Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 | P a g e

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rule 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans 

RIN 2060-AS55 

EPA Responses 3/9/2016 

Specific Comments: 

1) Page 12, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. The end date for the second implementation period remains 2028; that is, the 

focus of state planning would be emission reduction measures that should 

be underway implemented by 2028, as required by the current rule. 

EPA Response: We have changed the text to read as follows and added a footnote as 

noted by the asterisk. 

The end date for the second implementation period remains 2028, meaning state plans 

will still focus on emission reduction measures designed to achieve reasonable progress 

by 2028,* as required by the current rule. 

*When considering the “time necessary for compliance,” see 42 USC 7491(g)(1), a state should account 

for this factor by setting an appropriate compliance schedule. The EPA expects that any control measure 

included in a SIP submitted by the proposed July 31, 2021, submission deadline will be feasible to 

implement by 2028. 

8) Page 61, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

b. We are not proposing to define a smoke management program for the purposes of 

the Regional Haze Rule, within §51.301, as as being a program in which users of 

prescribed fire are legally restricted from initiating any prescribed fire due to air 

quality concerns unless a responsible state, local or tribal agency has authorized 

that action. but the EER NPRM working definition of smoke management 

program would include provisions for (i) authorization to burn, (ii) minimizing air 

pollutant emissions, (iii) smoke management components of burn plans, (iv) 

public education and awareness, (v) surveillance and enforcement, and (vi) 

program evaluation. 

EPA Response: See separate doc file entitled “RH NPRM SMP aspect 03_09_2016”
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 | P a g e

10) Page 62, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

c. ...a prescribed fire is presumptively not reasonably preventable (in the sense that 

it not would have been reasonable to not conduct it, because of the multiple 

important benefits that would have been foregone) if conducted on a fire return 

interval established according to scientific literature or a multi-year land or 

resource management plan for a wildland area has a stated objective to establish, 

restore and/or maintain a sustainable and resilient wildland ecosystem and/or to 

preserve endangered or threatened species through a program of prescribed fire 

and the use of prescribed fire in the area has not exceeded the frequency indicated 

in that plan. 

EPA Response: See separate doc file entitled “RH NPRM Rx fire multi-year plan aspect 

03_09_2016” 

 

 

14) Page 67, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

d. It is not our intent to discourage federal, state, local or tribal agencies or private 

land owners from taking situation-appropriate steps to utilize minimize emissions 

from prescribed fires on wildlands, or other types of lands, by proposing these 

revisions to the Regional Haze Rule revisions. The EPA joins the FLMs in 

encouraging all land owners and managers to apply appropriate basic smoke 

management practices to reduce emissions from prescribed fires. The EPA 

understands that the FLMs will be apply these measures routinely and will be 

available to consult with other agencies and private parties interested in doing the 

same. We also encourage any state with an existing smoke management program 

or considering the adoption of a smoke management program to consider how its 

provisions may affect the ability of land owners and managers to apply prescribed 

fire where it is needed for wildland ecosystem health and to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires as discussed earlier in this section. 

EPA Response: Passage has been edited to read as follows: 

While the Regional Haze Rule thus does not require regional haze SIPs to include 

measures to limit emissions from prescribed fire, it is not our intention to in any way 

discourage federal, state, local or tribal agencies or private land owners from taking 

situation-appropriate steps to minimize emissions from prescribed fires on wildlands, 

or other types of lands. The EPA joins the FLMs in encouraging all land owners and 

managers to apply appropriate basic smoke management practices to reduce 

emissions from prescribed fires. The EPA understands that the FLMs apply these 

measures routinely and will be available to consult with other agencies and private 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 | P a g e

parties interested in doing the same. We also encourage any state with an existing 

smoke management program or considering the adoption of a smoke management 

program to consider how its provisions may affect the ability of land owners and 

managers to apply prescribed fire where it is needed for wildland ecosystem health 

and to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires as discussed earlier in this section. 

20) Definition of Smoke Management, Section 51.301, reviewer recommends changing 

the language to read the following: 

e. A Smoke Management Program is framework of tools used, collectively, to 

minimize the impact of smoke from prescribed agricultural, forest, and range land 

management burning operations and when adopted into the state implementation 

plan can include enforceable restrictions on prescribed fire. 

 

EPA Response: See separate doc file entitled “RH NPRM SMP aspect 03_09_2016” 

24) Page 120 (E), reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

f. Basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural and 

forestry management purposes and smoke management programs as currently 

exist within the State for these purposes; and periodically assess that they are 

implemented in such a way as to not exclude the use of prescribed fires in areas to 

such an extent that allow fuels towould accumulate to levels that increase the 

likelihood of catastrophic wildfires. 

EPA Response: See separate doc file entitled “RH NPRM SMP aspect 03_09_2016” 

(responsive in part to this comment) 

25) Page 123 (vi), reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state as 75% of 

wildland burning in the US is conducted by state and private land managers and owners 

and they do not have multiyear plans: 

g. ... emissions from prescribed fires that were conducted on a fire return interval 

established according to scientific literature or under multi-year land or resource 

management plans for a wildland areas...

EPA Response: See separate doc file entitled “RH NPRM Rx fire multi-year plan aspect 

03_09_2016”