EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

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. 

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 The “Attainment Guidance” is the Draft Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for PM2.5 and Regional Haze, January 2, 2001. 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

2

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: 8-

Hour 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/R-99-

003, 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. 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

3

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 

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? 

Subsections 11.10 

and 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 

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? 

To be provided 

upon SIP approval 

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? 

Section 12 and 

Attachments JJ 

and KK; 

draft rules prepared 

(Attachments FF 

and GG) 

Y 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? 

Attachments JJ 

Y 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? 

Attachments KK 

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

comments and the State’s response thereto? 

Attachments I 

and J 

Technical Requirements from 40 CFR 51.308 

N (b) Was the SIP submitted no later than 

December 17, 2007? 

SIP was submitted 

on May 26, 2009, 

and resubmitted 

after revision on 

January 29, 2010. 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

4

Y/N 

or 

NA

Regulation 

Citation 

Regulation Summary 

(not verbatim)

Location 

in SIP References

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 

Y * (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? 

Subsection 10.3, 

Table 10-8 

• p. 35730 of the 1999 

RHR 

• p. 1-6 of the Tracking 

Guidance 

• Attainment Guidance 

• draft RPG Guidance 

Y * (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? 

Subsections 10.2 

thru 10.4 

• 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 

and 11-3 thru 

11-7 

• 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 

• Section 11 

• Subsection 11.8, 

Figures 11-1 and 

11-3 thru 11-7 

• 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 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

5

Y/N 

or 

NA

Regulation 

Citation 

Regulation Summary 

(not verbatim)

Location 

in SIP References

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 p. 35735 of the 1999 RHR 

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 represent at 

least the visibility improvement expected from 

implementation of other CAA programs 

during the applicable planning period? 

Section 10 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? 

Section 4.2, 

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 

• 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? 

Section 4.2, 

Tables 4.2 and 4.3 

Y * (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? 

Subsection 5.3, 

Parts 5.3.3 and 

5.3.4 

• 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 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

6

Y/N 

or 

NA

Regulation 

Citation 

Regulation Summary 

(not verbatim)

Location 

in SIP References

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 p. 35734-35 of the 1999 

RHR 

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 p. 35735 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 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 

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 

• p. 35728 of the 1999 

RHR 

• Baseline Memo 

• EI Guidance 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

7

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 • 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 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 11.8 p. 35737 of the 1999 RHR 

Y * (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? 

Section 5 • p. 35744 of the 1999 

RHR 

• Attainment Guidance 

• Tracking Guidance 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

NA * (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 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

8

Y/N 

or 

NA

Regulation 

Citation 

Regulation Summary 

(not verbatim)

Location 

in SIP References

N * (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? 

Subsection 5.2 

(Current system is 

sufficient.) 

• 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 

NA (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? 

• p. 35744 of the 1999 

RHR 

• Attainment Guidance 

• Tracking Guidance 

• Visibility Monitoring 

Guidance 

Y * (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 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 

(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 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

9

Y/N 

or 

NA

Regulation 

Citation 

Regulation Summary 

(not verbatim)

Location 

in SIP References

Y (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? 

Section 9 BART Guidelines 

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

sources within the State with supporting 

documentation? 

Subsection 9.2 and 

Attachment X 

BART Guidelines 

Y (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? 

Subsection 9.3 and 

Attachment X 

BART Guidelines 

Y (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? 

Subsection 9.3 and 

Attachment X 

BART Guidelines 

Y (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? 

Subsection 9.3 and 

Attachment X 

• BART Guidelines 

• p. 39107, 127 of the 

2005 BART Rule 

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

fired power plants > 750 megawatts pursuant 

to the BART guidelines? 

BART facilities 

< 750 MW, but 

guidelines used 

• BART Guidelines 

• p. 39108 of the 2005 

BART Rule 

NA (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? 

 BART Guidelines 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

10

Y/N 

or 

NA

Regulation 

Citation 

Regulation Summary 

(not verbatim)

Location 

in SIP References

NA (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? 

• BART Guidelines 

• p. 39172 of the 2005 

BART Rule 

Y (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? 

Subsection 9.5 p. 39158, 70, 72 of the 

2005 BART Rule 

Y (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? 

Subsection 9.5 p. 39172 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, 

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? 

 40 CFR 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 
EPA Checklist for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.308 (8/04/06) 

11

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 of 

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 

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

of how it addressed any comments provided 

by the FLMs? 

Subsection 3.2, 

Part 3.2.5, and 

Attachment I 

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