Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rule 

Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events – Rule Revisions 

RIN 2060-AS02 

General Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends providing draft rule text for areas that EPA is taking comment on 

whether language should be included or within guidance to provide context. 

Response: We have reviewed all sections in the preamble where we specifically solicit 

comment and believe that the current proposed rule text reflects those areas for which we 

intend to codify regulatory text. We further believe that the preamble provides sufficient 

detail and notice to commenters to allow us to generate additional needed rule text for the 

final regulatory action. 

2) Reviewer recommends explaining in further detail about when a SIP call applies and 

whether it needs to be to the specific NAAQS that is being considered or in relation to 

any reason. 

Response: We have edited the language in the section, “The Role of the EPA-approved 

SIP in Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas,” at about page 146, to more clearly 

explain that only a SIP call involving the event-relevant NAAQS pollutant would have 

the effect of preventing an approved SIP from being given deference for purposes of the 

not reasonably controllable criterion. 

3) Reviewer recommends explaining why five (5) years is proposed as the timeline for 

reasonable controls instead of other timelines or thresholds. Reviewer also recommends 

requesting comment on other determinations other than just 3 and 10 years for the 

accepted timeline. 

Response: We have added language to section V.E.2 of the preamble to support our 

proposal to consider enforceable control measures implemented in accordance with a SIP 

approved by the EPA within 5 years of the date of a demonstration submittal to be 

reasonable controls with respect to all anthropogenic sources that have or may have 

contributed to event-related emissions. 

4) Reviewer recommends providing a discussion of malfunctions, whether EPA is taking 

stand on malfunctions being included as exceptional events, the history related to 

malfunctions and exceptional events and EPA should take comment on whether they 

should be included and if they were, how that would be done. 

Response: A malfunction at an industrial facility could be considered to be an exceptional 

event if it has not resulted in source noncompliance, which is statutorily excluded from 

consideration as an exceptional event (see CAA 319(b)(1)(b)(iii)), and if it otherwise 

meets the requirements of the Exceptional Events Rule. We have added footnote 57 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

2 

clarifying this relationship. We will consider each exceptional events demonstration on a 

case-by-case basis and on its own merits. We do not wish to use this NPRM to expand 

further on the relationship between malfunctions and exceptional events. 

5) It is unclear for international transport, when section 179B applies and when 319(b) 

applies. If an exceptional event occurs outside of the US, is the exceptional event allowed 

to be exempted from a nonattainment determination. Reviewer recommends clarifying. 

Response: The EPA does not interpret CAA section 179B as the exclusive means to 

address emissions originating from outside of the United States. If international emissions 

originate from an event that meets the definition and proposed requirements of the 

Exceptional Events Rule (that the event affected air quality in such a way that there exists 

a clear causal relationship between the specific event and the monitored exceedance or 

violation, the event was not reasonably controllable or preventable, and the event was 

caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or was a natural 

event), then it may qualify for treatment as an exceptional event under section 319(b). 

If an international event qualifies for treatment as an exceptional event under section 

319(b), then the air quality data may be excluded from NAAQS designation decisions. If 

an area affected by international transport is designated nonattainment, then the affected 

state may submit an attainment plan that does not demonstrate attainment, provided that 

the plan demonstrates that the area would be in attainment by the attainment date “but 

for” emissions originating from outside of the United States. In this case, the EPA has the 

authority to approve the attainment plan under section 179B. 

A large portion of international emissions originate from routine anthropogenic sources. 

When asked whether these emissions could qualify as an exceptional event, the EPA staff 

have responded that such routine international emissions would not quality as an 

exceptional event, because no “event” has occurred. Industry has suggested that the timelimited meteorological process that brings such emissions to a particular U.S. monitoring 

site on a particular day should be considered an “event” and the air quality impact of the 

emissions eligible for consideration under the Exceptional Events Rule. The EPA does 

not wish to use this NPRM to take or propose a position on this recommendation. 

6) Reviewer recommends, to the extent possible, EPA should err on the side of including 

provisions within regulatory language and not including within just a regulatory guide. If 

there are provisions that EPA believes would always meet, EPA should state them within 

the regulatory text and then provide for additional discretion on a case-by-case basis. 

Response: We believe that the current proposed rule text reflects those areas for which 

we intend to codify regulatory text. We further believe that the preamble provides 

sufficient detail and notice to commenters to allow us to generate additional needed rule 

text for the final regulatory action. 

7) Reviewer recommends providing additional explanation as to why PSD permit issues are 

not being resolved within this rulemaking and providing firmer dates for when and 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

3 

potentially how this issue will be resolved. EPA should also discuss how this issue is 

being handled currently and whether there is anything within this rule that could be used 

as guidance for PSD permit determinations. 

Response: We have modified the language in section V.C of the preamble (What types of 

ambient concentration data and data uses may be affected by the Exceptional Events 

Rule?) to clarify our proposed approach – i.e., that data exclusion for purposes of 

establishing background concentrations for PSD permitting issues (and several other 

identified types of regulatory actions) could, but is not required to, follow the provisions 

in the Exceptional Events Rule. For the reasons now more clearly explained in the 

preamble, we do not believe that identifying appropriate background concentrations for 

PSD (or other purposes) constitutes a determination “by the Administrator with respect to 

exceedances or violations of the national ambient air quality standards” and, therefore, 

such applications could follow an alternate path for data exclusion that we will establish 

through the guidance document identified in the preamble. The preamble explains that we 

intend for this alternate path to allow exclusion for PSD purposes in any situation in 

which exclusion would be allowed under the criteria of the Exceptional Events Rule and 

also in other situations, which we will articulate in the guidance. 

8) Reviewer recommends allowing exceptional events to be used for future predictions of 

attainment/nonattainment and not just based on historical information. It is unclear why 

this is being excluded from this rulemaking and whether this will be addressed in a future 

rulemaking. 

Response: We have modified the language in section V.C of the preamble (What types of 

ambient concentration data and data uses may be affected by the Exceptional Events 

Rule?) to clarify our proposed approach regarding exceedances and violations determined 

by future predictions and historical information. 

9) Reviewer recommends discussing how many items are marked as exceptional events in 

either the past year or stated time-period, how many affect or have a high probability to 

affect a regulatory decision, and the average length of time of review it took EPA to 

make these decisions. By providing this information on the status quo, it provides a 

better picture for the public in relation to the efficiency gains and the problem that this 

proposed rule would be resolving. 

Response: While we agree that providing details regarding the number of submitted 

exceptional events claims and the timeframe for demonstration review would help 

readers better understand the efficiency gains realized by this rulemaking, the EPA does 

not have not have a national tracking system for the submission, review, and expended 

resources associated with the exceptional events process because states submit 

exceptional events demonstration packages directly to their reviewing EPA regional 

office rather than through a centralized system or to a centralized organization. In 

addition, each “demonstration” can involve a single hour of monitoring data or hundreds 

of hours of data, so establishing and implementing a consistent accounting approach 

would be difficult. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

4 

10) Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion in relation to the High Wind Dust 

Events in relation to soil types and the propensity to erode as there can be significant 

differences even on a single land parcel with regard to erodibility. 

Response: We have not incorporated additional language in the preamble to address soil 

type as it influences the propensity for erosion as we believe this level of detail is more 

appropriately discussed in guidance. We do, however, note in two places in the preamble 

that the wind speed capable of generating emissions varies by location depending on the 

characteristics of the local landscape, including soil type, soil characteristics and 

vegetation (see language on pp. 136, 138). We also cite Appendix A1 of the EPA’s 2013 

Interim Guidance on the Preparation of Demonstrations in Support of Requests to 

Exclude Ambient Air Quality Data Affected by High Winds Under the Exceptional Events 

Rule, which includes more detail on soil type and erosion. 

11) Reviewer recommends providing a table or text clarifying how many of each Tier 1, Tier 

2, and Tier 3 demonstrations EPA received between 2010 and 2015 and how many were 

approved. This would be beneficial as EPA states that they have approved two Tier 2 

approvals between 2010 and 2011. 

Response: The EPA believes that this comment relates to the Draft Guidance on the 

Preparation of Exceptional Events Demonstrations for Wildfire Events that May 

Influence Ozone Concentrations as the NPRM does not mention the tiering approach for 

wildfire/ozone events. As indicated in the response to comment 10 above, the EPA is 

unable to provide additional detail in response to this comment as we do not have not 

have a national tracking system for the submission, review, and expended resources 

associated with the exceptional events process because states submit exceptional events 

demonstration packages directly to their reviewing EPA regional office rather than 

through a centralized system or to a centralized organization. We do, however, note that 

we concurred with two fire/ozone exceptional events demonstrations in the 2010-2011 

timeframe both of which would have been eligible for the newly proposed Tier 2 

approach. 

 

Federal Land Managers 

1) One reviewer recommends removing the provision for Federal Land Managers (FLMs) to 

submit Exceptional Events (EE) demonstrations be removed from the rule. Specifically, 

the reviewer is concerned that this approach may impede a closer working relationship 

between FLMs and states. Also, while FLMs have wildland fire data, they do not 

necessarily have access to all the needed air quality data, nor the technical expertise 

necessary to demonstrate clear causal relationship between the fire emissions and the air 

quality measured at an affected monitor. FLMs do not have a distributed workforce 

capable of working with each of the states and EPA regions where EE demonstrations 

may likely be required. 

A second reviewer recommends that federal land managers develop EER demonstrations 

if the state chooses or is not able to develop one. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

5 

Response: We are retaining the preamble and rule language proposing that FLMs can 

submit exceptional events demonstrations directly to EPA as some in the federal 

community desire this flexibility and the CAA contemplates that decisions on the 

exclusion of data can be made on the basis of information provided by federal agencies. 

Thus, we believe we should retain the proposed language and solicit broader public 

feedback. If the federal land managers collectively agree to a different approach for the 

NPRM, we would be happy to incorporate consensus language. Ultimately, a federal 

agency, like an affected state, could choose whether or not to submit a demonstration. 

2) Reviewer recommends as one alternative, that EPA describe a process where FLMs 

would petition EPA to address a lack of action by a state to properly process and submit 

an EE application when wildland fire emissions have sufficient attribution as EPA does 

have the authority to take federal actions that affect state implementation plans. The 

FLMs would submit the appropriate supporting information to EPA as it would normally 

to the state. 

a. Page 32. Reviewer recommends revising the first three (3) lines to state the 

following: 

i. . . . .events could affect these same monitors, the EPA proposes to allow FLMs and 

other federal agencies to petition EPA to prepare and process exceptional event 

demonstrations and date exclusion requests. 

Response: For the reasons stated above, we have not incorporated the suggested 

revisions. 

b. Page 32. Reviewer recommends deleting the following sentence: 

i. FLMs and federal agencies have ready access to fire-related information and the 

technical resources needed to prepare analyses to include in exceptional events 

demonstrations. 

Response: We have deleted this sentence. 

c. Page 32. Reviewer recommends adding the following text at the end of the first 

paragraph: 

i. In addition, the state air agency can work directly with the agency that operates the 

affected monitor to request the data be flagged. 

Response: We have added this concept to the identified paragraph on page 32. 

3) While the reviewer recommends the previous comments for FLMs, if those 

recommendations are not accepted, reviewer recommends the proposed preamble and 

rule language be modified to request comments on a generic concept of alternative 

methods of initiating and submitting EE demonstrations, without a specific suggestion 

that FLMs take on or lead such an effort. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

6 

Response: For the reasons stated above, we have not incorporated the suggested 

revisions. In addition, we believe that it is not appropriate for certain entities that are 

under the jurisdiction of the state, such as local regulatory agencies, to submit exceptional 

events demonstrations. Soliciting comment on a generic approach to submitting 

demonstrations could be interpreted as agreeing to accept demonstrations from such 

entities. 

Specific Comments 

1) Page 22-23. Reviewer recommends clarifying the sentence stated below as the language 

seems to imply that EPA is “restating” these interpretative positions in the preamble, 

rather than the Rule, but reviewer believes that the EPA’s restatement is found in the 

proposed rule and thus should be clarified to state that. 

a. EPA is proposing to restate some of the interpretative positions originally stated 

in this section of the preamble to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule for the 

purpose of providing clarity and reducing regulatory uncertainty. 

Response: We have modified the referenced language on pages 22-23 to read, “For 

clarity and regulatory certainty, the EPA is proposing in rule text form some of the 

interpretative positions originally stated in the High Wind Events section of the preamble 

to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule.” 

2) Page 28. Reviewer recommends revising the following sentence to state: 

a. Section 301(d) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to recognize trial authority, to

allowing eligible, federally-recognized tribal governments to implement 

provisions of the CAA. 

Response: We have accepted and incorporated the suggested changes. 

3) Page 39. The preamble states “Air agencies have expressed concern that the EPA might 

interpret the “but for” criterion as implying the need for a strict quantitative analysis to 

show a single value, or at least an explicitly bounded plausible range, of the estimated air 

quality impact from the event.” Reviewer recommends that if these concerns are 

misplaced, EPA should say so. Additionally, EPA has proposed to delete the regulatory 

requirement at 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iv)(D) that “there would have been no exceedance or 

violation but for the event” (i.e., the “but for” criterion). If EPA does not intend for the 

deletion to translate into any qualitative or quantification difference, it may want to make 

this point more expressly here. 

Response: We have modified the referenced language to read: 

“Air agencies have expressed concern that the EPA has, in many cases, 

historically interpreted the “but for” criterion as implying the need for a strict 

quantitative analysis to show a single value, or at least an explicitly bounded 

plausible range, of the estimated air quality impact from the event.” 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

7 

In addition, in the concluding paragraph in this section, we have replaced the language as 

follows to clarify our intent with respect to removing the “but for” criterion, 

“Depending on the event characteristics and the case-by-case nature of the 

evaluation, an air agency may or may not need to provide quantitative analyses or 

estimates to support the weight of evidence approach. The EPA will discuss with 

an air agency the appropriate approach for a given event demonstration during 

conversations preceding the submittal of a demonstration.” 

4) Page 41. Reviewer recommends clarifying what the term “weight of the evidence” 

means for the end user. Specifically, is there a definition or guidance that can be 

provided on page 41? 

Response: We have added footnote 17 to clarify the term “weight of evidence:” “The 

term “weight of evidence” means that the EPA will consider all relevant evidence and 

qualitatively “weigh” this evidence based on its relevance to the Exceptional Events Rule 

criterion being addressed, the degree of certainty, its persuasiveness, and other 

considerations appropriate to the individual pollutant and the nature and type of event.”

5) Page 56. The preamble states “When addressing the not reasonably controllable or 

preventable criterion for this same event type consisting of a mix of natural emissions and 

human-affected emission sources (e.g., a high wind event affecting both open desert areas 

and urbanized lands), air agencies must assess reasonable controls for both the 

contributing natural and anthropogenic sources.” This suggests that it is necessary to 

“consider” controls for events from natural sources, but not necessary to implement such 

controls. It is unclear whether failure to “consider” such controls is a basis to disqualify 

the event from “exceptionalism.” Reviewer recommends clarifying that point. 

Response: We have modified the language as follows: “When addressing the not 

reasonably controllable or preventable criterion for this same event type consisting of a 

mix of natural emissions and human-affected emission sources (e.g., a high wind event 

affecting both open desert areas and urbanized lands), air agencies must assess reasonable 

controls for both the contributing natural and anthropogenic sources. While air agencies 

must “assess” reasonable controls for most types of contributing natural sources because 

this statutory factor applies to all events, they do not necessarily need to implement 

controls for these same sources. Additionally, because the rule revisions propose a 

categorical presumption of not reasonably controllable for wildfires and large-scale, highenergy and/or sudden high wind dust events, “assessing” these events would involve 

referencing the appropriate regulatory citation. As we explain in more detail in section 

V.E.2, for natural sources, we do not think that air agencies need to have implemented 

any controls for windblown dust from never-disturbed, large-scale natural landscapes. 

Therefore, lack of controls on natural sources that contribute to event-related emissions 

would not disqualify the event from being considered as an exceptional event. When 

assessing the contribution from anthropogenic sources...” 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

8 

6) Page 86 – 87, Table 2. Reviewer recommends providing an additional column that 

distinguishes between required and optional text instead of putting it in a note below the 

historical concentration evidence. 

Response: We have incorporated your suggestion to add a 3rd column in Table 2 in the 

preamble and in this same table, which appears as Table 3, in the regulatory language. 

7) Page 88, footnote 53. Reviewer recommends changing “specifically identified” to 

“currently identified.” 

Response: We have incorporated this comment in the footnote (now footnote 58). 

8) Page 99. Reviewer recommends clarifying the sentence that states “Both wildfires and 

prescribed fires are also subject to the ‘not reasonably controlled or preventable’ 

criterion, as are all exceptional events” as it is confusing. It appears logical that 

prescribed fires are reasonably controlled or preventable, because they only occur at 

man’s discretion. The sentence also implies that all prescribed fires are per se, 

exceptional events. If that is not EPA’s intent, we recommend the sentence be reworded. 

Response: We have reworded the sentence as follows, “Demonstrations for Both 

wildfires and those prescribed fires claimed to be exceptional events must also address

are also subject to the ‘not reasonably controlled or preventable’ criterion, as are all 

exceptional events.” 

9) Page 192. Reviewer recommends revising the following sentence to state: 

a. To protect all people and communities, notably minority and low-income 

populations, air agencies should ensure that notifications and education programs 

are communicated using the language (e.g., English and Spanish) and media (e.g., 

radio and postings in local community centers) best suited to the target 

audience(s). 

Response: We have incorporated commenter’s suggested language. 

10) Page 202, the rule states that “The Administrator shall exclude data from use in 

determinations of exceedances and violations, where a State demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction that emissions from prescribed fires caused a specific air 

pollution concentration . . .” The preamble suggested that the authority to make this 

demonstration would, under this proposal, be expanded to federal land managers as well 

as States. This section only applies to States, however. If EPA intends to add federal 

land managers, perhaps the phrase “or, where appropriate, a Federal land manager” 

should be added throughout this subsection. 

Response: We have not incorporated the suggested language as we believe that the 

proposed regulatory language at 50.14(a)(1)(ii)(B) on page 205, which reads, “When 

initiating such a request, all provisions in this section that are expressed as requirements 

applying to a State shall, except as noted, be requirements applying to the federal land 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

9 

manager or other federal agency” addresses the expanded authorities from States to 

federal land managers or other federal agencies. 

11) Page 202, the rule states “With respect to the requirement that a prescribed fire be not 

reasonably preventable, provided there is no compelling evidence to the contrary in the 

record.” Does EPA wish to clarify that it is ultimately EPA’s own call whether submitted 

evidence is or is not “compelling”? Or, does the State have the duty to evaluate whether 

evidence is or is not “compelling”? If so, should the State certify that it has done so? 

This same comment applies to the same language that appears on Page 203 and Page 204 

of the rule. 

Response: In each instance referencing “compelling” evidence in the record, we have 

inserted the language unless/provided “the Administrator determines that there is no 

compelling evidence in the record...” 

12) Page 205. The rule states “The Administrator will accept a high wind threshold of a 

sustained wind of 25 mph for areas in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Texas, Utah, and Wyoming provided this value is not contradicted by evidence in the 

record at the time the State submits a demonstration.” Does EPA want to add a standard 

here explaining how much “evidence” is sufficient to cause EPA to reject this threshold? 

Response: We have not changed the language in the rule text, but we have added 

language in the part of the preamble that addresses this potential scenario. The edited 

language on page 143 now reads, 

“If the EPA receives specific information based on relevant studies that suggest a 

different high wind threshold for an identified area, the EPA will notify the 

affected air agency so that the agency may consider basing its demonstration on 

that threshold value. The EPA would consider such information as part of the 

weight of evidence for a submitted demonstration. In lieu of using the default 25 

mph high wind threshold, air agencies would have the option to identify an areaspecific high wind threshold that is more representative of local/regional 

conditions.” 

13) Page 60 – Reviewer recommends clarifying how multiple day prescribed fires would 

impact wildfires and prescribed fires in relation to the following issue. If there have been 

two prior events of a similar type within a 3-year period in an AQCR, that would 

generally indicate the third event, for which the demonstration is being prepared (or 

would be prepared), does not satisfy the “human activity that is unlikely to recur at a 

particular location” criterion and, thus, would not qualify as an exceptional event. 

Response: We have added language to footnote 39 to indicate that a single “event” could 

influence concentrations on multiple days. 

14) Footnote 39 typo – Reviewer recommends revising “best smoke management practices” 

to “basic smoke management practices.” 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

10 

Response: We have incorporated commenter’s suggested language (now footnote 42). 

15) Page 69 – Reviewer recommends that the following does not apply to wildland fire. 

a. We also propose, as guidance, to consider the direct effects of remote, large-scale, 

high-energy and/or sudden natural events to generally be not reasonable to 

prevent or control. 

Response: We have added language in the preamble (above footnote 48) to clarify that 

this “as guidance” proposal in the preamble applies only to events other than high wind 

events and wildfires on wildland, because the proposed rule text incorporates the concept 

that such high wind and wildfire events are by their nature not reasonably controllable or 

preventable. We do not believe that we need additional guidance given the proposed rule 

text addressing this concept. The proposed rule text for high wind events specifically uses 

the “remote, large-scale” phrasing. In several instances, the preamble text on wildfires 

cites remoteness as a reason why wildfires are not reasonable controllable; the rule text 

simply says that we will consider wildfires to be not reasonably controllable or 

preventable unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. 

16) Page 70 – Reviewer recommends clarifying whether BSMP applies to burning post-storm 

disposal of debris. If so, reviewer recommends mentioning. 

Response: We have added footnote 49 to address the potential consideration of BSMP for 

the incineration of debris associated with the recovery period following a natural disaster. 

17) Page 73 and 74 – Reviewer recommends discussing the need to modify SIP’s to 

incorporate the new wildfire definition be mentioned. 

Response: We have not incorporated additional language in the proposal to indicate the 

potential need for a SIP revision to address the new wildfire definition as this proposed 

action could result in multiple changes to individual SIPs. We do not wish to use this 

NPRM to discuss certain potential revisions while excluding others. 

18) Page 82 and/or 84, Table 1 and/or 2 – Reviewer recommends adding non-FRM 

emergency monitors to the list as the use of non-FRM emergency monitors could help 

show smoke movement and impacts as it hits AQS monitors. 

Response: We have added language in Table 1 (Example Clear Causal Relationship 

Evidence) to indicate that for purposes of showing the occurrence and geographic extent 

of an event, air agencies can use as supporting evidence “Special weather statements, 

advisories, news reports, nearby visibility readings, measurements from regulatory and 

non-regulatory (e.g., special purpose, emergency) monitoring stations throughout the 

affected area, satellite imagery.” 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

11 

19) Page 90 – Reviewer recommends revising the language to ask for dialogue between 

Federal agencies and states as this is done elsewhere in the preamble rather than straight 

to EPA as discussed. 

Response: We have revised the language as follows: “Because there may be special 

considerations regarding air agencies’ authority to regulate activity on federally-owned 

and managed lands (e.g., national parks within the state), states and tribes should consult 

with the appropriate FLM or other federal agency and their EPA regional office early in 

the development of an exceptional events demonstration package if they believe that 

sources on federally-owned and managed land contributed event-related emissions to a 

degree that raises issues of reasonable control.” 

20) Page 94: Reviewer recommends revising the following sentence to state: 

a. The EPA interprets this interstate transport provision to address anthropogenic 

sources of emissions from other states; we believe that is not intended to address 

natural sources of emissions or prescribed fires.

Response: We have not incorporated the suggested edits as we believe that prescribed 

fires, because they are anthropogenic in origin, could be addressed under the interstate 

transport provisions in the CAA. However, as indicated in the current preamble language, 

the EPA does not expect downwind states to provide a case-specific justification to 

support the “not reasonably controllable or preventable” criterion for emissionsgenerating activity that occurs outside of the boundaries of the state (or tribal lands) 

within which the concentration at issue was monitored. 

21) Page 106-107 – Reviewer recommends revising the sentence to state the following: 

a. In such a scenario, even though the fire would meet the definition of a wildfire 

and even though we are proposing that in general wildfires will not need to be 

reviewed individually against the not reasonably controllable or preventable 

criterion, we would expect the fire manager to employ appropriate BSMP as 

described in section V.F.2.d when possible although this use of BSMP is not a 

criteria for EPA concurrence on a demonstration. 

Response: We have not incorporated the suggested edits. We believe the existing 

language provides sufficient flexibility through use of the terms “appropriate BSMP” and 

“when possible.” We will apply a weight of evidence approach when considering the 

merits and case-by-case nature of individual exceptional events demonstrations. 

22) Footnote 82 – Reviewer recommends revising “populated ares” to “populated areas.” 

Response: We have incorporated commenter’s suggested language (now footnote 87). 

23) Page 189 – Reviewer recommends clarifying whether mitigation plans are federally 

enforceable and pay of the SIP. Current state wildfire emergency response plans may fit 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

12 

this need (e.g., OR, WA, CA) but they vary from year to year due to budget and 

personnel. 

Response: We have added language to clarify that neither option for implementing a 

mitigation plan would require that the plan be included in a SIP or otherwise be federally 

enforceable.