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

1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rul e
Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirement s for State Plans

RIN 2060-AS55

March 11, 2016

EPA Proposals, Part 2

I. Issue: Recommendation on SMPs

At about page 68, revise a paragraph to read as fol lows:

Although not required to select prescribed fires as a source category subject to four-factor analysis, if the state elects to do so, then given the benefits of prescribed fires including the reduction they can achieve in visibility-obscuring smoke from wildfires, a state may determine that reasonable progress does not require implement ation of a new smoke management program, or it may adopt a smoke management program. We reco mmend that in either case, the smoke management program should be designed so that it do es not inappropriately restrict prescribed

fires with these benefits. If a state determines th at compliance with a smoke management program of a particular design is required for reas onable progress, then the state must include the smoke management program in the SIP as part of the long-term strategy. We believe that states can include sufficiently detailed, enforceable lang uage 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). We recommend that a smoke ma nagement program that is made part of the long-term strategy not impose unnecessary barri ers to prescribed fire use on wildland for ecosystem health and safety purposes. One of the di stinguishing elements of a smoke management program is a provision for periodic prog ram evaluation. We recommend that every smoke management program include a plan for this pe riodic assessment by the responsible authorities that provides for input from land manag ers, affected communities and stakeholders.

This evaluation should include an assessment of whe ther the program is meeting its goals regarding improving ecosystem health and reducing t he damaging effects of catastrophic wildfires. We are proposing to add to §51.308(g) a requirement for the periodic progress report on a state’s regional haze program to include a sum mary of the most recent periodic assessment of any smoke management program that is part of the long term strategy.

II. Fire-related state programs that are not “smoke man agement programs in existence in

the state.

Add the indicated footnote:

The term “smoke management program” is not currentl y defined in the Regional Haze Rule. At the time of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, t he term was generally used to mean a

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

2 framework that included (i) authorization to burn, (ii) minimizing air pollutant emissions, (iii) smoke management components of burn plans, (i v) public education and awareness, (v) surveillance and enforcement and (vi) program e valuation. We believe this usage of the term is still appropriate. By “authorization to burn,” we mean that a government authority restricts where, when and/or by whom a pr escribed fire may be conducted. The proposed §51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) would make a certain s tate obligation depend on whether a “smoke management program” currently exists within a state. See “ Consideration of control measures for wildland prescribed fire ” in this section for further discussion of this point. We do not consider the term smoke manag ement program for the purposes of §51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) to mean programs that includes only seasonal restrictions on burning because of fire safety concerns, voluntary educatio nal programs designed to raise air quality awareness of potential prescribed fire user s, voluntary programs in which land managers agree to coordinate their prescribed fire activities but are free to withdraw from the program at any time or some combination of the above. The EPA supports these latter types of programs, but we do not believe it is appr opriate to have the obligation in §51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) triggered by the existence of t hese types of programs. 1

1 If a state has one or more programs of these latte r types in existence at the time it submits its periodic SIP revision but a smoke management progra m with the six distinguishing elements does not exist in the state at that time, then with respect to prescribed fire as a cause of visibilit y impairment the state would be required only to cons ider basic smoke management practices and to meet the requirements of §51.308(f)(2) that gene rally apply when a state considers additional measures for emission sources of any type. We note that the determining factor is the existence of a program or programs and their elements, not wh ether the program or programs have been incorporated into the SIP as enforceable measures o r described in the narrative portion of the
SIP.