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

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 9, 2016

Issue: §51.308(f)(2)(v)(E)

Reviewer recommends the information below:

I. New Proposal by EPA

Preamble Section IV.E

Background on wildland fire . .....The term “smoke management program” has been u sed in several ways within the air quality and land manage ment communities, but is not currently defined in the Regional Haze Rule or used in §51.30 8. At the time of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, the term was generally used to mean a framewo rk that included (i) authorization to burn, (ii) minimizing air pollutant emissions, (iii) smok e management components of burn plans, (iv) public education and awareness, (v) surveillance an d enforcement and (vi) program evaluation. We believe this usage of the term is still appropri ate. By “authorization to burn,” we mean that a government authority restricts where, when and/or b y whom a prescribed fire may be conducted. We are proposing to define a smoke management progr am for the purposes of the Regional Haze Rule, within §51.301, as being a framework to minim ize the impact of smoke from prescribed agricultural and/or wildland management burning ope rations that includes enforceable restrictions on prescribed fire. The restriction on prescribed fire could consist of a requirement for a specific permit or permission issued for the particular fire, or a provision in the rules of the program could allow any land owner or manager to bu rn during a time period for which it has been announced that conditions are anticipated to b e favorable to smoke dispersion. A definition of smoke management program would provide more clar ity to the Regional Haze rule because

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 po int. We do

not intend consider the term smoke management program for the purposes of §51.308(f)(2)(v)(E)

to mean include a program s that includes only a seasonal restriction s on burning because of fire safety concerns

, or a voluntary educational program s 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 wi thdraw from the program at any time, or some

combination of the above . This distinction is intended to avoid misundersta ndings due to use of inconsistent terminology. The EPA supports these latter types of both fire safety restrictions and educational and voluntary programs, but we do not believe it is appropriate to have the obligation in §51.308(f)(2)(v)(E) triggered by the existence o f these types of programs. . intend the Regional Commented [A1]: Reviewer is unsure how this applies for states that have these programs currently cited or ref erenced in their RHR SIPs. Are they out? Do they need to become more stringent? It is unclear what volunteer programs run by State Forestry need to do?

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

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

2 Haze Rule to be a vehicle for encouraging or requir ing states to implement such programs. Smoke management programs commonly include a signif icant education and outreach component and may be administered by the same state or local agencies that enforce safetyrelated restrictions on prescribed fire and open bu rning. We also note that in our recent proposal to revise the Exceptional Events Rule , we proposed (as a matter of guidance but not rule text) that a smoke management program would have to have six elements in order to be considered a “state certified smoke management program” (in addi tion to the requirement that a state official has certified the program). One of those six elemen ts is the regulatory element that is the single distinguishing feature of a smoke management progra m in the proposed definition for the purposes of the Regional Haze Rule. The other five elements are minimizing air pollutant emissions, smoke management components of burn plan s, public education and awareness, surveillance and enforcement, and program evaluatio n. We support states considering making all six elements as part of any smoke management plan. We also believe that all six elements are important in a “state-certified smoke management pr ogram” for purposes of the Exceptional Events Rule because of the special status of a “sta te-certified smoke management program” under the Exceptional Events Rule as one path to sa tisfying the requirement that a prescribed fire event be not reasonably controllable or preventable . In the context of regional haze, however, we are not incorporating the additional five elements into the definition of a smoke management program because we believe that the existence of a program lacking one or more of these elements should trigger the obligation for a state to consider improvement to the program as part of developing its long-term strategy. See “Consider ation of control measures for wildland prescribed fire” in this section for further discus sion of this point.

* * *

Consideration of control measures for wildland pres cribed fire . Under existing §51.308(d)(2)(i) and proposed revised §51.308(f)(2)(v), a state is r equired to identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the state in de veloping its long-term strategy and the criteria

used to select the sources for which additional emi ssion reduction measures were considered in light of the four reasonable progress factors. Exis ting §51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) more specifically requires a state to consider “smoke management tech niques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently ex ist within the State for these purposes.” As explained in section IV.B, in carrying this paragra ph forward into the revision of §51.308(f) that will make it free standing, we are proposing to upd ate some of the terminology but not the meaning of this paragraph. Proposed §51.308(f)(2)(v )(E) would require states to consider “basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke management programs a s currently exist within the state for these purposes.”

Taken together, we interpret these provisions to me an that every state must consider whether wildland prescribed fires contribute to impairment at their own Class I areas or Class I areas in other states. If they do not contribute to any mean ingful degree, the SIP may take note of this and thereby satisfy both provisions. If prescribed fire s in a state contribute meaningfully to

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

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

3 impairment at a Class I area, the state is required to consider basic smoke management practices for prescribed fires in the development of its long -term strategy, regardless of whether or not those practices are currently being implemented, re quired by state law or mandated by an EPAapproved SIP. The state would be required to consid er only smoke management programs as currently exist within the state. We believe that the state should in this situation give new

consideration to the effectiveness of its smoke man agement programs in protecting air quality while also allowing appropriate prescribed fire for ecosystem health. The state could also consider the implementation of a new smoke manageme nt program.

We would like to make clear that taken together, th ese two provisions do not necessarily require any state to “select” wildland prescribed fire (und er §51.308(f)(2)(v)) as an anthropogenic source of visibility impairment for which it must consider and analyze emission reduction measures (such as a smoke management program and basic smoke management practices) based on the four reasonable progress factors listed in §51.308( f)(2)(i). Thus, a state is not necessarily required to develop cost estimates for smoke manage ment programs or basic smoke management practices. However, if a state does not “select” wi ldland prescribed fire as a source for fourfactor analysis, it must explain why it has not. As previously stated, the explanation may be as simple as taking note that prescribed fires do not make a meaningful contribution to visibility impairment at in-state and nearby Class I areas. Wh ere prescribed fires are more important, it may be sufficient for the SIP revision to explain t he role of properly planned and managed prescribed fire as described in this section, the s tate’s ongoing smoke management programs, if any, and the current and possibly increased future use of basic smoke management practices by federal, state, local and private land managers, bu t not to “select” wildland prescribed fire as a source category for four-factor analysis.

If a state does “select” wildland prescribed fire a s a source for four-factor analysis, the state must conclude this analysis by determining whether addit ional measures to reduce emissions from wildland prescribed fire are necessary for reasonab le progress. Any such measures must be included in the long-term strategy. Because some of the basic smoke management practices are difficult to describe with the specificity needed t o make them practically enforceable, it may not be appropriate to conclude that a SIP requirement f or the use of each practice is necessary for reasonable progress. For example, one basic smoke m anagement practice is to monitor the effects on air quality due to the smoke plume from a prescribed fire. “Monitoring” could include ground-based visual observations, aircraft observat ions, meteorology-based modeling, fixed or portable air quality monitoring stations, hand-held monitors, etc. Because the most appropriate monitoring approach is often situation and resource -specific, mandating a specific approach is inadvisable. Further, requiring a prescribed fire m anager to document that a required monitoring approach was used could distract resources from man aging the prescribed fire and communicating with potentially affected members of the public. Therefore, a SIP commitment for a state or local agency to promote the use of b asic smoke management practices could be more desirable than a SIP requirement for land mana gers to use each basic smoke management practice.

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

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

4 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 recommend that in either case, the smoke management program should be designed so that it does not inappropriately restr ict prescribed fires where it is needed for wildland ecosystem hea lth, public safety and to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires with these benefits. If a st ate determines that compliance with a smoke management program of a particular design is requir ed for reasonable progress, then the state should include the smoke management program in the SIP as part of the long-term strategy. We believe that states can include sufficiently detail ed, enforceable language in their smoke management programs to make them practicably enforc eable for SIP purposes (as may not be the case for all basic smoke management practices).

While the Regional Haze Rule thus does not require regional haze SIPs to include measures to limit emissions from prescribed fire, it is not our intention to in any way discourage federal, state, local or tribal agencies or private land own ers from taking situation-appropriate steps to minimize emissions from prescribed fires on wildlan d, or other types of land. The EPA joins the FLMs in encouraging all land owners and managers to apply appropriate basic smoke management practices to reduce emissions from presc ribed fires. The EPA understands that the FLMs will be apply these measures routinely and wil l be available to consult with other agencies and private parties interested in doing the same. W e also encourage any state with an existing smoke management program or considering the adoptio n 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 eco system health and to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires as discussed earlier in this section.

Rule text

Smoke management program means a framework to minim ize the impact of smoke from prescribed agricultural and/or wildland management burning operations that includes enforceable restrictions on prescribed fire.

* * * * *

(vi) The State must consider, at a minimum, the fol lowing factors in developing its long-term
strategy:

* * *

(E) Basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke management programs as currently exist within the State for these purposes; and periodically assess t hat 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.

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

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

5 Follow-up to call discussion on inclusion of SMP as sessment provision: (6) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements an d strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other States with mandatory Class I Feder al areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals f or the period covered by the most recent plan required under paragraph (f) of this section and re sults of the periodic assessment of the smoke management program for prescribed fires on wildland that it is not imposing unnecessary barriers to prescribed fire use conducted with inpu t from land managers, affected communities

and stakeholders .