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

1 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rule 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements 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 follows: 

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 implementation of a new smoke management program, 

or it may adopt a smoke management program. We recommend that in either case, the smoke 

management program should be designed so that it does not inappropriately restrict prescribed 

fires with these benefits. If a state determines that compliance with a smoke management 

program of a particular design is required for reasonable 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 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). We recommend that a smoke management program that is made part of 

the long-term strategy not impose unnecessary barriers to prescribed fire use on wildland for 

ecosystem health and safety purposes. One of the distinguishing elements of a smoke 

management program is a provision for periodic program evaluation. We recommend that every 

smoke management program include a plan for this periodic assessment by the responsible 

authorities that provides for input from land managers, affected communities and stakeholders. 

This evaluation should include an assessment of whether the program is meeting its goals 

regarding improving ecosystem health and reducing the 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 summary 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 management programs in existence in 

the state. 

Add the indicated footnote: 

The term “smoke management program” is not currently defined in the Regional Haze 

Rule. At the time of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, the term was generally used to mean a 
EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 

framework that included (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. 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 prescribed fire may be conducted. The 

proposed §51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) would make a certain state 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 management 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 educational programs designed to raise air 

quality awareness of potential prescribed fire users, 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 appropriate to have the obligation in 

§51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) triggered by the existence of these types of programs.1

 

1

 If a state has one or more programs of these latter types in existence at the time it submits its 

periodic SIP revision but a smoke management program with the six distinguishing elements 

does not exist in the state at that time, then with respect to prescribed fire as a cause of visibility 

impairment the state would be required only to consider basic smoke management practices and 

to meet the requirements of §51.308(f)(2) that generally 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 whether the program or programs have been 

incorporated into the SIP as enforceable measures or described in the narrative portion of the 

SIP.