Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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 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 used in 

several ways within the air quality and land management communities, but is not currently 

defined in the Regional Haze Rule or used in §51.308. At the time of the 1999 Regional Haze 

Rule, the term was generally used to mean a 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. 

We are proposing to define a smoke management program for the purposes of the Regional Haze 

Rule, within §51.301, as being a framework to minimize the impact of smoke from prescribed 

agricultural and/or wildland management burning operations 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 burn during a time period for which it has 

been announced that conditions are anticipated to be favorable to smoke dispersion. A definition 

of smoke management program would provide more clarity to the Regional Haze rule because

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 intend consider the term smoke management program for the purposes of §51.308(f)(2)(v)(E)

to mean include a programs that includes only a seasonal restrictions on burning because of fire 

safety concerns, or a 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. This distinction is intended to avoid misunderstandings 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 of these types of programs.. intend the Regional 

Commented [A1]: Reviewer is unsure how this applies for 

states that have these programs currently cited or referenced 

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 Language under 

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

2 

Haze Rule to be a vehicle for encouraging or requiring states to implement such programs. 

Smoke management programs commonly include a significant education and outreach 

component and may be administered by the same state or local agencies that enforce safetyrelated restrictions on prescribed fire and open burning. 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 addition to the requirement that a state official 

has certified the program). One of those six elements is the regulatory element that is the single 

distinguishing feature of a smoke management program 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 plans, public education and awareness, 

surveillance and enforcement, and program evaluation. 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 program” for purposes of the Exceptional 

Events Rule because of the special status of a “state-certified smoke management program” 

under the Exceptional Events Rule as one path to satisfying 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 “Consideration of control measures for wildland 

prescribed fire” in this section for further discussion of this point. 

* * * 

Consideration of control measures for wildland prescribed fire. Under existing §51.308(d)(2)(i) 

and proposed revised §51.308(f)(2)(v), a state is required to identify all anthropogenic sources of 

visibility impairment considered by the state in developing its long-term strategy and the criteria 

used to select the sources for which additional emission reduction measures were considered in 

light of the four reasonable progress factors. Existing §51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) more specifically 

requires a state to consider “smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes.” As 

explained in section IV.B, in carrying this paragraph forward into the revision of §51.308(f) that 

will make it free standing, we are proposing to update 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 as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes.” 

Taken together, we interpret these provisions to mean 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 meaningful degree, the SIP may take note of this and 

thereby satisfy both provisions. If prescribed fires in a state contribute meaningfully to 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further 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, required by state law or mandated by an EPAapproved SIP. The state would be required to consider 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 management 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 management program. 

We would like to make clear that taken together, these two provisions do not necessarily require 

any state to “select” wildland prescribed fire (under §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 management programs or basic smoke management 

practices. However, if a state does not “select” wildland 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. Where prescribed fires are more important, it 

may be sufficient for the SIP revision to explain the role of properly planned and managed 

prescribed fire as described in this section, the state’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, but not to “select” wildland prescribed fire as a 

source category for four-factor analysis. 

If a state does “select” wildland prescribed fire as a source for four-factor analysis, the state must

conclude this analysis by determining whether additional measures to reduce emissions from 

wildland prescribed fire are necessary for reasonable 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 to make them practically enforceable, it may not 

be appropriate to conclude that a SIP requirement for the use of each practice is necessary for 

reasonable progress. For example, one basic smoke management 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 observations, 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 manager to document that a required monitoring 

approach was used could distract resources from managing 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 basic smoke management practices could be 

more desirable than a SIP requirement for land managers to use each basic smoke management 

practice. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further 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 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 where it is needed for wildland ecosystem health, public safety and to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires 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 

should 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). 

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 owners from taking situation-appropriate steps to 

minimize emissions from prescribed fires on wildland, 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 prescribed fires. The EPA understands that the 

FLMs will be apply these measures routinely and will be available to consult with other agencies 

and private 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 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 ecosystem health and to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires as discussed earlier in this section. 

Rule text 

Smoke management program means a framework to minimize 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 following 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 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 

levels that increase the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

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

5 

Follow-up to call discussion on inclusion of SMP assessment provision: (6) An assessment of 

whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the 

State, or other States with mandatory Class I Federal areas affected by emissions from the State, 

to meet all established reasonable progress goals for the period covered by the most recent plan 

required under paragraph (f) of this section and results 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 input from land managers, affected communities 

and stakeholders .