### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft La nguage under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er Policy Review.

1 | P a g e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rul e

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans

RIN 2060-AS55 

## EPA Responses 3/9/2016

Specific Comments:

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

a. The end date for the second implementation period r emains 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 add ed a footnote as noted by the asterisk.

The end date for the second implementation period r emains 2028, meaning state plans will still focus on emission reduction measures des igned to achieve reasonable progress by 2028,* as required by the current rule.

*When considering the “time necessary for complianc e,” see 42 USC 7491(g)(1), a state should account for this factor by setting an appropriate complianc e schedule. The EPA expects that any control measur e 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 senten ce to state:
b. We are not proposing to define a smoke management p rogram 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 initiat ing 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 o f smoke management program would include provisions for (i) authorizat ion to burn, (ii) minimizing air pollutant emissions, (iii) smoke management compone nts of burn plans, (iv) public education and awareness, (v) surveillance an d 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 La nguage under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er Policy Review.

2 | P a g e 10) Page 62, reviewer recommends revising the sente nce 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) i f conducted on a fire return interval established according to scientific litera ture 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 mul ti-year plan aspect 03_09_2016”

14) Page 67, reviewer recommends revising the sente nce 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 a ppropriate basic smoke management practices to reduce emissions from presc ribed fires. The EPA understands that the FLMs will be apply these measu res routinely and will be available to consult with other agencies and privat 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 p rogram to consider how its provisions may affect the ability of land owners an d managers to apply prescribed fire where it is needed for wildland ecosystem heal th 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, i t 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 f rom 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 managemen t practices to reduce emissions from prescribed fires. The EPA understand s 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 La nguage under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er Policy Review.

3 | P a g e parties interested in doing the same. We also encou rage any state with an existing

smoke management program or considering the adoptio n of a smoke management program to consider how its provisions may affect t he ability of land owners and managers to apply prescribed fire where it is neede d 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 us ed, collectively, to minimize the impact of smoke from prescribed agricu ltural, forest, and range land management burning operations and when adopted into the state implementation plan can include enforceable restrictions on prescr ibed 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 fir e used for agricultural and forestry management purposes and smoke management p rograms as currently exist within the State for these purposes; and peri odically 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 to would 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 an d private land managers and owners and they do not have multiyear plans:

g. ... emissions from prescribed fires that were conduct ed on a fire return interval established according to scientific literature or u nder multi-year land or resource management plans for a wildland areas...

EPA Response: See separate doc file entitled “RH NPRM Rx fire mul ti-year plan aspect 03_09_2016”