The EPA use the same OMNI-HPBA formular everywhere, but yes they have lost a bit of funding. The whole anti wood smoke PM concern is weakening due to a lack of 'real' scientific evidence of harm. Their statements of the like, "PM2.5 - commonly known as soot" leave me unimpressed and unfaithful to their environmental closed-shop ponzi schemes. Australia and New Zealand adopted the EPAs formulated change-out scheme. It starts with low income and then moves to the next middle income phase after that. Certification is not performed in real life conditions and stoves do not catalytic converters, HETAS filters, electric fans or the ability to close the damper removed. Most don't need new stoves at all. Still. Good for business. Just make sure it's good for yours. Nelson, NZ where I'm from produced some cheap rubbish with the scheme here - simply due to lab certified in fabricated 'ídeal' combustion conditions. My father, an electrical engineer found a design of cowl that naturally made use of the outside cool air downward pressure, mixing it with the warmer upward flow of combustion gases. It resulted in a perpetual upward flow, consistent flue vacuum, and full protection from adverse weather conditions. That stopped incomplete combustion, increased fuel efficiency and keeps the system clean. I mention this, because with the change-out scheme came unprofessional favoritism and uncompetitive behaviour from the industry. How many steel manufacturers make stoves in Oregon now compared to the late 1970s? What is still the most popular heating fuel? Who wants it not to be the most popular heating fuel? Asthmatics, small children, the elderly, the sick - could it be more emotionally manipulated without toxicology evidence of any such harm. Cost benefit analyses studies yes - for their funding, but what else?