Connecticut Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan November 2009 

ATTACHMENT A 

EPA Regional Haze Checklist
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Purpose: 

This checklist has been prepared by EPA staff to use in reviewing regional haze SIPs to ensure 

that the SIPs have the necessary components. The checklist represents our best efforts to 

summarize the requirements of the regional haze rule but it is not a regulation and does not 

change or substitute for any legal requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA) or the regional haze 

rule. Any decisions regarding the completeness of a particular SIP will be made based on the 

CAA and the relevant regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and 

objections to the checklist and its use in a particular situation. 

Acronyms and Terms: 

BART is Best Available Retrofit Technology 

CAA is the Clean Air Act 

CAIR is Clean Air Interstate Rule 

EI is Emissions Inventory 

FLM is Federal Land Manager 

Glidepath is the linear rate of improvement sufficient to attain natural conditions by 2064 

LTS is Long Term Strategy 

RAVI is Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment 

RHR is the Regional Haze Rule 

RPO is Regional Planning Organization 

RPG is Reasonable Progress Goal 

Notes: 

1. This checklist is based on Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51, and 40 CFR 51.308, as updated 

by the BART Rule (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005), and the trading rule, as proposed in 70 FR 

44154, August 1, 2005. This checklist will be revised if necessary, should that be 

necessitated by the final version of the trading rule. 

2. All boxes should either be “Y” or “N/A” or the SIP may be deficient. 

3. This checklist assumes the State will not be participating in a trading program, or other 

alternative measure to BART. If this is not the case, then additional/alternative regulations 

that appear in 51.308(e)(2) and (3) apply. 

4. Only the requirements from 51.308 pertaining to the current RH SIP submission, and not 

those pertaining to future revisions and/or reports required under 51.308(f), (g), and (h) 

(except for a SIP commitment to do them), were included. 

5. The “1999 RHR” is 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999. 

6. The “2005 BART Rule” is 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005. 

7. The “BART Guidelines” is Appendix Y to Part 51—Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005. 

8. The “Tracking Guidance” is the Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 

Rule, EPA-454/B-03-004, September, 2003. 
2

9. The “Attainment Guidance” is the Draft Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for PM2.5 and Regional Haze, January 2, 2001. 

10. The “Natural Visibility Guidance” is the Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003. 

11. The “Baseline Memo” is a memo, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8Hour 

Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs, dated 11/18/2002, from Lydia Wegman to the 

Regional Air Directors. 

12. The “draft RPG Guidance” is the Draft Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

Under the Regional Haze Program, dated November 28, 2005. 

13. The “Visibility Monitoring Guidance” is Visibility Monitoring Guidance, EPA-454/R99003, June 1999. 

14. The “EI Guidance” is the Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, EPA-454/R-05-001, dated August, 2005. 

15. The “Interim Fire Policy” is the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed 

Fires, April 23, 1998. 

* Requirements that do not apply to States without Class I areas are denoted by an asterisk. 
3

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

 Administrative Requirements from Appendix V to Part 51

Y 2.1(a) Has a letter of submittal from the governor/ 

designee, requesting EPA approval of the SIP 

been received? 

Cover letter w/ 

attachment 

Y 2.1(b) Has the State provided evidence it has adopted 

the legally enforceable portions of the plan in 

the State code or body of regulations; or issued 

the necessary permits, orders, consent 

agreements in final form? 

Subsection 11.11 

Y 2.1(c) Has the State provided evidence it has the 

necessary legal authority under State law to 

adopt and implement the plan? 

Subsection 11.11 

Y 2.1(d) Has the official State regulation /document been 

signed/stamped/dated by the appropriate State 

official indicating that it is fully enforceable by 

the State? 

Cover letter w/ 

attachment 

Y 2.1(e) Has the State provided evidence it followed all 

of the procedural requirements of the State’s 

laws and constitution in the adoption/issuance 

of the plan? 

Cover letter w/ 

attachment 

 2.1(f) Has the State provided evidence that public 

notice was given of the proposed change 

consistent with procedures approved by EPA, 

including the date of publication of such notice? 

(near future) 

 2.1(g) Has the State provided a certification that public 

hearings(s) were held in accordance with the 

information provided in the public notice and 

the State’s laws and constitution, if applicable? 

(near future) 

 2.1(h) Has the State provided a compilation of public 

comments and the State’s response thereto? 

(Compilation will 

follow.) 

 Technical Requirements from 40 CFR 51.308

N (b) Was the SIP submitted no later than December 

17, 2007? 

SIP yet to be 

submitted 

Y (d) Did the State provide a table identifying each 

mandatory Class I Federal area located within 

the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal 

area located outside the State affected by 

emissions from within the State? 

Subsection 2.1, 

Table 2.1 

Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 
4

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

NA* (d)(1) Did the State establish RPGs for each Class I 

area that provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for 

the least impaired days over the same period? 

See Section 10.0 

for Class I state 

RPGs. 

• p. 35730 of the 1999 

RHR 

• p. 1-6 of the 

Tracking Guidance 

• Attainment Guidance 

• draft RPG Guidance 

NA* (d)(1)(i)(A) In establishing RPGs for each Class I area, did 

the State consider the costs of compliance, the 

time necessary for compliance, the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, and the remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources, and include a 

demonstration showing how these factors were 

taken into consideration in selecting the goal? 

See Section 10.0 

for Class I state 

RPGs. 

• p. 35731-33 of the 

1999 RHR 

• draft RPG Guidance 

Y* (d)(1)(i)(B) Did the State submit the glidepath (i.e., rate of 

progress needed to attain natural visibility 

conditions by 2064) for each Class I area? 

• Subsection 10.1, 

Table 10-1 

• Subsection 11.8, 

Figures 11-1 thru 

11-5 

• p. 35727-33, 35 of 

the 1999 RHR 

• Natural Visibility 

Guidance 

• p. 39124, 39143 of 

the 2005 BART rule 

• The Baseline Memo 

Y* (d)(1)(i)(B) In establishing the RPG for each Class I area, did 

the State calculate the uniform rate of 

improvement in visibility and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve it for the 

period covered by the SIP? 

• Subsection 10.1, 

Table 10-1 

• Subsection 11.4 

• Subsection 11.8, 

Figures 11-1 thru 

11-5 

• p. 35732 of the 1999 

RHR 

• draft RPG Guidance 

NA* (d)(1)(ii) If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, 

has it demonstrated, based on the factors in 

(d)(1)(i)(A), the rate of progress for the SIP to 

attain natural conditions by 2064 is not 

reasonable, and its RPG is reasonable? 

p. 35732 of the 1999 

RHR 

NA* (d)(1)(ii) If the State establishes a RPG < the glidepath, 

did it provide to the public for review as part of 

its SIP, an assessment of the number of years it 

would take to attain natural conditions using its 

RPG? 

p. 35732 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(1)(iv) In developing its RPG, has the State consulted 

with those States that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in the Class I areas? 

Section 3.0 p. 35735 of the 1999 

RHR 
5

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

Y (d)(1)(iv) If the State cannot agree with another 

State(s) that a goal provides for reasonable 

progress, has the State described in its 

submittal the actions taken to resolve the 

disagreement? 

Subsection 3.2, 

Parts 3.2.3 and 

3.2.4 

p. 35732 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y* (d)(1)(vi) Has the State adopted RPGs that 

represents at least the visibility 

improvement expected from 

implementation of other CAA programs 

during the applicable planning period? 

Subsections 11.1 

thru 11.4 and 

Subsection 11.8 

p. 35733 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y* (d)(2)(i) Has the State calculated baseline visibility 

conditions for each Class I area for the 

most impaired and least impaired days 

using 2000 to 2004 monitoring data? 

Subsection 4.2, 

Table 4.2 

• p. 35728-30 of the 

1999 RHR 

• Natural Visibility 

Guidance 

• Attainment Guidance 

• Tracking Guidance 

Y* (d)(2)(i) In calculating the baseline visibility 

conditions, did the State estimate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for the most and least impaired days for 

each calendar year from 2000 to 2004, and 

then determine the average of these annual 

values? 

Subsection 4.2, 

Table 4.2 

NA* (d)(2)(i) If the State has Class I areas without 

onsite monitoring data for 2000 -2004, did 

the State use the most representative 

available monitoring data for 2000 -2004 

to establish baseline values, in 

consultation with the EPA Regional 

Office? 

• p. 35728-29 of the 

1999 RHR 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

Y* (d)(2)(iii) Did the State calculate natural visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and least 

impaired days by estimating the degree of 

impairment based on available monitoring 

information and appropriate data analysis 

techniques? 

Subsection 5.2 • p. 35764, 35729-30 of 

the 1999 RHR 

• Natural Visibility 

Guidance 

Y* (d)(2)(iv)A Did the State calculate the number of 

deciviews by which baseline conditions 

exceed natural visibility conditions for the 

most impaired and least impaired days for 

the first planning period? 

Subsection 4.2, 

Table 4.2 

p. 35732 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3) Did the State submit a LTS that addresses 

visibility impairment for each Class I area, 

inside and outside the State, which may be 

affected by the State’s emissions? 

Section 11.0 p. 35734-35 of the 1999 

RHR 
6

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

Y (d)(3) Does the LTS include enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the RPGs established 

by States having Class I areas? 

Subsections 11.10 

and 11.11 

p. 35734-35 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the State 

consult with other State(s) to develop 

coordinated emission management 

strategies for cases in which it has 

emissions that are reasonably anticipated 

to contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area located in those State(s)? 

Section 3.0 p. 35735 of the 1999 

RHR 

NA (d)(3)(i) In establishing its LTS, did the State 

consult with other State(s) to develop 

coordinated emission management 

strategies for cases in which those State(s) 

have emissions that are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area located 

within the State? 

Section 3.0 

Y (d)(3)(ii) In establishing its LTS, where multiple 

State(s) cause or contribute to impairment 

of the same Class I area, did the State 

include all measures necessary to obtain 

its share of the emission reductions needed 

to meet the RPG for the area? 

Subsection 11.9 p. 35735 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3)(ii) In addressing (d)(3)(ii), above, if the State 

participated in a RPO, did it ensure it 

included all measures needed to achieve 

its apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process? 

Subsection 11.9 p. 35735 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3)(iii) In establishing its LTS, did the State 

document the technical basis, including 

modeling, monitoring and emissions 

information, on which it is relying to 

determine its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations necessary for 

achieving reasonable progress in each 

Class I area it affects? 

Subsections 11.1 

and 11.2 

• p. 35735 of the 1999 

RHR 

• EI Guidance 

Y (d)(3)(iii) In addressing (d)(3)(iii), above, did the 

State identify the baseline emissions 

inventory on which its strategies are 

based? 

Subsection 6.1, 

Part 6.1.1 and 

Subsections 11.1 

and 11.2 

• p. 35728 of the 1999 

RHR 

• Baseline Memo 

• EI Guidance 
7

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

Y (d)(3)(iv) Did the State identify all anthropogenic 

sources of visibility impairment 

considered by it in developing its LTS, 

including consideration of major and 

minor stationary sources, mobile sources, 

and area sources? 

Section 8.0 • p. 35735 of the 1999 

RHR • EI Guidance 

Y (d)(3)(v)(A) In developing its LTS, did the State 

consider the emission reductions due to 

ongoing air pollution control programs, 

including measures to address RAVI? 

Subsection 11.3 

(RAVI not 

applicable) 

p. 35737 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3)(v)(B) In developing its LTS, did the State 

consider measures to mitigate the impacts 

of construction activities? 

Subsection 11.6 p. 35737 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3)(v)(C) In developing its LTS, did the State 

consider emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal? 

Subsection 11.10 p. 35737 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3)(v)(D) In developing its LTS, did the State 

consider source retirement and 

replacement schedules? 

Subsection 11.5 p. 35737 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3)(v)(E) In developing its LTS, did the State 

consider smoke management techniques 

for agricultural and forestry management 

purposes, including plans as currently 

exist within the State for these purposes? 

Subsection 11.7 • p. 35736 of the 1999 

RHR • Interim Fire 

Policy 

Y (d)(3)(v)(F) In developing its LTS, did the State 

consider enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures? 

Subsection 11.11 p. 35737 of the 1999 

RHR 

Y (d)(3)(v)(G) In developing its LTS, did the State 

consider the anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point, area, and mobile source emissions 

over the period addressed by the LTS? 

Subsection 11.3 p. 35737 of the 1999 

RHR 

NA* (d)(4) Did the State submit with the SIP a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment representative 

of all Class I areas within the State? 

• p. 35744 of the 1999 

RHR 

• Attainment Guidance 

• Tracking Guidance 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

Y* (d)(4) Did the State coordinate the above 

monitoring strategy with the RAVI 

monitoring strategy in § 51.305? 

p. 35717, 37 of the 1999 

RHR 
8

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

NA* (d)(4)(i) Did the SIP provide for the establishment 

of any additional monitoring sites or 

equipment needed to assess whether RPGs 

to address regional haze for all Class I 

areas within the State are being achieved? 

• p. 35744 of the 1999 

RHR 

• Attainment Guidance 

• Tracking Guidance 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

Y* (d)(4)(ii) Did the SIP establish procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information are 

used in determining the contribution of 

emissions from within the State to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

Class I areas both within and outside the 

State? 

Subsection 5.2 

and Contribution 

Assessment 

(Attachment B) 

• p. 35744 of the 1999 

RHR 

• Attainment Guidance 

• Tracking Guidance 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

Y (d)(4)(iii) For a State with no Class I areas, did the 

SIP establish procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information are 

used in determining the contribution of 

emissions from within the State to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in other States? 

Subsection 5.2 

and Contribution 

Assessment 

(Attachment B)

• p. 35744 of the 1999 

RHR 

• Attainment Guidance 

• Tracking Guidance 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

NA* (d)(4)(iv) Did the SIP provide for the reporting of all 

visibility monitoring data to EPA at least 

annually for each Class I area in the State? 

Subsection 5.2 • p. 35744-45 of the 

1999 RHR 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

Y (d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a statewide EI of 

pollutants that are reasonably anticipated 

to cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area? 

Section 6.0 and 

Subsection 8.2 

Attainment Guidance 

Y (d)(4)(v) Did the EI include emissions for a 

baseline year, emissions for the most 

recent year for which data are available, 

and estimates of future projected 

emissions? 

Section 6.0 

(The 2002 EI data 

represent both the 

baseline year and 

the most recent 

year for which 

reliable data are 

available.) 

• p. 35728-29 of the 

1999 RHR 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

• Attainment Guidance 

Y (d)(4)(v) Did the SIP include a commitment to 

update the EI periodically? 

Subsection 1.4, 

Part 1.4.2 

EI Guidance 

Y (d)(4)(vi) Did the SIP include other elements 

necessary to assess and report on visibility 

(e.g., reporting, recordkeeping, etc.)? 

Subsection 5.2 
9

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

NA (e) Did the State submit a SIP containing emission 

limitations representing BART, and schedules 

for compliance with BART, for each BART 

eligible source that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any Class I area? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative Program 

• BART Guidelines 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternative 

to Source-Specific BART 

Determinations 

Y (e)(1)(i) Did the SIP include a list of all BART-eligible 

sources within the State with supporting 

documentation? 

Section 9.0, Part 

9.2.1 and 

Attachment X 

• BART Guidelines 

• p. 60631 of the 2006 BART Rule. 

NA (e)(1)(ii) Did the SIP include a determination of BART 

for each BART-eligible source in the State that 

emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any Class I area? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative Program 

• BART Guidelines 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternative 

to Source-Specific BART 

Determinations 

NA (e)(1)(ii)(A) Did the SIP include a determination of BART 

based on an analysis of the best system of 

continuous emission control technology 

available, and associated emission reductions 

achievable for each source subject to BART 

within the State? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative Program 

• BART Guidelines 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternative 

to Source-Specific BART 

Determinations 

NA (e)(1)(ii)(A) In the BART analysis, did the State take into 

consideration the technology available, the costs 

of compliance, the energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, any 

pollution control equipment in use at the source, 

the remaining useful life of the source, and the 

degree of improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 

of such technology? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative Program 

• BART Guidelines 

• p. 39107, 127 of the 2005 BART 

Rule 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternative 

to Source-Specific BART 

Determinations 

NA (e)(1)(ii)(B) Did the State determine BART for fossil-fuel 

fired power plants > 750 megawatts pursuant to 

the BART guidelines? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative Program 

• BART Guidelines 

• p. 39108 of the 2005 BART Rule 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternative 

to Source-Specific BART 

Determinations 

Y (e)(1)(iii) If the State has determined that technological or 

economic limitations on the applicability of 

measurement methodology to a particular source 

would make the imposition of an emission 

standard infeasible, has the State prescribed a 

design, equipment, work practice, or other 

operational standard, to require the application 

of BART, as an alternative to a BART emission 

standard? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative Program 

• BART Guidelines 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing Alternative 

to Source-Specific BART 

Determinations 
10

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

Y (e)(1)(iii) If the State adopted a design, equipment, work 

practice, or other operational standard alternative 

to BART, did the State, to the degree possible, 

set forth the emission reduction to be achieved, 

and provide for compliance by means which 

achieve equivalent results? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative 

Program 

• BART Guidelines 

• p. 39172 of the 2005 

BART Rule 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing 

Alternative to SourceSpecific BART 

Determinations 

NA (e)(1)(iv) Has the State required each source subject to 

BART to install and operate BART as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 

years after approval of the SIP? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative 

Program 

• p. 39158, 70, 72 of the 

2005 BART Rule 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing 

Alternative to SourceSpecific BART 

Determinations 

NA (e)(1)(v) Has the State required each BART source to 

maintain the required control equipment and 

establish procedures to ensure such equipment is 

properly operated and maintained? 

See Section 9.0 and 

Attachment X for 

Connecticut’s 

Alternative 

Program 

• p. 39172 of the 2005 

BART Rule 

• Friday, October 13, 2006; 

40CFR51, Regional Haze 

Regulations; Revisions to 

Provisions Governing 

Alternative to SourceSpecific BART 

Determinations 

NA (e)(4) If the State is using its participation in CAIR to 

exempt BART-eligible EGU’s from BART, has 

it included supporting documentation? 

 p. 39136-42 of the 2005 

BART Rule 

NA (e)(4) If the State is using its participation in CAIR to 

exempt BART-eligible EGU’s from BART, did 

it include provisions for a geographic 

enhancement to the program to address RAVI 

BART under § 51.302(c)? 

 p. 39143, 57 of the 2005 

BART Rule 

NA (e)(6) If a facility is seeking an exemption under 

§51.303(a)(2)–(h) for any of its BART-eligible 

emission units, has the appropriate 

documentation been included in the SIP? 

 §51.303(a)(2)–(h) 

Y (f) Has the State included a commitment it will 

submit its SIP revision, as specified in 51.308(f), 

by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter? 

Subsection 1.4, 

Part 1.4.2 

• p. 35745 of the 1999 RHR 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 

CAA 

Y (g) Has the State included a commitment it will 

submit its SIP report, as specified in 51.308(g), 

by an exact date named, that is within 5 years 

from submittal of the initial SIP? 

Subsection 1.4, 

Part 1.4.2 

• p. 35745 of the 1999 RHR 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the 

CAA 

Y (h) Has the State included a commitment it will, at 

the time of the submission of the SIP report, also 

submit a determination of the adequacy of its 

existing Regional Haze SIP revision, as specified 

in 51.308(h)? 

Subsection 1.4, 

Part 1.4.2 

• p. 35745 of the 1999 RHR 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F) of the 

CAA 
11

EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 

(8/4/06) 

Y/N 

or 

NA 

Regulation 

Citation Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location in SIP References

 Y (i)(1)(i)-(ii) Did the State, by November 29, 1999, 

identify in writing to the FLMs the title of 

the official to which any FLM can submit 

recommendations on the implementation 

51.308 including, (i) identification of 

impairment of visibility in any Class I 

area(s); and (ii) identification of elements 

for inclusion in the visibility monitoring 

strategy required by §51.305 and 51.308? 

Subsection 3.2, 

Part 3.2.5 

p. 35747-48 of the 1999 

RHR 

 Y (i)(2) Did the State provide the FLM an 

opportunity for consultation, in person and 

at least 60 days prior to holding any public 

hearing on the SIP (or its revision)? 

Subsection 3.2, 

Part 3.2.5 

p. 35747-48 of the 1999 

RHR 

 Y (i)(2)(i)-(ii) Did the above consultation include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their: 

(i) assessment of impairment of visibility 

in any Class I area; and, (ii) 

recommendations on the development of 

the RPG and on the development and 

implementation of strategies to address 

visibility impairment? 

Subsection 3.2, 

Part 3.2.5 

p. 35747-48 of the 1999 

RHR 

 (i)(3) Did the State include in the SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs? 

(Response will 

follow.) 

p. 35747-48 of the 1999 

RHR 

 Y (i)(4) Does the SIP provide procedures for 

continuing consultation between the State 

and FLMs on the implementation of 

51.308, including development and review 

of SIP revisions and 5-year progress 

reports, and on the implementation of 

other programs having the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas? 

Subsection 3.2, 

Part 3.2.5 

p. 35747-48 of the 1999 

RHR