On 10/20/23 we received a third Notice of Violation (NOV) from the Placer County Air District. Even more conciliatory than the first two NOVs - and they cut the penalty in half. We still think we might win in court arguing that we were denied due proces and that in practice the Air Distyrict rules affecting masonry fireplaces are interpreted and enforced by the Building Department. But that would cost probably at least $50,000 more in leagal fees. We will see what supprort we may have from the industy and find out if we can file suit later if we pay this penalty. ***** The first two coments seem to make our case that we are not guilty: (1) We didn't advertise in Placer County nor did we initiste the sale of the Rumford fireplace and (2) We thought the building official determined compliance with Rule 225 and by issuing a building permit we thought the fireplace was approved. The third point is not quite right. We never climed to be a masonry heater. we only tried to point out that masonry heaters are permitted without testing and we had passed the only masonry heater test we knew about in Colorado demonstrating that Rumford fireplace are as clean-burnng as masonry heaters.

We did wonder how maosnry heaters became excpted in Rule 225. Maybe becasue they are excepted in the EPA Phase II regulation - but so are fireplaces. Looking for a way to resolve the issue we did propose tht we ask the Air Disgtric Board to consider excepting Rumford fireplaces in the same sort of way they except masonry heaters. But, without affording us the opportunity of going to the Board, the Air District has charactgerized our effort as requesting them to "relax" or "backslide" their rule. Not true. We think Rumford fireplaces are every bit as clean-burning as masonry heaters and EPA certified stoves if tested appropriately by EPA developed methiods but we have been denied the opportunity to make the case. The District's last point that the Ruford litterally doen not meet the stove emisione rate expressed in g/hr is litterally true but not sensible as we have explained to them elsewhere. They say the Rule is intended to be interpreted literally. That may allow us another legal avenue. Not permitting a whole segment of the industry from beingg treated fairly and not providing any way to amend or interpret Rule 225. The idea that any rule can be interpreted litteraly without question, especially when the rule is full of ambiguities and contradictions and that you cant change the rule is rediculous.

To determine before deciding before 11/15/23: If not paid the "District will seek resolution though court action". Does that allow for a motion to dismiss or a plea of not guilty or is it just enforcement of the penalty? "... the District agrees to refrain from seeking additional penalties with regard to the violation(s) set forth in this NOV." But they reserve the right to "use evidence ... in subsequant and separate enforcement actions." Seems vague in light of the fact they haven't charged us with any specific violation. By paying the penalty, "the alleged violator does not indicate acceptance of guilt." Can we still sue the District for violation of due process, restaint of trade, if they charge the customer or to recover legal fees? Do we have any protection in case the customer sues us? Or must we press on for dismissal or judgement of not guilty?

Placer County Threat
Back to Fireplace Emissions Regulations
Buckley Rumford Fireplaces
Copyright 1995 - 2023 Jim Buckley
All rights reserved.
webmaster