UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

APR - 6 2011 =ICE OF 

AH AND RADIATION 

SUBJECT: Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of 

State Implementation Plan Submittals and the Use of "Letter Notices" 

FROM: Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant Administrator >ab 

Office of Aim & Radiation 

TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I - X 

The National State Implementation Plan (SIP) Reform Workgroup is a cooperative 

initiative between EPA, the National Association of Clean Air ~~encies (NACAA), and the 

Environmental Council of the States (ECOSI, and includes re~resentatives from Sacramento. 

California; Lm County, Iowa; ~enkck~; hi&land; ~evad; New York; Ohio; South ~arolina, 

Utah and Wisconsin, as well as EPA's Office of Aii and Radiation (OAR), EPA Regions I, I11 

and VII and the ECOS and NACAA Headquarters offices. It is facilitated by Jim Blizzard of 

ECOS, Nancy Kruger of NACAA, and Carey Fitzmaurice of OAR. The ECOS and NACAA 

memberships have identified a number of SIP-related issues for improving the entire "SIP 

Process" from the time EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS through to the time of formal 

submittals to Regional Offices for completeness determinations and rulemakings. Given these 

issues identified by ECOS and NACAA, as well as our own recognition that the SIP process 

needs to be improved and streamlined, there are a number of ongoing initiatives related to SIP 

Reform. Many of the ECOS/NACAA-identified SIP reform issues involve EPA providing states 

and localities the opportunity to participate upfront in such things as designation procedures, 

implementation rules, and other forms of national SIP guidance related to modeling, weight of 

evidence (WOE), etc. Tackling these SIP reform issues requires action on the part of OAR, and 

representatives from OAQPS are actively participating on the Workgroup. However, many of 

the ECOS/NACAA-identified issues center around Regional consistency. The Regional Air 

Division Directors and Air Program Managers agree that addressing these issues is primarily the 

Regions' responsibility. 

The purpose of this memorandum is to address the first group of issues identified by the 

Workmuv. - These issues involve consistency between all ten Regional Offices and revresent the A 

first increment of success in this collective effort to improve the SIP process. ~ttachmkt A's 

focus is to standardize what every Regional Office requires from its State, Local, and Tribal 

agencies when those agencies formally submit a SIP revision (hereafter the tenn State will be 

used to mean all those agencies formally authorized to submit SIPS and TIPS) and to simplify 
those requirements where possible. It addresses the issue raised by ECOS and NACAA urging 

EPA to reduce the number of hard paper copies required when submitting SIP revisions. 

The other attachments to this memorandum cover issues related to the public notice and 

hearing requirements for SIP revisions, the differences between Clean Data Determinations and 

Redesignations, and the types of SIP revisions eligible for approval by "Letter Notice" versus 

full "notice and comment" ~kmaking. 

Nothing in the attachments to this memorandum is intended to require changes to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), the current Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR Part 51 or 

Appendix V to Part 51. However, with regard to Attachment A there remains the need to satisfy 

the requirements of 40 CFR Part 5 1.1 O3(a) as to the number and types of copies of a SIP revision 

that must be submitted by the State to EPA. 40 CFR Part 5 l.lO3(a) says the State must provide 

"iive hard copies or at least two hard copies with an electronic version of the hard copy (unless 

othenvise agreed to by the State and Regional Office) of the plan to the appropriate Regional 

Office with a letter giving notice of such action. If the State submits an electronic copy, it must 

be an exact duplicate of the hard copy." Given the flexibility afforded in Part 51 .lO3(a), 

compliance with its requirements can be achieved by each Regional Office having a record of an 

agreement between the Region and its States that the procedures outlined in Attachment A be 

followed when submitting a SIP revision. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) has advised 

that all ten Regions could easily pursue such an agreement with a presumptive letter from each 

Regional Administrator (RA) to the States in hisher Region, i.e. "We are agreeing to the 

following procedures for SIP submittals from you, and assume that you agree to these procedures 

unless we hear otherwise from you by [date]." Such letters would enclose this memorandum 

and its attachments. A model letter has been developed for use by all ten Regions. 

The attachments to this memorandum have the concurrence of all ten Regional Aii 

Division Directors, OAR and OGC. There is consensus among all ten Regions to implement 

these standardized procedures as quickly as possible via the RA letter described in the preceding 

paragraph. The ECOShTACA.4 members of the National SIP Reform Workgroup were given 

the opportunity to provide feedback on these procedures and have endorsed their implementation 

as a significant step in our SIP reform efforts. 

There will be additional efforts to address the remaining and any future issues concerning 

Regional consistency and communications with States. For example, the Regions will work 

together to develop procedures to: 

1. Require the same level of detail and documentation in the technical portions of SIP 

submittals from all States. 

2. Provide early, upfront and consistent guidance to all States regarding how to interpret 

and meet the requirements of implementation plans and other national rules. 

3. Work with Multi-jurisdictional Organizations (MJOs) and Regional Planning 

Organizations (RPOs) that are performing the technical work (emission inventories, 

mo-heling, etc.), developing mddel rules, &d designing SIP templates for their 

member States such that when the States submit their SIPS that include these 
MJOIRPO work products there are no EPA requests for additional submissions andlor 

revisions late in the SIP submittal process. 

The Regional members of the longstanding SIP Processing Work Group (which is separate from 

the National SIP Reform Workgroup) are contacts to whom questions regarding this 

menlorandurn may be addressed. They are as follows: 

Region 1 - Donald Cooke 

Region 2 - Paul Truchan 

Region 3 - Harold Frankford 

Region 4 - Nacosta WardSara Waterson 

Region 5 - Christos Panos 

Region 6 - Carl Young 

Region 7 - Jan Simpson 

Region 8 - Kathy Dolan 

Region 9 - Cynthia AllenILisa Tharp 

Region 10 - Donna Deneen 

cc: Regional Air Division Directors 

Regional Air Program Managers 

Regional Counsels for Air 

OAR Office Directors in OAQPS, OTAQ, and OAP 

OGC Air Office 

ECOSMACAA SIP Reform Work Group Members 

(for distribution to full memberships) 
Attachment A - Number and Types of Copies of SIP Submittals 

Required to be Submitted 

Identified Constraints: 

Currently the Federal Courts only recognize the "paper" (hard copy) of the rulemakiig docket as 

the official docket when a SIP approval or disapproval is subject to litigation. The same is true 

when a Federal enforcement action is taken against a source for a SIP violation. Therefore, 

this time, each EPA Regional Office must create and maintain a paper docket, including the State 

submittal, as well as the E-Docket to upload in the Federal Document Management System 

(FDMS) for each SIP-related rulemakiig. It is also, therefore, necessary for the letter submitting 

the SIP revision to be a signed, dated paper original letter from the State official authorized to 

submit SIP revisions. 

EPA also needs an electronic copy of the State submittal in searchable.pdf format to load into the 

FDMS. The Regions are prepared to generate this form of electronic copy in those instances 

when a State is unable to do so. 

SIP Submittals: 

1. One paper copy of the SIP revision submitted to EPA by an original, dated letter signed 

by the State official authorized to submit SIP revisions and addressed to either the 

Regional Administrator (RA) or the Director of the Air Division in a given Regional 

Office brovided the RA has delegated the authority to receive SIP revisions to the Air 

Division Director). Many of the administrative requirements for complete SIP revisions 

found at 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix V, 2.1, may be met by statements made in the 

submittal letters. 

2. One electronic copy of the entire SIP revision along with the paper copy, preferably on 

disk, or otherwise made available to the Regional Ofice e.g., by e-mail, hrn a File 

Transfer Protocol (FTP) site or from the state website at the same time the paper copy is 

submitted. It makes it much easier for EPA if the electronic copy is made available in 

searchable.pdf format because that is the format required to be uploaded in to the FDMS. 

3. In the original, dated paper version of the letter signed by the State oficial authorized to 

submit SIP revisions, there must be statement certifying that any electronic copy 

provided by the State to EPA whether by disk or o&er&se ma& available to the 

Regional Office is an exact duplicate of the hard copy. 

4. If the State is unable to provide an electronic copy in semhable.pdf format, the Regional 

Office can accept an electronic copy in image.pdf format, Microsoft Word, or Microsoft 

Excel and convert it to semhable.pdf format to load into the FDMS. Likewise, if a State 

only submits a paper copy and has no means of making an electronic copy available to 

EPA, the EPA Regional Ofice wilI scan the paper copy and create an electronic copy in 

searchable.pdf format to load into the FDMS. 
5. Even for the single official paper copy identified under number 1. above, States 

have to submit paper copies of large data files such as ambient air quality data, emissions 

inventories, model input files, etc. if the State puts such supporting data files on a disk (or 

disks) and submits the disk along with the paper copy. Such disks should be submitted 

with the official paper copy in order for the official SIP submittal to be complete. EPA 

cannot "complete" the official submittal for the State by accessing such data files from an 

e-mail, FTP or website. 

6. "Model" SIP submittal letters are available fiom the Regional Offices. 

Caveats: 

1. EPA is able to "retrieve" the "unofficial" electronic copy via e-mail, from an FTP or a 

state website only because the State submitted the official paper copy. Whatever material 

EPA receives via e-mail or accesses fiom an FTP or website is not the official submittal. 

2. The State should identify any copyrighted material in its submittal as EPA does not place 

such material on the web when creating the E-Docket for loading into FDMS. 

3. States are urged not to include any material considered Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) in their SIP submittals. In rare instances where such information is 

necessary to justify the control requirements and emission limitations established by the 

SIP revision (e.g., for a source-specific SIP revision), States should confer with their 

Regional Offices prior to submittal and must clearly identify such material as CBI in the 

submittal itself. EPA does not place such material in either the paper docket or the web 

when creating the &Docket for loading into FDMS. However, where any such material 

is considered emissions data within the meaning of Section 1 14 of the CAA, it cannot be 

withheld as CBI and must be made publically available. 

Notes: The use of STAG (105) hds by States to purchase the softwarelequipment needed to 

create electronic copies in searchable.pdf format is an acceptable expense, and many States have 

opted to do so. A State may indicate such purchases in the appropriate portion of its 105 grant 

application. 

Future Activities: EPA is committed to work with the Department of Justice to continue to 

pursue options for reducing and eventually eliminating the paper (hardcopy) submittals of SIP 

revisions in favor of electronic submittals. 
Attachment B - Public NoticedHearings Required by Sec. 110 of the CAA 

Identified Constraints: 

As explained below, EPA has made significant reforms in the SIP process regarding public 

notices and public hearings. However, States may implement these reform opportunities only to 

the extent allowed by State law because a basic requirement for an approvable SIP revision is 

that it was developed and adopted by the State agency in accohce with such law and its legal 

authority. 

PublidNotice Hearing: 

1. The public notice and public hearing requirements for SIP revisions are found at 40 CFR 

Part 5 1.102. These Federal regulations indicate that the State must afford the opportunity 

to submit written comments and allow the public to request a public hearing either by 

announcing a hearing in the notice for comments or by providing the opportunity to 

request a hearing in that notice. Each State must have legal authority setting out its 

public notice procedures and EPA has already approved these procedures as meeting the 

minimum requirements of the CAA. 

2. EPA has determined that the term "prominent advertisement" as used in 40 CFR Part 51 

when refemng to the public notice required by Section 110 of the CAA for SIP revisions 

is media neutral. The State may continue the use of newspapers to publish these notices 

or may opt to publish such notices elsewhere so long as the State has determined that the 

public would have routine and ready access to such alternative publishing venues. States 

may also choose a combination approach whereby a short (and presumably less 

expensive) notice is published in a newspaper that informs the public where to access the 

complete public notice that satisfies all of 40 CFR Part 51 requirements. 

3. EPA recognizes that many States use a single public notice and hearing to satisfy their 

own State adoption process requirements, Section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR Part 51. 

This has long been and continues to be an acceptable practice. However, in order to 

satisfy the CAA and 40 CFR Part 5 1, the notice must clearly state that the regulations 

andlor documents that are the subject of the public notice will be submitted to the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency to be included in or to revise the State 

Implementation Plan required by the Clean Aii Act and should identify the CAA 

requirements the revisions are intended to meet. Unless the public notice includes this 

statement, Section 110 of the CAA has not been satisfied. 

4. The regulations provide that any public hearing must be announced in a public notice at 

least 30 days prior to the hearing, and that notice must include the date, place, and time of 

the public h&ng. If the State receives a request for a public hearing, it must hold the 

already scheduled hearing as described in the original public notice or schedule a public 

hearing through a separate notice. To avoid having to re-publish a second notice to 

provide 30 days advance notice of a public hearing, States are strongly encouraged to 

schedule a public hearing in the original public notice. Under 40 CFR part 51.102(a), the 

6 
State may cancel the public hearing if no request for a public hearing is received during 

the 30-day notification period, so long as the original public notice announcing the 30- 

day notification period clearly states: Ifno request for apublic hearing is received, the 

hearing will be cancelled; identijies the method and time for announcing that the hearing 

has been cancelled; andprovides a contact phone number for the public to call to find 

out ifthe hearing has been cancelled. 

5. Pursuant to the regulations, the entire SIP revision must be made available for public 

review and comment including supporting technical materials and other information the 

State has relied upon or intends to rely upon to justify the approvability of the SIP 

revision. 

Caveats: 

As noted above, States often publish a single public notice and hold a single public hearing to 

satisfy State requirements for adoption of State ruleslregulations as well as Section 1 10 of the 

CAA and 40 CFR Part 51 requirements. This usually means that the public notice and hearing 

are held on a provosed state rulelregulation. Two important points: 

1. There is no independent Federal requirement that the public notice and hearing required 

by Section 1 10 of the CAA or 40 CFR Part 51 be held on pro~osed State regulations. 

However, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, 2.1 (e) requires that the State must have 

followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's law and constitution in 

conducting and completing adoptionlissuance of the SIP revision. So if State law 

requires public notice and hearing at the proposed stage of regulation adoption, then 

public notice must be given and hearing must be held on proposed regulations to satisfy 

40 CFR Part 5 1. 

EPA is aware that under State law certain Woes of SIP redations are not rewired to 

undergo public notice and hearing proced&s as part of ie State adoption prbcess. In 

such instances, the public notice and hearing requirements of 40 CFR Part 51.102 may be 

held on llly adopted State regulations. he ~ederal requirement for public notice and 

hearing is to inform the public that the SIP is being revised and allow for comment as to 

whether the State regulations satisfy a specific obligation under the CAA. 

2. The Federal requirement for public notice and hearing is to inform the public that the 

State intends certain regulations and other actions to llfill specific CAA requirements 

and thus to revise the SIP. So if a regulation is significantly changed by the State 

between the time of proposal and final adoption, it may be necessary for the State to 

conduct the public participation procedures required by 40 CFR Part 51.102 on the final 

regulations being submitted as a SIP revision. 

Notes: EPA Regional Offices will provide "model" public notices for States to use satisfy 

Section 110, and 40 CFR Part 51.102 upon request. 
Attachment C -Determinations of Attainment by an Area's Attainment Date 

v. Clean Data Determinations 

& 

Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans 

Introduction: The issue of Redesignations v. Clean Data Determinations and what a State must 

provide to an EPA Regional Ofice for each type of submittal has been raised by the States to 

EPA for both clarification and Regional consistency. These are very different types of actions 

and achieve different results as explained in this Attachment. 

There is also a distinction between a Determination of Attainment by an area's attainment date 

and a Clean Data Determination which is explained below. 

The Distinction between a Determination of Attainment by an Area's Attainment Date and 

a Clean Data Determination 

It is important to distinguish between two different types of attainment determinations that EPA 

makes for areas that are designated nonattainment. Both types require notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. 

(1) Determinations of Attainment by an area's attainment date, and 

(2) Determinations of Attainment for purposes of suspending the State's obligation to 

submit certain planning SIPS linked to attainment (so-called Clean Data Determinations). 

With respect to Type 1, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine whether a nonattainment 

area has attained the standard as of its applicable attainment date. These Determinations of 

Attainment provide a historical snapshot -- they evaluate attainment only as of an area's 

attainment deadlime, and are issued to comply with Section 181(b)(2) for ozone and Sections 172 

and 179 for PM2.5. Determinations of Attainment by an attainment deadline are separate and 

independent of the second type of attainment determinations, Clean Data Determinations, which 

are not compelled by the CAA. 

With respect to Type 2, Clean Data Determinations originated in EPA's Clean Data Policy, but 

are now linked to EPA regulations. These determinations invoke either 40 CFR Part 51.918 for 

ozone or 51 .lOO4(c) for PMZ5. Unlike determinations by an attainment deadline, Clean Data 

Determinations are subject to revision based on changes in air quality, and must be sustained by 

continuing attainment. They fimction to suspend a State's obligation to submit certain 

attainment-related planning SIP obligations for a designated nonattainment area. The suspension 

continues until EPA determines that a violation has occurred, or EPA redesignates the area from 

nonattainment to attainment. 

These two types of determinations are conceptually and legally distinct. They arise from 

different authorities and result in different consequences. However, they both address air quality 

and can be based on the same or overlapping years of air quality data. 
Clean Data Determinations - See 40 CFR Part 51.918 for ozone and 51.1004(c) for PM2.5. 

Criteria: Either the State may request or EPA may, on its own, initiate the rulemaking to make 

a Clean Data Determination. A Clean Data Determination requires a demonstration that what is 

needed is for the most recent 3 years of complete air quality data have been entered into AIRSAQS, have been quality assured, and indicate attainment. In addition, the air quality data 

available to date (meaning as of the date of the final rulemakiig action), even if not complete. 

should be consistent with continued attainment. As the determination of what is complete and 

incomplete data as of the time of final rulemaking differs from criteria pollutant to criteria 

pollutant depending upon the form of the standard, the Regional office-will work closely with 

the State to ensure that the available data at the time of final rulemakine - is considered consistent 

with continued attainment. 

The EPA Regional Office will conduct the notice and comment rulemaking to make the Clean 

Data Determination. The key issues in the rulemaking action are the validity of the ambient air 

quality data themselves and the location and operation of the monitor(s) from which those data 

have been collected in order to ensure that the data are complete, quality assured and 

representative of the designated nonattainment area. 

Results: Upon EPA's promulgation of a final Clean Data Determination for a nonattainment 

area, the obligation for the State to submit for such an area the attainment demonstration, 

associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other attainment-related planning requirements is suspended until such time as the 

area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or until EPA 

determines that the area has violated the NAAQS, at which time the obligations would again 

apply. 

The suspension of the planning requirements saves the State and EPA the resources involved in 

developing, adopting, submitting, evaluating, and performing rulemaking for unneeded planning 

requirements as SIP revisions. 

The Clean Data Determination serves as notice to the public that the nonattainment area's air 

quality meets the NAAQS. 

Caveats: A Clean Data Determination does not have the effect of a redesignation to attainment. 

The area remains designated nonattainment and nonattainment area requirements such as New 

Source Review (NSR) and conformity continue to apply until the State submits a request for 

redesignation including the CAA-required maintenance plan and EPA approves them. 

If a State has an area for which a Clean Data Determination has been made and the State has 

submitted or submits SIP revisions for the suspended planning requirements, it may inform EPA 

that it wants these SIPS approved (for example, to enable the State to submit a redesignation 

request). Otherwise the State may opt to withdraw the SIPS submitted for the suspended 

requirements. Prior to requesting withdrawal, the State should consider the fact that it may want 

the mobile budgets in an attainment demonstration or RFP plan approved. Where the State does 

not withdraw any such SIP submissions, EPA remains obligated to act on them. 
Requests for Redesignations and Maintenance Plans - See Section 107(d)(3)(E) 

Introduction: To redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment is an important action 

that demonstrates success in the air quality planning process. Redesignation acknowledges not 

only that an area has met the relevant air quality standard, but also that the State has satisfied 

relevant requirements and shown that the area can continue to meet the standard for the decade 

following redesignation. EPA recognizes that the nonattainment designation of an area can 

affect its ability to attract economic development. Once an area is redesignated from 

nonattainment to attainment, it is likely better positioned to attract new and expanding businesses 

and industry. When an urban area is redesignated from nonattainment to attainment, the city 

may move up in the ranking of "Most Livable Cities" which may help it attract new residents 

and retain its existing population. Given these considerations, EPA is committed to work closely 

with States in the preparation and submittal of redesignation requests and maintenance plans and 

to make this work a priority so that submittals can be evaluated quickly and effectively. That 

said, individual Regions and States are encouraged to confer and determine which SIP revisions 

are the highest priorities as certain SIP revisions may be needed to avoid fmdings, halt 

sanctiordF1~ docks, respond to SIP calls, andlor be necessary to be approved order for an 

area to be eligible for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 

Criteria: Requests to redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment and the submittal of 

the CAA-required maintenance plans as SIP revisions are State-initiated actions. EPA approves 

the redesignations in 40 CFR Part 81 and the maintenance plans as SIP revisions in 40 CFR Part 

52. There are five statutory requirements that must be met for EPA to approve the redesignation 

of an area from nonattainment to attainment: 

1. EPA determines that area has attained the NAAQS (three years of com~lete quality 

assured data in AIRS-AQS that show attainment); 

2. EPA has fully approved the area's a~vlicable implementation plan (i.e., the plan 

developed for the particular nonattainment pollutant) under section 110(k) of the CAA; 

3. EPA determines the improvement in the area's air quality is due to enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation 

plan, applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent 

enforceable reductions; 

4. The area has a fully approved maintenance plan meeting section 175A of the CAA; and 

5. The State has met all of the requirements applicable (for purposes of redesignation) to the 

area under Section 1 10 (the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements) and Part D (the 

applicable nonattainment area SIP elements). 

SIP Submittals: A Section 175A maintenance plan is a SIP revision and must meet all of the 

administrative requirements of Part 51 and Part 51 Appendix V for a complete submittal. 

Under the CAA, a Section 175A maintenance plan must provide for the maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years the redesignation; this means for at least 10 years 

from EPA's final rule approving the redesignation. As the CAA provides up to 18 months for 

EPA to complete mlemaking on a redesignation request, the maintenance plan at the time of 

submittal should provide for attainment for at least 11 years and six months. EPA recommends 

to States that it provide for attainment for 12 years from the time of formal submittal to allow for 

completing the redesignation ~kmaking processes. 
When submitting a request for redesignation, the State does not have to re-submit SIP revisions it 

has already submitted to EPA to satisfy section 110 and Part D of the CAA. In its submittal of 

the redesignation request it may cite to the submittal dates of those SIP revisions. For any SIP 

revisions that have been already been approved, it may provide the dates and Federal Register 

citations of the EPA approvals. 

When evaluating a redesignation request and maintenance plan to determine whether or not all 

Section 110 and Part D SIP requirements have been met, EPA does not require that the area have 

a fully approved nonattainment pre-construction NSR permitting program for new major sources 

and major modifications, if the State demonstrates that the area can continue to maintain the 

standard with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Once an area is 

redesignated from nonattainment to attainment the Part C requirements for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration apply for the pre-construction permitting of new major sources and 

modifications. 

The contingency measures of a Section 175A maintenance plan, unlike the contingency 

measures of an attainment demonstration plan or reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, may 

not be implemented "early" by the State. These are the contingency measures that the State will - - - - 

implement if the maintenance plan's triggers for such measures occur (e.g., emissions 

projections exceed the levels projected in the plan or the area violates the NAAQS). These 

contingency measures and their schedule for implementation need to be clearly identified in the 

maintenance plan. 

How much documentation is necessary for the maintenance plan's "maintenance demonstration" 

of maintenance for 10 years after the EPA's final approval of the redesignation is dependent 

upon the form of the "maintenance demonstration." For example, if growth projections are used 

to "grow" a recently already approved SIP emission inventory (or inventories where multiple 

precursors are involved) for the area, it may not be necessary to resubmit all of the 

documentation for that emission inventory as part of the maintenance plan. In such cases the 

State may be able to cite to the submittal and/or approval of that emissions inventory to EPA. 

However, the State will still need to explain and justify their growth projections and any other 

factors applied to that inventory. 

The . maintenance ~lan for areas where RFP ~lans and attainment demonstrations have been 

approved will also have to identify mobile budgets. For other areas, the maintenance plan will 

still need to include provisions for how conformity will be done after the area is redesignated. 

Effects of a Redesignation: Once redesignated to attainment, the area's applicable SIP'S NSR 

provisions for minor sources apply and the requirements of the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program apply for the pre-construction permitting of new major sources and 

major modifications. The conformity requirements applicable in the attainment area will then 

apply as outlined in the approved maintenance plan including any applicable mobile budgets. 

In the event the area violates the NAAQS after redesignation, the area is not immediately subject 

to redesignation back to nonattainment. Rather the maintenance plan's contingency measures 

are to be~mplemented and other actions taken by the State to pro&ptly correctthe violation (e.g. 

non-compliance of a source or sources) and address the situation. 
Attachment D - The Use of Letter Notices 

Constraints: Because the use of Letter Notices by EPA to approve SIP revisions does not 

provide for public comment, the use of such letters is limited to those types of SIP revisions 

where "common sense" would indicate that the public and regulated sector would have no 

interest in commenting on EPA's approval. 

EPA's rulemaking procedures for SIP revisions are governed by the Federal Administrative 

Procedures Act (MA). While that statute does not include ~rovisions for Letter Notices to do 

SIP approvals, EPA has been using Letter Notices to appro;e a very mw range of SIP 

revisions because such actions fit under the good cause exemption of the APA's notice and 

comment requirements. 

Even purely administrative SIP revision approvals that do not make any substantive changes to 

SIP requirements do amend the CFR, namely the State's Subpart of 40 CFR Part 52. 

Accordingly, the Office of the Federal Rertister would have to be consulted before additional 

types of SIP revisions would become candidates for approval by Letter Notices. 

Types of SIP Revisions for Which Letter Notices May be Used by EPA: 

As fkst described in the 1989 SIP Processing Reform notice (54 FR 2218), under the Letter 

Notice procedure, EPA sends a letter to the affected states and parties rather than undertaking a 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. Use of Letter Notice is limited to truly insignificant SIP 

actions. No notice will be published in the Federal Register prior to sending final letter notice 

approvals to the State and affected parties. The letter to the State will be EPA's only and final 

action approving such minor SIP revisions. 

The Agency periodically publishes a summary list of all Letter Notice actions in the Federal 

Register to keep the general public informed of SIP matters. The effective date of the Letter 

Notice approvals is the date of the letter sent to the State, not the date of the subsequent 

summary Fed& Reeister notice. Letter Notice approvals do, however, remain subject to 

judicial review until sixty days after the date of the summary Federal Rerrister notice is 

published. 

Cateeories of SIP actions a~~ro~riate for ltter notice include: 

1. Re-codification involving no substantive changes; 

2. Minor technical amendments or error corrections; 

3. Typographical corrections, 

4. Address changes; and 

5. Similar non-substantive matters 

Caveats: The SIP revisions submitted by states that are eligible for approval by EPA by Letter 

Notice must still meet the administrative requirements for SIP submittal of 40 CFR Part 5 1 .lo2 

and Appendix V 
Future Activities: The members of the SIP Reform Workgroup will continue to pmue whether 

additional types of non-substantive SIP revisions may be added to the list of actions appropriate 

for Letter Notice. The Workgroup will also explore whether to modify 40 CFR Part 51 .I02 to 

provide less to provide less rigorous notice and comment requirements for such non-substantive 

SIP revisions.