### 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

General Comments:

1) The terms “wildland wildfire” and “wildfire”, and t he terms “wildland prescribed fire” and “prescribed fire” are both used in the preamble . Reviewer suggests using “wildfire” and “prescribed fire” globally, with a statement (e ither as a footnote on the first use of the term, or in the definitions section of the rule) th at their use in this rule only applies to fire
in the wildlands.

EPA Response: We have not made this change, because a reader skip ping 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 ho w the term is generally used in other policy and scientific documents.

EPA Response: We have standardized on “on wildland,” consistent w ith 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 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 not made this change. The issue of controls that could be adopted in a SIP for the second implementation peri od 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 manageme nt practices , reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state:

a. The proposed §51.308(f)(2)(vi)(E) mirrors the exist ing §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 La nguage under

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

2 | P a g e communities smoke management community to clarify a nd 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 wildl and ecosystem health and public safety.

EPA Response: We have made this change.

4) Page 57 (and elsewhere, unless the particular conte xt 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 escapin g during favorable fire
conditions in the summer...” to “...reduce the risk of a prescribed fire escaping during un favorable 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 conditio ns 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 favor able wildfire conditions in the

summer.

EPA Response: We have made this change.

7) Page 60, under Table 1, reviewer recommends revisin g 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 La nguage under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er 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 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: We have not made this change, but we have added exp lanation to help
the reader understand the distinction between a “st ate-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 eleme nts) 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 fou r western states submitted SIPs for the first implementation period, do refer to enhanced smoke management programs. This section does not apply to SIPs for s ubsequent 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) 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.

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

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

4 | P a g e EPA Response: We have not made this change. In the Exceptional Ev ents 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 show ing that a prescribed fire was “not reasonable controllable or preventable.” In the reg ional haze rule context, what a state
should show is that no additional measures to reduc e wildland prescribed fire are needed for reasonable progress. Hence, it is the “not reas onably 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 m anagement 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 natura l wildfires, such that vistas in Class I areas will be clearer on more days of the y ear, 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 unne cessary barriers to its use should

be removed.

EPA Response: A modified version of the suggested sentence has be en added: “We believe appropriate use of prescribed fire needed f or ecosystem health and to protect life and property from wildfires, with best smoke manage ment practices applied, should be encouraged by EPA rules and policies, and that pote ntially 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 obli que 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 pres cribed 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 g reater 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-certifie d rather than included in the SIP to allow for adaptation and the noted additional asses sment for contribution to catastrophic wildfire to occur. This would align with other NAAQ S recommendations for smoke management programs rather than creating an additio nal challenge to urgently needed use

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

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

5 | P a g e of prescribed fire. With climate change, drought a nd 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 t he program to address the variability envisioned over such a long program as regional haz e.:

a. If a state determines that compliance with a smoke management program is required for reasonable progress, then the state sh ould also include the smoke management program in the SIP as part of the long-t erm strategy and periodically assess that it is implemented in such a way as to n ot exclude the use of prescribed

fires in areas to such an extent that fuels would a ccumulate to levels that increase the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires.. We belie ve that states can include sufficiently detailed, enforceable language in thei r smoke management programs to make them practicably enforceable for SIP purpos es (as may not be the case for all basic smoke management practices).

EPA Response: This section has been revised in several ways and n ow has greater clarity that a state is not required to put a SMP i nto the SIP. The rule is about what makes a SIP approvable, and further discussion about impl ementation 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 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: This edit, which would change the sentence from bei ng a recommendation for use of BSMPs into a recommendati on 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 su ggested edit.

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

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

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er 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 r educe 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 th e 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 satisfie d 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 i n other countries as discussed in section IV.D, we are requesting comment on a pro posed provision that would allow states with Class I areas significantly impac ted by emissions from wildland prescribed fires (and those states with sources con tributing to these Class I areas) to incorporate this information into the reasonable progress goal framework for their regional haze SIPs, provided that the prescri bed fires were conducted on a fire return interval established according to scien tific literature or under multiyear land or resource management plans for wildland areas that have a stated objective to establish, restore and/or maintain a s ustainable and resilient wildland ecosystems and/or to preserve endangered or threate ned species through a program of prescribed fire and that provide for th e 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 th e impacts from such prescribed fires have been estimated with methods and data app roved by the Administrator and developed in consultation with federal land man agers, other federal agencies, tribes, states and private landowners, as sufficie ntly reliable for that purpose and
if the exact manner in which the information is inc orporated into the reasonable

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

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

7 | P a g e progress goal framework is logical and consistent w ith the purposes of the CAA

and the Regional Haze Rule.

EPA Response: We have added a similar sentence: “Because the mann er 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 require d 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 pres cribed fires. We do not require states to consult with tribes, as tribes are not equivalen t to states. We also do not want to require consultation with “private landowners” since that i s an imprecise term. Also, local landowners would not be relevant to adjustments for international impacts.

19) Page 69, footnote 41, reviewer suggests striking te xt copied from footnote 27 as it is an unnecessary contingency for a possible future appro ach and revising it to state:

a. 41 This information in concept might be incorporated i nto 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 mo nitoring data to develop
the estimate of “current conditions” could include steps to remove the influence of emissions from such prescribed fires; for consisten cy, 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 inclu ding in the final rule a provision that would allow the Administrator to app rove a state’s proposed approach to such incorporation on a case-by-case ba sis.

EPA Response: To make the notice easier to understand and to faci litate more useful public comment, the current version explicitly prop oses one particular approach (adjustment of the 2064 value) and asks for comment on the other.

20) Definition of Smoke Management, Section 51.301, rev iewer recommends changing the language to read the following:

a. 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.

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

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er 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 f rom prescribed agricultural and/or wildland management burning operations that includes enforceable restrictions on prescribed fire.”

21) Baseline visibility conditions for the most impaire d and clearest days, Section 51.308(f)(1)(i), page 18, reviewer recommends stati ng the following:

a. For mandatory Class I Federal areas with incomplete data availability for 2000- 2004, the State must establish baseline values usin g the most recent five complete years of monitoring data.

EPA Response: We have not made this edit. The term “baseline cond itions” in this context refers to the 2000-2004 period. The most re cent five complete years would be
relevant to “current conditions.” The text now refe rs 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-fore sted land on which prescribed fire might be used. Therefore, reviewer recommends revi sing the sentence to state:

a. “(E) Basic smoke management practices for prescribe d fire used for agricultural and forestry wildland vegetation management purpose s and smoke management programs as currently exist within the State for th ese 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 conflic t or inconsistent. Certified smoke management programs are acceptable under NAAQS wher eas they are not for RHR based on this definition. Please clarify what is m eant by government agency. The EER NPRM working definition of smoke management program : “would include provisions for (i) authorization to burn, (ii) minimizing air poll utant 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 acti on.
EPA Response: See item 20 above. We believe that a clear definiti on 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 s tate. 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 La nguage under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Furth er 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 sent ence to state:

a. 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 fuels would accumulate to level s 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 sen tence 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 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: We have not made this change. See item 10 above.