1

General Principles for the 5-Year 

Regional Haze Progress Reports for the 

Initial Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist

States and EPA Regional Offices in 

Development and Review of the Progress 

Reports)

April 2013

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Quality Policy Division

Geographic Strategies Group

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
2

Contents:

I. Background 

II. Progress Report Elements

A. Status of Control Strategies in the Regional Haze SIP

B. Emissions Reductions from Regional Haze SIP Strategies

C. Visibility Progress

D. Emissions Progress

E. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress

F. Assessment of Current Strategy

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy

H. Determination of Adequacy

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Administrative Process

B. Consultation with Federal Land Managers 

C. Deadlines for Submitting the First 5-year Progress Report 

D. Checklist

Please note: 

This document has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

for the EPA Regional Offices and states in preparing and reviewing the 5-year progress 

reports for the initial regional haze state implementation Plans (SIPs). This document 

represents the EPA’s best efforts to summarize and clarify the requirements for the first 

5-year reports 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 approvability of a particular 5-year report will be made based on the CAA 

and the relevant regulations with an opportunity for public review and comment. 

Therefore, questions and objections may be raised in particular situations. 
3

I. Background

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Regional Haze Rule includes 

provisions for 5-year progress reports. The requirements for these reports are included for 

most states in 40 CFR 51.308 (g) and (h). Three western states (New Mexico, Utah and 

Wyoming) exercised an option provided in the Regional Haze Rule to meet alternative 

requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.309 for regional haze statement implementation 

plans (SIPs). For these three states, the requirements for 5-year progress reports are 

identical to those for the other states, but for these states the requirements for the reports 

are codified in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10). 

An explanation of the 5-year progress reports is provided in the preamble to the 

EPA’s 1999 Regional Haze Rule. 64 FR 35747 (July 1, 1999). The Regional Haze Rule 

requires a comprehensive analysis of each state’s regional haze SIP every 10 years and a 

progress report every 5 years. This 5-year review is intended to provide a progress report 

on, and, if necessary, mid-course corrections to, the regional haze SIP. The progress 

report provides an opportunity for public input on the state’s (and the EPA’s) assessment 

of whether the approved regional haze SIP is being implemented appropriately and 

whether reasonable visibility progress is being achieved consistent with the projected 

visibility improvement in the SIP.

This document is intended to provide assistance to states and to the EPA Regional 

Offices in the development and review of the 5-year progress reports.
4

II. Progress Report Elements

A. Status of Control Strategies1in the Regional Haze SIP.

 Sections 51.308(g)(1) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). 

A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the 

implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory 

Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.

To meet this requirement, the report should identify the control measures in the 

state’s regional haze SIP that apply to sources within the state that the state relied on to 

meet the requirements of the regional haze program. The EPA expects states to describe: 

(1) The control measures for the sources and/or source category or categories that 

the state regulated for purposes of the regional haze program. For example, for a number 

of states, the approved SIP includes source specific limits for best available retrofit 

technology (BART2) and reasonable progress sources. A description of those limits and a 

discussion of whether the compliance date has been met should be included in the report 

for each source regulated by the state’s regional haze SIP. 

(2) Additional control measures that the state relied on to meet the requirements 

of the regional haze program that were to take effect in the first planning period (i.e., the 

time period between SIP submittal and the end of 2018) for sources and source categories 

located within the state. For example, the state may have relied on the EPA regulations to 

provide the emissions reductions needed to meet the requirements for BART and 

reasonable progress. For a number of eastern and midwestern states, the EPA rules 

 

1 Although not required by the Regional Haze Rule, it would be useful for the reports to include a brief 

description of the overall nature of the visibility problem in Class I areas affected by the state. For example, 

eastern Class I areas and western Class I areas have differences in the relative importance of species 

(sulfates, nitrates, organics, etc.) and in the relative importance of contributing source categories. 

Beginning with such a brief description would serve to provide a useful context for the information 

presented in the report. 

2 Where such BART emissions limits have been established, the 5-year progress reports are required to 

identify the emissions limits and to evaluate the status of their implementation. The EPA does not view the 

5-year progress report as a vehicle to revisit the appropriateness of approved BART limits.
5

affecting sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) are an 

important component of the regional haze strategy. In addressing this requirement, the 5-

year report should include a description of those rules and the status of their 

implementation as they pertain to sources within the state. Currently, given the vacatur of 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the EPA and states will continue to 

implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). It would be useful to discuss the current 

status of those programs, and any additional EGU rules or limits that may apply.3

The report should focus on a targeted evaluation of important control measures 

that achieve reductions in visibility-impairing pollutant species. For example, few states

considered volatile organic compounds (VOC) to be a visibility-impairing pollutant in the 

regional haze SIP. Thus, although VOC measures that exist for other purposes are 

included in the inventory projections, it would not be helpful for most states to have a 

detailed listing of the VOC measures that apply in the regional haze progress report. As 

the regulatory language makes clear, the report must include not only those measures 

being taken in the SIP for purposes of achieving visibility progress within the state, but 

also those measures being taken to achieve visibility progress in affected Class I areas 

outside the state. However, under 51.308(g)(1) or 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A), the report is only 

 

3

For a number of states, the EPA took rulemaking actions to issue limited disapprovals of regional haze 

SIPs that relied on the CAIR trading programs to satisfy BART for power plants. To address the 

deficiencies identified by EPA in the limited disapprovals, EPA promulgated federal implementation plans 

(FIPs) relying on CSAPR to satisfy BART for EGUs participating in the CSAPR trading program. 

Subsequently, the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d7 (2012) issued a decision 

vacating CSAPR and ordering EPA to continue implementing CAIR. The EPA believes that the EME 

Homer City Generation court’s order impacts the reasoning that formed the basis for the EPA’s limited 

disapprovals of the regional SIPs based on CAIR. The United States has requested the Supreme Court to 

review the EME Homer City decision. The EPA expects to propose an appropriate action regarding these 

original regional haze SIPs upon final resolution of EME Homer City Generation v. EPA. At that future 

point in time, the EPA will also determine whether any revisions to this document are needed to address 

any related issues for the 5-year progress reports.
6

expected to include those measures applicable to sources located within the state. For 

each appropriate measure, the compliance date for the measure as required by the SIP or 

federal rules should be listed. If a measure was evaluated but was not included in the SIP, 

we do not expect the report to list it to address the requirement in this paragraph. 

It also may be helpful (although not specifically required by the regulations) for 

the report to include a qualitative discussion of noteworthy changes in source activity4

such as enforcement settlements, large new sources, source shutdowns, changes in 

patterns of fuel use, growth or declines in particular industries, state regulations enacted 

after development of the regional haze SIP, and similar activities or occurrences that 

might help inform visibility progress over the 5-year period. 

Finally, the EPA recognizes that not all states have fully approved regional haze 

SIPs. In a few states, the regional haze requirements are currently being implemented 

solely by a federal implementation plan (FIP). For some states, certain control measures 

are in the state's SIP, while others are currently contained in a FIP. In both of these 

situations, the state is required in the 5-year report to address the status of implementation 

of all control measures contained in final SIPs or FIPs. 

 

4 This qualitative discussion can and should include noteworthy measures whether or not they are federally 

enforceable. The inclusion of this discussion would provide additional context on which to assess progress; 

it is not, however, necessary (unless requested by the state) that the identified measures be made federally 

enforceable, nor does inclusion in this report make them federally enforceable. The only situations where 

federally enforceable measures are required is when corrective action is needed, within 1 year of the 5-year 

report deadline, pursuant to paragraph 51.308(h)(4) and similar language in 51.309. 
7

B. Emissions Reductions from Regional Haze SIP Strategies. 

 Sections 51.308(g)(2) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(B). 

A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through 

implementation of the measures described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

To meet this requirement, progress reports should identify and estimate emissions 

reductions to date in visibility-impairing pollutants from the SIP measures discussed 

above. We do not expect this to involve detailed new emissions inventory activities such 

as questionnaires or other new data collection. Because nearly all of the initial regional 

haze SIPs (those submitted to satisfy the first 10-year implementation period only) 

considered only SO2, nitrogen oxide (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) as visibilityimpairing pollutants, the first 5-year reports are usually not required to identify or 

quantify emission reductions for other pollutants, such as ammonia or VOC. In addition,

in meeting this requirement we do not expect states to quantify emission reductions for 

measures which have not yet been implemented or for which the compliance date has not 

yet been reached. These measures should be addressed in the “status of measures” 

discussion under sections 51.308(g)(1) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(A). Also, in meeting this 

requirement, judgment is appropriate in the degree of quantification for the measures that 

were relied upon. If a measure is listed as a relied upon measure under 51.308(g)(1) or

51.309(d)(10)(i)(A), this does not necessarily mean a detailed quantification is required 

for each measure under 51.308(g)(2), especially if a given measure is a relatively small 

contributor to the overall “emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through 

implementation of the measures.” 
8

Because reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions from EGUs are generally critical 

elements of each state’s regional haze strategy, the 5-year progress reports should 

identify sources reporting to the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) and discuss 

emissions trends for the state using the latest information available from the CAMD

“Clean Air Markets Data and Maps” website: http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ . We note that 

CAMD data for purposes of quantifying these emissions trends will generally be 

available for a more recent year than the year associated with the comprehensive overall 

emissions inventory under 51.308(g)(4).

C. Visibility Progress. 

 Sections 51.308(g)(3) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(C). 

For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the State must assess 

the following visibility conditions and changes, with values for most impaired and 

least impaired days expressed in terms of 5-year averages of these annual values.

(i) The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired 

days;

(ii) The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and 

least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions;

(iii) The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired 

days over the past 5 years.

This requirement only applies to states with Class I areas within their borders. For 

those states, for each Class I area, data available from the Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network of monitors will generally provide 

the visibility information required by this paragraph. In some cases, the IMPROVE data 

may be supplemented by data collected by the state. According to the Regional Haze 

Rule, the “most impaired days” and “least impaired days” refers to the average visibility 

impairment (measured in deciviews) for the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar 
9

year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged 

over a 5-year period. Thus the “change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and 

least impaired days over the past 5 years” is comparing the 5-year average for the 

beginning of the 5-year time period with the 5-year average at the end of the 5-year time 

period. 

This section requires the report to include deciview values for three separate time 

periods: “current visibility conditions,” “baseline visibility conditions,” and “the past 5 

years.” “Baseline visibility conditions” refers to conditions during the 2000-2004 time 

period and was identified by the states in their regional haze SIPs. For “current visibility 

conditions,” the reports should include the 5-year average that includes the most recent 

quality assured public data available at the time the state submits its 5-year progress 

report for public review. The year associated with the “past 5 years” would be the year 5 

years previous to the year used for “current visibility conditions.” 
10

The following chart shows an example of the type of visibility displays that are 

readily available. For example, the blue line on this chart displays the rolling 5-year 

average for the worst days for each year from the baseline period through the year with 

the most recent data. The EPA believes that while only three time periods are called out 

specifically in the Regional Haze Rule, states should instead consider a chart of the 

rolling average similar to this example, to provide the public with more complete 

information and to avoid any possible unnecessary discussion over whether the correct 

years were selected. In addition, states should provide a table of the underlying data for 

ease of review. Although only total visibility in deciviews is required to be reported by 

the Regional Haze Rule, it may also be useful to include additional monitoring data to 

MOOSEHORN NWR, MAINE CLASS I AREA REGIONAL HAZE DATA ANALYSES

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

YEAR DECIVIEW

20% worst day

20% worst day 5-yr

running average

Uniform Glide Path

CMAQ 2018 20% worst

day Glide Path

 Natural 20% Worst

day

20% best day

Natural 20% Best day

CMAQ 2018 20% best

day Glide Path

TD - 5/17/2012
11

provide context for the overall visibility assessment. For example, trends in organic 

species may help provide useful information about the effect of wildfires on progress. 

Monitoring data to meet this requirement are readily available. For example, the 

Western Regional Air Partnership has developed a Technical Support System (TSS) that 

provides readily available visibility data and summaries for purposes of meeting this 

requirement. See http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Home/About.aspx. The EPA notes 

that other Multi-Jurisdictional Organizations (MJOs) have also prepared summaries of 

available monitoring data for their states to use. 

D. Emissions Progress. 

 Sections 51.308(g)(4) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(D). 

An analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants 

contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the 

State. Emissions changes should be identified by type of source or activity. The 

analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions inventory, with 

estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for 

emissions changes during the applicable 5-year period.

This requirement calls for tracking changes in emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants across the entire inventory, including both emissions increases as well as 

decreases. For an analysis that “track[s] the change over the past 5 years,” the report will 

need to compare emissions at two points in time. While there is flexibility to determine 

the relevant 5-year time period to be used in tracking the entire inventory, this provision 

clearly calls for “tracking” of a “change” over a 5-year period, which necessitates at least 

2 inventory years, 5 years apart. While ideally the EPA views the “applicable 5-year 

period” to represent the 5 years that have elapsed since the state submitted its regional 

haze SIP, there is room for state discretion in the reports regarding the 5-year period that 

is considered to be most practical and useful for meeting this requirement. There is an 
12

inevitable time lag in developing and reporting inventories and thus trends over the most 

recent 5 years will not be available. Accordingly, the EPA does not view the exact years 

selected for overall emissions trends as critical. 

The EPA expects to have the capability to provide emissions inventory 

summaries, should states find this useful for the 5-year reports, including (1) summaries 

for 2005, (2) summaries for the latest year available, 2008 (or later years such as 2011

depending on when the 5-year report is being prepared), and (3) starting in approximately 

spring 2013, projections for 2012 derived from the EPA’s work on regulatory impact 

analyses. Further discussions with states and MJOs are needed to determine whether this 

assistance on the EPA’s part is necessary or helpful for the states.

Many important changes in inventories have occurred between 2007 or 2008 and 

the present, the most significant two being substantial decreases in SO2 emissions from 

EGUs and other point sources and very large decreases in NOx emissions from on-road 

and other mobile source engines. As noted previously, the reports should include the 

latest inventory updates for EGUs. States should consider providing updates to the 

mobile source inventory5and projections in their reports where NOx reductions are a

significant element of the expected visibility improvements in the regional haze SIP.

Disaggregating emissions trends to the county level is not necessary for the 5-year 

reports. There may be cases where for some portion of the inventory, a county-level 

summary may help inform emissions patterns affecting visibility in a nearby Class I area. 

 

5 The EPA recognizes that in some instances, mobile source comparisons for two years such as 2002 and 

2007 may be affected by changes in mobile source emissions methodologies. Where this is the case, EPA 

does not expect states to re-calculate mobile source emissions for the earlier years, but we would expect a 

qualitative discussion of the effect of the methodology change on the reported trends.
13

The EPA does not discourage targeted county or similar-level disaggregation in such 

cases. The EPA expects, however, that in most cases a state-level summary will suffice. 

Similarly, the EPA does not expect a detailed disaggregation into many 

subcategories. For much of the eastern U.S., for example, the visibility problem is 

primarily attributed to sulfates. Where this is the case, a broad disaggregation into 4 - 6 

categories should be acceptable, so long as point source emissions are identified as a 

separate subcategory. Another possible way to disaggregate, in situations that are less 

dominated by sulfates, is to use readily available the EPA-developed “Tier 1” 13-

category summaries, or to use summaries similar to the Tier 1 summaries. Because for 

direct PM, much of the emissions in the EPA’s Tier 1 reports are identified as 

“miscellaneous” emissions, the EPA recommends disaggregating that category unless 

direct PM is an insignificant part of the reasonable progress strategy. The following table 

displays an example of the modified Tier 1 disaggregation:

NOx SO2 PM2.5

State X

CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRODUCT MFG 34 7 19

FUEL COMB. ELEC. UTIL. 63,811 78,255 3,755

FUEL COMB. INDUSTRIAL 21,040 13,511 1,145

FUEL COMB. OTHER 15,427 3,375 18,300

HIGHWAY VEHICLES 169,072 2,211 8,048

METALS PROCESSING 27,242 8,900 5,231

MISCELLANEOUS; Agriculture & Forestry; agricultural 

crops 54,096

MISCELLANEOUS; Agriculture & Forestry; agricultural 

livestock

MISCELLANEOUS; Agriculture & Forestry; fertilizer 

application

MISCELLANEOUS; Health Services; other 5 0 0

MISCELLANEOUS; Other Combustion; agricultural fires 555 74 1,850

MISCELLANEOUS; Other Combustion; prescribed burni 1,347 935 12,897

MISCELLANEOUS; Other Fugitive Dust; construction 2,944
14

MISCELLANEOUS; Other Fugitive Dust; paved roads 4,987

MISCELLANEOUS; Other Fugitive Dust; public unpaved 

roads 30,309

OFF-HIGHWAY 99,569 2,795 7,252

OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 2,995 2,590 8,284

PETROLEUM & RELATED INDUSTRIES 195 189 319

SOLVENT UTILIZATION 295 34 396

STORAGE & TRANSPORT 39 2 1,983

WASTE DISPOSAL & RECYCLING 6,711 867 8,083

Anthropogenic Subtotal 408,339 113,745 169,897

MISCELLANEOUS; Other Combustion; forest wildfires 3,182 3,086 50,384

NATURAL SOURCES 26,919

Natural Subtotal 30,102 3,086 50,384

Grand Total 438,440 116,831 220,280
15

E. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility rogress. 

 Sections 51.308(g)(5) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E). 

An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the State that have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.

A “significant change” that can “limit or impede progress” could be either (1) a 

significant unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions that occurred over the 5-year 

period (that is, an increase that was not projected in the analysis for the SIP), or (2) a 

significant expected reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did not occur (that is, a 

projected decrease in emissions in the analysis for the SIP that was not realized). This 

requirement is aimed at assessing whether any such significant emissions changes have 

occurred within the state over the 5-year period since the SIP was submitted, and whether 

emissions increases outside the state are affecting a Class I area within the state 

adversely. For those Class I areas where there is a significant overall downward trend in 

both visibility and nearby emissions, we expect that this assessment will point to those 

trends in support of a simple negative declaration satisfying this requirement. In Class I 

areas where less visibility progress has occurred, or where visibility progress is more 

uncertain, greater attention should be paid to evaluate whether there have been changes to 

expected emissions patterns in nearby states or source categories within the region that 

have affected progress. The EPA expects this requirement can be addressed with readily 

available information, and the EPA does not expect new emissions inventory collection 

or air quality modeling. Note that this provision applies to all states, including those 

without Class I areas within the state. The EPA also notes that changes in wildfires are 

not a “change” to report under Sections 51.308(g)(5) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(E).
16

F. Assessment of Current Strategy. 

 Sections 51.308(g)(6) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(F). 

An assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and 

strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other States with mandatory 

Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established 

reasonable progress goals.

Consistent with the statement in the preamble to the 1999 Regional Haze Rule 

that the 5-year progress reports are to “involve significantly less effort than a 

comprehensive SIP revision,” the EPA views this requirement as a qualitative 

assessment, in light of emissions and visibility trends and other readily available 

information, as to whether Class I areas affected by the state (both within the state and in 

other states) are on track to meet their 2018 reasonable progress goals. We expect that 

this requirement can be addressed without performing new air quality modeling.

In addressing the requirements in this section, the reports should list each Class I 

area affected by sources in the state, as identified in the SIP. For those areas, the reports 

should assess qualitatively whether the emissions and visibility trends suggest any 

deficiencies in the SIP that will affect achievement of the reasonable progress goals for 

those Class I areas. In addition, there is a forward-looking component to this section, 

requiring a qualitative assessment of progress expected by the end of 2018. For example, 

the state should discuss measures and expected emissions reductions for measures with 

compliance dates that have not yet become effective. This forward-looking assessment 

should also be useful in identifying control measure and air quality evaluation issues that 

should be addressed in detail in the analytical work for the second 10-year 

implementation period. 
17

For each Class I area affected by sources in the state, the report should generally 

identify the “established” 2018 reasonable progress goal for the first 10-year planning 

period. In some cases, however, we expect that a state could satisfy the requirement to 

assess continuing SIP adequacy without referring to the specific numerical targets or the 

uniform rate of progress goal or “glide path” value.6For example, if the progress report 

explains that the areas affected by sources in the state achieve visibility progress almost 

entirely due to reduction in sulfates, and provides evidence that the state is reducing its 

SO2 emissions by substantially more than was expected when the SIP was developed, 

such a discussion would provide a sufficient showing that the state is on track for 

ensuring reasonable progress in Class I areas, regardless of the specific numeric goals 

established for the first 10-year implementation period. 

G. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy. 

 Sections 51.308(g)(7) and 51.309(d)(10)(i)(G). 

A review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the 

strategy as necessary.

This requirement only applies to states with Class I areas within their borders. The 

EPA expects that states will use the IMPROVE network to provide for visibility and 

species measurements, in some cases supplemented by monitors operated by the state or 

others. The EPA expects that in responding to this requirement, most states will simply 

include a statement confirming continued reliance on IMPROVE. This does, however, 

provide an opportunity to point out any weaknesses, and to discuss any improvements in 

the monitoring program that may be warranted to address identified weaknesses. This 

 

6

There may be some cases where such a reasonable progress goal has not yet been finalized for some class 

I areas affected by the state preparing the 5-year progress report, given that some nearby states with Class I 

areas affected by the state may not have approved SIPs. For such cases, states should describe the status of 

development of the goal but need formally assess only those “established” goals that are SIP-approved.
18

section of the report should also discuss any significant expected changes to the 

IMPROVE network for the state’s Class I areas, such as changes in operating sites, 

monitoring frequency, or methods. 

H. Determination of Adequacy. 

 Sections 51.308(h) and 51.309(d)(10)(ii). 

(h) Determination of the adequacy of existing implementation plan. At the same 

time the State is required to submit any 5-year progress report to the EPA in 

accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, the State must also take one of the 

following actions based upon the information presented in the progress report:

(1) If the State determines that the existing implementation plan requires 

no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals 

for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the State must provide to the 

Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the existing 

implementation plan is not needed at this time.

(2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in 

another State(s) which participated in a regional planning process, the State must 

provide notification to the Administrator and to the other State(s) which 

participated in the regional planning process with the States. The State must also 

collaborate with the other State(s) through the regional planning process for the 

purpose of developing additional strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.

(3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in 

another country, the State shall provide notification, along with available 

information, to the Administrator.

(4) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within 

the State, the State shall revise its implementation plan to address the plan's 

deficiencies within one year.

Where the visibility and emissions trends indicate substantial progress, we expect 

that this requirement will be satisfied with a simple negative declaration according to the 

first option. The second and third options, pertinent only to states with Class I areas, 

provide the opportunity to identify possible emissions in other states, or in other 
19

countries, that may be impeding progress for the Class I areas within the state. The 

second option provides an opportunity to identify issues which may require multi-state 

collaboration for the next 10-year comprehensive SIP revision. The EPA envisions the 

fourth option as being primarily applicable to situations for which a state’s control 

measures in the regional haze SIP are not being implemented, or are being implemented 

in a way that achieves less emissions and visibility progress than provided for in the 

approved SIP. For example, if an emissions limit was achieving less emissions reductions 

than envisioned because of an inadvertent regulatory language defect in a rule, it is 

entirely appropriate as a mid-course correction to amend the rule in an expeditious 

manner. On the other hand, it is not realistic to presume that an entire overhaul of the 

regional haze control strategy could be accomplished within one year. The EPA does 

suggest, however, that states use this as an opportunity for critical thinking in identifying 

candidate control measures, categories, and strategies, and an opportunity to begin 

considering how the regional haze SIP could be improved during the next 10-year 

implementation period. 

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Administrative Process. 

 Section 51.308(g) and 51.309(d)(10). 

The progress reports must be in the form of implementation plan revisions that 

comply with the procedural requirements of §51.102 and §51.103.

States must follow the formal SIP revision administrative procedures, including 

public review, before formally submitting the 5-year progress report to the EPA. The 

EPA and states have been working together on efforts to reform and clarify these SIP–
20

related administrative procedures. These efforts resulted in the following two the EPA 

memoranda: 

(1) Memorandum from Janet McCabe to the EPA Regional Administrators: 

Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State Implementation Plan 

Submittals and the Use of “Letter Notices.” April 11, 2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/mccabeLltrRAs.pdf

(2) Memorandum from Janet McCabe to the EPA Regional Administrators: 

Guidance for Preparing Letters Submitting State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to the EPA 

and for Preparing Public Notices for SIPs. November 22, 2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/FINALSIPGuidelinesSubLtrsPN.p

df 

States should consult with their Regional Offices to discuss available mechanisms 

to simplify procedural requirements.

B. Consultation with Federal Land Managers

 Sections 51.308(i)(2) and (3). 

2) The State must provide the Federal Land Manager with an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on an 

implementation plan (or plan revision) for regional haze required by this subpart. This 

consultation must include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to 

discuss their:

(i) Assessment of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area; 

and

(ii) Recommendations on the development of the reasonable progress goal and on 

the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.

(3) In developing any implementation plan (or plan revision), the State must 

include a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the Federal Land 

Managers.
21

Because this language refers to “this subpart,” it covers the “plan revisions” 

required by both Section 308 and 309, including the 5-year progress reports. The 5-year 

progress report should document the required consultation with Federal Land Managers. 

C. Deadlines for Submitting the First 5-Year Progress Report

51.308(g): The first progress report is due 5 years from submittal of the initial 

implementation plan.

51.309(d)(10): Each Transport Region State must submit to the Administrator 

periodic reports in the years 2013 and 2018.

For convenience, and in order to provide opportunity for feedback on the EPA’s 

current understanding of the dates of initial SIP submittal, the following table identifies 

the initial regional haze SIP submittal date, and the first 5-year regional haze progress 

report deadline for each state. The EPA notes that it is permissible to submit the 5-year 

report earlier than the deadline. Some states may wish to coordinate technical efforts 

through MJOs which would result in some states submitting at or near the deadline while 

others would submit the 5-year report earlier. 

The EPA notes that upon the EPA’s finding that a state has not submitted a 5-year 

progress report SIP revision by the deadline, this action would start a ‘‘clock’’ for the 

EPA to complete the progress report within 2 years. There would be no mandatory 

sanctions triggered by such an action, although the EPA would have the authority to 

employ discretionary sanctions. The clock would be ‘‘turned off’’ through the submission 

of a complete progress report SIP by the state and approval of the SIP revision by the 

EPA.
22

Deadlines for the First 5-Year Regional Haze Progress Reports by State and the 

EPA Region. 

State/Local 

Jurisdiction

EPA 

Region

Initial RH 

SIP 

Submittal 

Date

First RH 5-

year Progress 

Report Due No 

Later Than

Connecticut 1 11/13/2009 November 2014

Maine 1 12/9/2010 December 2015

Massachusetts 1 12/30/11 December 2016

New Hampshire 1 1/29/2010 January 2015

Rhode Island 1 8/10/2009 August 2014

Vermont 1 8/31/2009 August 2014

New Jersey 2 7/28/2009 July 2014

New York 2 3/16/2010 March 2015

Virgin Islands * 2 10/22/2012 October 2017

Delaware 3 9/25/2008 September

2013

District of Columbia 3 9/21/2010 February 2015

Maryland 3 2/13/2012 February 2017

Pennsylvania 3 12/10/2010 December 2015

Virginia 3 10/4/2010 October 2015

West Virginia 3 6/18/2008 June 2013

Alabama 4 7/15/2008 July 2013

Florida 4 3/19/2010 March 2015

Georgia 4 2/11/2010 February 2015

Kentucky 4 6/25/2008 June 2013

Mississippi 4 9/22/2008 September

2013

North Carolina 4 12/17/2007 December 2012

South Carolina 4 12/17/2007 December 2012

Tennessee 4 4/4/2008 April 2013

Illinois 5 6/24/2011 June 2016

Indiana 5 3/10/2011 March 2016

Michigan 5 11/5/2010 November 2015

Minnesota 5 12/30/2009 December 2014
23

State/Local 

Jurisdiction

EPA 

Region

Initial RH 

SIP 

Submittal 

Date

First RH 5-

year Progress 

Report Due No 

Later Than

Ohio 5 3/11/2011 March 2016

Wisconsin 5 7/1/2011 July 2016

Albuquerque/Bernalillio 

County (Section 309)

6 6/8/2011 December 2013

Arkansas 6 9/24/2008 September

2013

Louisiana 6 6/13/2008 June 2013

New Mexico (Section 

309)

6 6/2/2011 December 2013

Oklahoma 6 2/19/2010 February 2015

Texas 6 3/31/2009 March 2014

Iowa 7 3/25/2008 March 2013

Kansas 7 11/4/2009 November 2014

Missouri 7 8/5/2009 August 2014

Nebraska 7 6/30/2011 June 2016

Colorado 8 6/11/2011 June 2016

Montana * 8 9/18/ 2012 September 

2017

North Dakota 8 3/17/2010 March 2015

South Dakota 8 2/2/2011 February 2016

Utah (Section 309) 8 9/16/2008 December 2013

Wyoming (Section 309) 8 1/12/2011 December 2013

Arizona 9 2/28/2011 February 2016

California 9 3/17/2009 March 2014

Hawaii * 9 10/9/2012 October 2017

Nevada 9 11/18/2009 November 2014

Alaska 10 4/4/2011 April 2016

Idaho 10 10/25/2010 October 2015

Oregon 10 12/20/2010 December 2015

Washington 10 1/6/2011 January 2016

*Two states,Virgin Islands and Hawaii, did not submit regional haze SIPs and a third 

state, Montana, did not submit an overall regional haze SIP but addressed a relatively 

small part of the regional haze requirements in a SIP submittal. For these three states, the 

due dates are calculated to be 5 years from the date of the final FIPs. 
24

D. Checklist

Y/ 

N 

5-yr Progress Report Submittal Checklist Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308 (g)-(h) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) 

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location

in 5-year 

progress report

Comments

Report Requirements

51.308(g)(1)

51.309(d)(10)(i)(A)

Status of Control Strategies in the Regional Haze SIP: Does the 

report include a list of measures the state relied upon? (all states)

51.308(g)(2)

51.309(d)(10)(i)(B

Emissions Reductions from Regional Haze SIP Strategies: Does

the report include estimated reduction estimates for these 

measures? (all states)

51.308(g)(3)

51.309(d)(10)(i)(C)

Visibility Progress: Does the report include the summaries of 

monitored visibility data as required by the Regional Haze Rule?

(states with Class I areas only)

51.308(g)(4)

51.309(d)(10)(i)(D)

Emissions Progress: Does the report provide emissions trends 

across the entire inventory for a 5-year period as required by the 

Regional Haze Rule? (all states)

51.308(g)(5) 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(E)

Assessment of Changes Impeding Progress: Does the report 

include an explicit statement of whether there are anthropogenic 

emissions changes impeding progress? (all states)

51.308(g)(6)

51.309(d)(10)(i)(F)

Assessment of Current Strategy: Does the report include an 

assessment of whether the state’s haze plan is on track to meet 

reasonable progress goals? (all states)
25

Y/ 

N 

5-yr Progress Report Submittal Checklist Submitted under 40 CFR 51.308 (g)-(h) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) 

Regulation 

Citation

Regulation Summary (not verbatim) Location

in 5-year 

progress report

Comments

51.308(g)(7) 

51.309(d)(10)(i)(G)

Review of Monitoring Strategy: Does the report review the 

monitoring plan including any non-IMPROVE monitors the state 

is using? (states with Class I areas only)

51.308(h) 

51.309(d)(10)(ii) Determination of Adequacy: Does the report (or the transmittal 

materials) provide the explicit determination required by the 

Regional Haze Rule? (all states)