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 

General Comments: 

1) The terms “wildland wildfire” and “wildfire”, and the terms “wildland prescribed fire” 

and “prescribed fire” are both used in the preamble. Reviewer suggests using “wildfire” 

and “prescribed fire” globally, with a statement (either as a footnote on the first use of the 

term, or in the definitions section of the rule) that their use in this rule only applies to fire 

in the wildlands. 

EPA Response: We have not made this change, because a reader skipping from section 

to section might miss a single explanation. 

 

2) The terms “on wildland” and “on wildlands” are both used; reviewer suggests using the 

term “in the wildlands” consistently, as this is how the term is generally used in other 

policy and scientific documents. 

EPA Response: We have standardized on “on wildland,” consistent with the approach in 

the Exceptional Events Rule NPRM. 

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 not made this change. The issue of controls that could be 

adopted in a SIP for the second implementation period but that are not implementable by 

2028 is a relevant issue that will be addressed in the new guidance rather than in the rule. 

2) Page 48: Smoke management programs and basic smoke management practices, reviewer 

recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. The proposed §51.308(f)(2)(vi)(E) mirrors the existing §51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) with 

updates to reflect terminology used within the air quality and land management 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

2 | P a g e

communities smoke management community to clarify and promote a common 

understanding of this provision. 

EPA Response: We have made this change. 

3) Page 57, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. This section does not address and does not apply to fires of any type on lands 

other than wildland or to burning on wildland that is for purposes of waste 

commercial logging slash disposal rather than wildland ecosystem health and 

public safety. 

EPA Response: We have made this change. 

4) Page 57 (and elsewhere, unless the particular context is limited to forest lands), reviewer 

recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. The term “ecosystem health” would be preferable to “forest health,” since much 

of the land managed is not forested. 

EPA Response: We have made this change. 

5) Page 59, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. From “...reduce the risk of a prescribed fire escaping during favorable fire 

conditions in the summer...” to “...reduce the risk of a prescribed fire escaping 

during unfavorable fire conditions in the summer...” 

EPA Response: We have adopted the suggestion in comment #6, which is about the 

same two sentences. 

6) Page 59, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. Wildfires tend to occur in the summer when conditions for to wildfire are 

favorable. Land managers tend to conduct prescribed fires at other times to reduce 

the risk of a prescribed fire escaping during favorable wildfire conditions in the 

summer. 

EPA Response: We have made this change. 

7) Page 60, under Table 1, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. Elements of these BSMP could also be practical and beneficial to apply to 

wildfires for areas likely to experience recurring wildfires. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

3 | P a g e

EPA Response: We have made this change. 

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

a. 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: We have not made this change, but we have added explanation to help 

the reader understand the distinction between a “state-certified” smoke management 

program for the purposes of the Exceptional Events Rule (which we have proposed as a 

matter of guidance only should have these six elements) and a smoke management 

program for the purposes of the Regional Haze Rule.

9) Page 61, footnote 37, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. However, §51.309(d)(6)(i) and (iv), under which four western states submitted 

SIPs for the first implementation period, do refer to enhanced smoke management 

programs. This section does not apply to SIPs for subsequent implementation 

periods. As used in these sections the term “smoke management program” 

includes enforceable requirements, which is the key feature of the proposed 

definition. 

EPA Response: We have made this change. 

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

a. ...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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

4 | P a g e

EPA Response: We have not made this change. In the Exceptional Events Rule NPRM, 

we proposed that a state could use the natural fire return cycle as the benchmark for 

“unlikely to recur” not as a sufficient way of showing that a prescribed fire was “not 

reasonable controllable or preventable.” In the regional haze rule context, what a state 

should show is that no additional measures to reduce wildland prescribed fire are needed 

for reasonable progress. Hence, it is the “not reasonably controllable or preventable” 

aspect of the Exceptional Events NPRM approach that is relevant. We are aligning with 

this element via the reference to multi-year land management plans. 

 

11) Page 63, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. However, we encourage states to consider how use of prescribed fire may reduce the 

frequency, geographic scale and intensity of natural wildfires, such that vistas in 

Class I areas will be clearer on more days of the year, to the enjoyment of visitors. 

The EPA believes appropriate use of prescribed fire should be encouraged by EPA 

rules and policies where appropriate, and that unnecessary barriers to its use should 

be removed. 

EPA Response: A modified version of the suggested sentence has been added: “We 

believe appropriate use of prescribed fire needed for ecosystem health and to protect life 

and property from wildfires, with best smoke management practices applied, should be 

encouraged by EPA rules and policies, and that potentially unnecessary barriers to its use 

should be reassessed by the responsible authorities with input from land managers, 

affected communities and stakeholders.” 

12) Page 65, reviewer recommends removing the following sentence below as most states 

will interpret this sentence as a negative and oblique guidance to run prescribed fire 

through a four factor analysis which is not readily applicable to a source such as 

prescribed fire: 

a. However, if a state does not “select” wildland prescribed fire as a source for fourfactor analysis, it must explain why it has not. 

EPA Response: This section has been revised in several ways for greater clarity on this 

point and others. 

13) Page 67, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state below. Reviewer prefers 

that the smoke management program be state-certified rather than included in the SIP to 

allow for adaptation and the noted additional assessment for contribution to catastrophic 

wildfire to occur. This would align with other NAAQS recommendations for smoke 

management programs rather than creating an additional challenge to urgently needed use 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

5 | P a g e

of prescribed fire. With climate change, drought and changing fuel conditions in 

wildland ecosystems, the administrative burden and difficulty imposed by creating a SIP 

based program is not in keeping with the need for the program to address the variability 

envisioned over such a long program as regional haze.: 

a. If a state determines that compliance with a smoke management program is 

required for reasonable progress, then the state should also include the smoke 

management program in the SIP as part of the long-term strategy and periodically 

assess that it is implemented in such a way as to not exclude the use of prescribed 

fires in areas to such an extent that fuels would accumulate to levels that increase 

the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires.. We believe that states can include 

sufficiently detailed, enforceable language in their smoke management programs 

to make them practicably enforceable for SIP purposes (as may not be the case for 

all basic smoke management practices). 

EPA Response: This section has been revised in several ways and now has greater 

clarity that a state is not required to put a SMP into the SIP. The rule is about what makes 

a SIP approvable, and further discussion about implementation is not within the scope. 

 

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

a. 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: This edit, which would change the sentence from being a 

recommendation for use of BSMPs into a recommendation to facilitate use of 

prescribed fires, has not been made. However, this section has been revised in several 

ways that better address the concern behind this suggested edit. 

15) Page 68, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

6 | P a g e

a. Generally, as discussed earlier in this section, we do not expect the total acreage 

subject to prescribed fires in wildland to decrease in the future because prescribed 

fire is needed for ecosystem forest health and to reduce the risk of catastrophic 

wildfires 

EPA Response: This change has been made. 

16) Page 68, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. If the projected RPG for a Class I area is above the URP line due only to the 

anticipated use of wildland prescribed fire needed for ecosystem forest health and 

safety, we do not believe that states should expend valuable analytical and 

decision making resources on additional analysis of measures necessary for 

reasonable progress if they have otherwise satisfied the terms of the Regional 

Haze Rule. 

EPA Response: This change has been made. 

17) Page 68, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. Therefore, as in the case of impacts from sources in other countries as discussed 

in section IV.D, we are requesting comment on a proposed provision that would 

allow states with Class I areas significantly impacted by emissions from wildland 

prescribed fires (and those states with sources contributing to these Class I areas) 

to incorporate this information into the reasonable progress goal framework for 

their regional haze SIPs, provided that the prescribed fires were conducted on a 

fire return interval established according to scientific literature or under multiyear land or resource management plans for wildland areas that have a stated 

objective to establish, restore and/or maintain a sustainable and resilient wildland 

ecosystems and/or to preserve endangered or threatened species through a 

program of prescribed fire and that provide for the use of appropriate basic 

smoke management practices. 

EPA Response: We have not made this change. See response to item 10 above. 

18) Page 69, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. We believe that this should be permitted only if the impacts from such prescribed 

fires have been estimated with methods and data approved by the Administrator 

and developed in consultation with federal land managers, other federal agencies, 

tribes, states and private landowners, as sufficiently reliable for that purpose and 

if the exact manner in which the information is incorporated into the reasonable 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

7 | P a g e

progress goal framework is logical and consistent with the purposes of the CAA 

and the Regional Haze Rule. 

EPA Response: We have added a similar sentence: “Because the manner in which a state 

with a Class I area calculates the uniform rate of progress may affect other states with 

sources that contribute to visibility impairment at the Class I area, we recommend that a 

state seeking approval for such an adjustment first consult with contributing states. Such 

an adjustment would also be a topic for the required consultation with the FLM for the 

Class I area at issue.” As now positioned and cross-referenced, this sentence applies to 

adjustments for both international impacts and prescribed fires. We do not require states 

to consult with tribes, as tribes are not equivalent to states. We also do not want to require 

consultation with “private landowners” since that is an imprecise term. Also, local 

landowners would not be relevant to adjustments for international impacts. 

19) Page 69, footnote 41, reviewer suggests striking text copied from footnote 27 as it is an 

unnecessary contingency for a possible future approach and revising it to state: 

a. 41This information in concept might be incorporated into the reasonable progress 

goal framework in two ways, and possibly other ways also, if valid methods for 

doing so were available. The analysis of IMPROVE monitoring data to develop 

the estimate of “current conditions” could include steps to remove the influence of 

emissions from such prescribed fires; for consistency, projected RPGs would then 

also exclude such influence. Or, the 2064 end point of the URP line could be 

increased by the estimated amount of this influence, such that it represents true 

natural conditions plus the influence of emissions from such prescribed fires 

(plus, possibly, impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the U.S.). At this 

time, the EPA is not proposing a specific approach to incorporation of this 

information, but rather is seeking comment on including in the final rule a 

provision that would allow the Administrator to approve a state’s proposed 

approach to such incorporation on a case-by-case basis. 

EPA Response: To make the notice easier to understand and to facilitate more useful 

public comment, the current version explicitly proposes one particular approach 

(adjustment of the 2064 value) and asks for comment on the other. 

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

language to read the following: 

a. 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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

8 | P a g e

EPA Response: We have revised the definition to be similar to the recommendation: 

“Smoke management program means a framework to minimize the impact of smoke from 

prescribed agricultural and/or wildland management burning operations that includes 

enforceable restrictions on prescribed fire.” 

21) Baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days, Section 

51.308(f)(1)(i), page 18, reviewer recommends stating the following: 

a. For mandatory Class I Federal areas with incomplete data availability for 2000-

2004, the State must establish baseline values using the most recent five complete 

years of monitoring data. 

EPA Response: We have not made this edit. The term “baseline conditions” in this 

context refers to the 2000-2004 period. The most recent five complete years would be 

relevant to “current conditions.” The text now refers to the “closest” 5-year period. 

22) §51.308 Regional haze program requirements, page 21, reviewer notes that Department 

of Interior manages a very large amount of non-forested land on which prescribed fire 

might be used. Therefore, reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state: 

a. “(E) Basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural 

and forestry wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke management 

programs as currently exist within the State for these purposes;” 

EPA Response: We have made this change. 

23) Page 107, reviewer recommends removing the sentence below. However, if a definition 

is necessary, reviewer recommends using the working definition used in the EER NPRM 

so the NAAQS and RHR SIP efforts are not in conflict or inconsistent. Certified smoke 

management programs are acceptable under NAAQS whereas they are not for RHR 

based on this definition. Please clarify what is meant by government agency. 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. 

a. Smoke management program means a program in which users of prescribed fire 

are legally restricted from initiating a prescribed fire due to air quality concerns 

unless a government agency has authorized that action. 

EPA Response: See item 20 above. We believe that a clear definition of “smoke 

management program” is needed because the existence of such a program in a state 

triggers a specific obligation on the part of the state. We do not believe the definition 

should be the same as for a “state-certified smoke management program.” Moreover, the 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

9 | P a g e

six-element definition for a state-certified smoke management program has only been 

proposed so far, and only as guidance. 

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

a. 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 fuels would accumulate to levels that increase the likelihood of 

catastrophic wildfires. 

EPA Response: We have not made this change. See item 13 above. 

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: 

a. ... 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: We have not made this change. See item 10 above.