 

Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment for the 2006 24-

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If the Yuba City-Marysville area is redesignated to 

attainment, RACM requirements for PM2.5 will no longer apply. 

EPA EVALUATION - 

1. Enforceability – FRAQMD Rule 2.0 provides greater clarity than the SIPapproved rules because it consolidates all information related to a burn type in one 

rule and provides new definitions. The rule requirements and applicability are 

generally clear, and the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions 

sufficiently ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine 

compliance with Rule 2.0 consistently. 

a. Several provisions in the submitted rules summarized below, however, provide for 

Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) discretion. EPA generally discourages SIP 
6

provisions that allow APCO discretion to independently interpret the SIP, but 

acknowledges that such “Director’s Discretion” may be appropriate if explicit and 

replicable procedures within the rule tightly define how the discretion will be 

exercised to assure equivalent emission reductions.” (Little Blue Book, page 17; 

see also 52 FR 45044, 45109 (November 24, 1987). Section I.8(a) allows for 

“Dry trees, rooted stumps and branches greater than six (6) inches in diameter 

may be ignited even though they cannot reasonably be expected to completely 

burn within the burn hours after approval from the APCO”. 

The District explains that attempting to extinguish such fires can cause more PM 

emissions and nuisance smoke than allowing them to burn out naturally. In 

granting this allowance, they evaluate the impact to nearby receptors and will not 

approve such ignitions if nuisances are anticipated (see “FRAQMD CAA Section 

110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0” p.1). As a result, we also believe that this standard, as 

written, constitutes adequate limitations on APCO’s discretion. 

b. Section J.6 allows the APCO to authorize burning on a no-burn day when such 

authorization would threaten “imminent and substantial economic loss”. While 

“imminent and substantial economic loss” is not explicitly defined, the APCO may 

only authorize such burning when downwind metropolitan areas are forecasted to 

achieve the NAAQS and shall limit the acreage to 200 acres. The District also 

noted that this allowance has not been used since the adoption of the rule 

amendments (see “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0” p.1). We 

believe that these standards constitute adequate limitations on APCO’s discretion. 

However, we recommend the District define “imminent and substantial economic 

loss” in the rule in the future to increase clarity as discussed in the“Additional 

Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision” of this TSD. 

c. Section L.5(c) allows the APCO to determine that residential air quality burn 

permits are not required. While no procedures as to how the APCO will make this 

determination are provided, the District adequately explains that residential burn 

permits have never been required by FRAQMD, were not required in the SIP rules 

being replaced, and that this provision is not being used for attainment purposes 

(see “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0”, p. 2). 

2. SIP Relaxation - FRAQMD provided a detailed rule-by-rule analysis detailing 

where each SIP rule provision can be found in Rule 2.0 or how the rule was 

modified to be more stringent (see “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for 

Rule 2.0”). We generally concur with this evaluation. 

Overall, we find Rule 2.0 incorporates the provisions of the SIP rules and increases 

stringency by adding requirements for exempted burn types; prohibiting open 

burning at commercial properties, solid waste disposal facilities, burning in burn 

barrels, and burning for the disposal of most commercial and residential wood 

waste; expanding the list of prohibited materials; and removing the exemption for 

fires above specified elevations. 
7

We propose to determine that our approval of this submittal would comply with 

CAA §§110(l) and 193 because (1) the proposed SIP revision would not interfere 

with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of 

the NAAQS are met, and (2) the requirements in the submitted rule are more 

stringent than the existing SIP-approved control requirements that they would 

replace. 

3. Stringency – This rule largely implements reasonably available control 

requirements because it is generally as stringent as other California District rules 

for this category. However, some areas are implementing more stringent 

requirements that may be technologically and economically feasible for 

implementation in Yuba and Sutter Counties (see “Additional Recommendations 

for the Next Rule Revision”). EPA will act on the State’s RACM demonstrations 

separately based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and 

their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment dates.

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. 

1. In Section I.8(a), require that vegetation or stumps greater than 12 inches in 

diameter be split to smaller than 12 inches in diameter. See, e.g., Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) Rule 301, Section 306.6. 

2. In Section J.8(a)(1), provide details within the rule of what should be included in a 

“Smoke Management Plan” for prescribed burns of various sizes. See, e.g., San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 4601, Section 5.2, 

and PCAPCD Rule 303, Section 306. 

3. Define “imminent and substantial loss” as used in section J.6(a). See, e.g., 

SJVAPCD Rule 4103, Section 3.18 and PCAPCD Rule 102, Section 237.

4. Include a detailed list of information required for permit applications (e.g., Placer 

Rule 302, Section 401). 

5. Require permitted burners request and receive a daily burn authorization prior to 

conducting open burning (e.g., San Joaquin Rule 4103, Section 6.1.6; and Placer 

Rule 302, Section 404). 

EPA ACTION – 

The submitted Rule 2.0 strengthens the SIP. The rule fulfils the relevant CAA §110 and 

part D requirements. EPA staff recommends full approval of Rule 2.0 pursuant to CAA 

§§ 110(k)(3) 
8

REFERENCES - 

1. FRAQMD Rule 2.0, Open Burning, as amended October 6, 2008 and submitted to 

EPA on August 7. 2014. 

2. “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0”, submitted to EPA on 

August 7, 2014. 

3. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” 

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

4. “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). 

4. SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (Open Burning) (Amended April 15, 2010) and 4106 

(Open Burning) (Amended June 21, 2001). 

5. PCAPCD Rules 102 (Definitions), 301 (Nonagricultural Burning Smoke 

Management), 302 (Agricultural Burning Smoke Management) and 303 

(Prescribed Burning Smoke Management) (Amended February 9, 2012).