Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0186
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2015-02-10T05:00Z

From:	Mathias, Scott
Sent:	Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:33 PM
To:	Szabo, Aaron
Cc:	Pepple, Karl
Subject:	RE: interagency comments on EO 12866_13563 2008 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Final Rule

Aaron,

Here are our responses to the additional interagency comments received on January 28.

1.	Page 75-77 section on fire: 
a.	1st paragraph: We accept the first change, adding “behavior and effects”
b.	1st paragraph: We are concerned with the second change in the first paragraph because 
during the interagency call on 1/23/2015 the representative from DOI (may have been Paul 
Steblein?) indicated that DOI wanted to use the term “wildland” in place of 
“prescribed”.  Please verify that the interagency reviewers are in agreement with the 
change currently being proposed.
c.	2nd paragraph: We could accept the first change, if we can agree to it as “Some small-scale 
wildfires and…” to more clearly contrast with large-scale and catastrophic scale fires, which 
are not events that minimize adverse public health effects.
d.	2nd paragraph: We do not agree with the remaining changes to this paragraph. These 
proposed changes suggest bounds on state discretion and interactions that are not 
consistent with the CAA paradigm of state primacy in SIP development.  Specifically, 
suggesting that state RACM determinations are limited to catastrophic fires is not 
appropriate, and suggesting that it is land managers/owners that are the initiating actors for 
SIP-related plans is also not appropriate. The primary context for this rulemaking is EPA 
providing SIP development rules/guidance to the states that are responsible for carrying out 
the requirements, not to land managers/owners.

2.	Page 82-83: We accept the typo correction.

3.	Page 115: We accept the changes offered by the interagency reviewer, but ourselves have 
noticed an inaccurate word that we are changing.  The word “can” in the first sentence is more 
accurately characterized as “…may be able to…”

Let me know if we need to further discuss.

Scott Mathias | Associate Director, Air Quality Policy Division | U.S. EPA, RTP, NC 27711 | 
919.541.5310

From: Szabo, Aaron [mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov]  
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:02 PM 
To: Mathias, Scott 
Subject: First interagency comments on EO 12866_13563 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Final Rule 
Importance: High

Scott,

I wanted to get these to you as soon as possible.  Please see below for comments that I have received on 
the 2008 NAAQS Ozone SIP final rule.  Please let me know if you would like to discuss these 
recommendations and what, if any, you have accepted.  Thank you very much.

Aaron L. Szabo
Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
202-395-3621
Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov

Page 75-77 section on fire: 
Wildfire emissions are a component of background ozone[1] and can significantly contribute to periodic 
high ozone levels.[2] Besides their effect on air quality, wildfires pose a direct threat to public safety – a 
threat that can be mitigated through management of wildland vegetation. Attempts to suppress 
wildfires have resulted in unintended consequences, including increased risks to both humans and 
ecosystems.[3] The use of wildland prescribed fire can influence the occurrence, behavior and effects of 
catastrophic wildfires which may help manage the contribution of wildfires to background ozone levels 
and periodic peak ozone events. Additionally prescribed fires can have benefits to those plant and 
animal species that depend upon natural fires for propagation, habitat restoration, and reproduction, as 
well as myriad ecosystem functions (e.g., carbon sequestration). The EPA understands the importance of 
prescribed fire which mimics a natural process necessary to manage and maintain fire-adapted 
ecosystems and climate change adaptation, while reducing risk of uncontrolled emissions from 
catastrophic wildfires, and is committed to working with federal land managers, tribes, and states to 
effectively manage prescribed wildland fire use to reduce the impact of wildfire related emissions on 
ozone.

If wildfire impacts are significant, contributing to exceedances of the standard, states should consider 
RACM for this source. Fires play an important ecological role across the globe, benefiting those plant 
and animal species that depend upon natural fires for propagation, habitat restoration, and 
reproduction. Fires are one tool that can be used to reduce fuel load, unnatural understory, and tree 
density, helping to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Some wildfires and the use of prescribed fire 
can influence the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires which may reduce the probability of fire-induced 
ozone impacts and subsequent public health effects. RACM for catastrophic wildfire may include 
addressing the wildland fuels through fuels management, and including the use of prescribed fire and 
allowing some wildfire to occur naturally in systems that are ecologically fire dependent. Where 
appropriate, land managers and owners states may consider developing plans for addressing wildland 
fuels in collaboration with states land managers and owners. RACM for prescribed fires should also be 
considered. Information is available from DOI and the USDA Forest Service on smoke management 
programs and basic smoke management practices and may be considered when determining RACM for 
prescribed fires. RACM must be determined for each area on a case-by-case basis.
Page 82-83(typo): We also stated in the proposal that general conformity for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
would apply 1 year after the effective date of nonattainment designations for that NAAQS because 
section 176(c)(6) provides a 1-year grace period from the effective date of initial designations before 
general conformity determinations are required in areas newly designated nonattainment for a 
particular pollutant and standard. In such areas we encourage states to consider in any baseline 
inventory used and/or submitted to include emissions expected from projects subject to general 
conformity, including emissions from wildland fire that may be reasonably expected in the area .
Page 115: Where interstate transported emissions contribute to an exceedance or violation and come 
from prescribed fire, wildfires or other natural sources such as wildfires, air agencies can use the 
provisions in the EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule (40 CFR 50.14) to request exclusion of affected data. 
Once EPA concurs with an air agency’s request, the event-influenced data are officially noted and 
removed from the data set used to calculate official design values.
 

 

 
 

 
[1] Jaffe, DA; Wigder, NL. (2012). Ozone production from wildfires: A critical review. Atmos Environ 51: 1-
10.
>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.063<
[2] Emery, C; Jung, J; Downey, N; Johnson, J; Jimenez, M; Yarwood, G; Morris, R. (2012). Regional and 
global modeling estimates of policy relevant background ozone over the United States. Atmos 
Environ 47:206-217.
>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.012<
[3] Indeed, “Fire policy that focuses on [wildfire] suppression only, delays the inevitable, 
promising more dangerous and destructive future…fires.” Stephens, SL; Agee, JK; Fule, 
PZ; North, MP; Romme, WH; Swetnam, TW. (2013). Managing Forests and Fire in 
Changing Climates. Science 342:41-42.