UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEHTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 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 StateImplementation Plan (SIP) Reform Workgroup is a cooperative initiativebetween 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 ofNACAA, and Carey Fitzmauriceof OAR. The ECOS and NACAA memberships have identified a number of SIP-related issues for improvingthe entire "SIP Process" from the time EPA promulgates 

### a new or revised NAAQS through tothe 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 initiativesrelated to SIP Reform. Many ofthe ECOS/NACAA-identified SIPreform issuesinvolve EPA providing states and localities the opportunity to participate upfront in such things as designationprocedures, implementationrules, and other forms ofnational SIP guidance related to modeling, weight of evidence (WOE), etc. Tackling these SIPreform issuesrequires 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 ofthis memorandum isto 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 

## SIPprocess. ~ttachmkt A's focusis to standardize what every Regional Office requires from its State, Local, and Tribal agencieswhen those agencies formally submit a SIP revision (hereafter the tenn Statewill be used to mean all those agencies formally authorized to submit SIPSand TIPS)and to simplifythoserequirements where possible. It addressesthe issue raised by ECOS and NACAA urging EPA to reduce the number ofhard paper copies required when submitting SIP revisions.
The other attachmentsto this memorandum cover issues related to the public notice and hearing requirements for SIP revisions, the differencesbetween Clean Data Determinations and Redesignations, and the types of SIP revisions eligible for approvalby "Letter Notice" versus full "notice and comment" ~kmaking. Nothing in the attachmentsto this memorandum is intendedto 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 of40 CFR Part 5 1.1O3(a) as to the number and types of copies of a SIP revision that must be submitted by the Stateto EPA. 40 CFR 

### Part 5l.lO3(a) says the State must provide "iive hard copies or at least two 

### hard copies with an electronic version ofthe hard copy (unless othenviseagreed to by the Stateand Regional Office)ofthe plan to the appropriateRegional Office 

### with a letter giving notice of such action. Ifthe State submits an electronic copy, it must be an exact duplicateofthe 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 agreeingto the following procedures for SIP submittalsfrom 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 attachmentsto 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 aspossible via the RA letter described in the preceding paragraph. The ECOShTACA.4 members ofthe National SIP Reform Workgroup were given the opportunityto 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 

### futureissues concerning Regional consistency and communications with States. For example, the Regionswill work together to develop procedures to:
1. Require the same level of detail and documentation in the technical portions of SIP submittalsfrom all States.



### 2. Provide early, upfront and consistentguidance to all States regarding how to interpret and meet the requirements of implementationplans 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 SIPSthat include theseMJOIRPO 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 distributionto full memberships)

### Attachment A 

# -Number 

### and Types 

### of Copies of SIP Submittals Required 

### to be Submitted

Identified Constraints: Currentlythe Federal Courts onlyrecognizethe "paper" (hard 

### copy) ofthe rulemakiig docket 

### as the official docketwhen a SIP approval or disapproval is subject to litigation. The same is true when a Federal enforcement action is taken against a sourcefor a SIP violation. Therefore, this time, each EPA Regional Office must create and maintain a paper docket, includingthe 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 SIPrevision to be a signed, dated paper original letter from the Stateofficial authorized to submit SIPrevisions.
EPA alsoneeds an electronic copy of the State submittal in searchable.pdfformat 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. SIPSubmittals:


### 1. 

### Onepaper copy ofthe SIP revision submitted to EPA by an original, dated letter signed by the State official authorizedto submit SIP revisions and addressed to either the Regional Administrator (RA) 

### or the Director ofthe Air Division 

### in a given Regional Office brovided the RA 

### has delegated the authorityto receive SIPrevisionsto the Air Division Director). Many ofthe administrative requirementsfor complete SIP revisions found at 40 

### CFR 

### Part 

### 5 1, Appendix 

### V, 2.1, may be met by statements made in the submittalletters.



### 2. One electronic copy ofthe 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 ifthe electronic copy is made availablein searchable.pdfformatbecause that isthe format required to be 

### uploaded in to 

### the FDMS.



### 3. In 

### the original, dated paper version ofthe letter signed by the State oficial authorized to submit SIP revisions, there must be 

### statement certifyingthat any electroniccopy provided by the Stateto EPA whether by disk or o&er&se ma& available to the Regional Office is an exact duplicate ofthe hard copy.

4. 

### If the State is unable to provide an electroniccopy 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 availableto 

### EPA, the EPA Regional Ofice wilI scanthe paper copy and create an electroniccopy 

### in searchable.pdfformat to load into the FDMS.5. Even for the single officialpaper copy identified under number 1. above, States have to submitpaper 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 asEPA 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 necessarytojustify the control requirementsand emission limitationsestablishedby the SIP revision (e.g., for a source-specific SIP revision), States should confer with their Regional Officesprior 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 114 ofthe CAA, it cannot be withheld as CBI and must 

### be made publically available.

Notes: The

### use of STAG (105) hds by Statesto purchasethe softwarelequipmentneeded to create electronic copies in searchable.pdf format is 

### an acceptable expense, and many Stateshave opted to do so. A Statemay indicate suchpurchases in the appropriate portion of its 105grant application.


### Future Activities: EPA is committedto work with the Departmentof Justice to continueto pursue options for reducing and eventually eliminating the paper (hardcopy) submittals of SIP revisions in favor of electronic submittals.

### AttachmentB 

# -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, Statesmay implementthese 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 accohcewith 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 Statemust afford the opportunity to submit written comments and allow the public to request a public hearing eitherby announcing a hearing in the notice for comments or by providingthe 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 ofthe CAA.

2. EPA has determined that the term "prominent advertisement" 

### asused 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 continuethe use ofnewspapers to publish these notices
or may opt to publish such notices elsewhere so long 

### asthe State has determined that the public would have routine and ready accessto such alternative publishingvenues. States may also choose a combinationapproach whereby a short (and presumably less expensive) notice ispublished in a newspaper that informsthe public where to access the complete public notice that satisfies all of 40 CFR Part 51 requirements.

3. EPA recognizes that many Statesuse a single public notice and hearing to satisfy their
own State adoption process requirements, Section 110 ofthe CAA and 40 CFR Part 51. This 

### has long been and continuesto 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 andlordocumentsthat are the subject ofthe public notice will be submittedto the United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency to 

### be included in or to revise the State Implementation Plan required by the Clean

### Aii Act and should identifythe CAA requirements the revisions are intended to meet. Unless the public notice includes this statement, Section 110 ofthe 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 includethe date, place, and time of the public h&ng. If the Statereceives a request for a public hearing, itmust hold the already scheduled hearing asdescribed in the original public notice or schedulea 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
6State may cancel the public hearing if no request for a public hearing is received during the 30-day notification period, so long asthe original public notice announcing the 30- day notificationperiod clearly states: 

### Ifnorequest for apublichearing is received, the hearing will be cancelled; identijies the methodand time for announcingthat the hearing 

### has been cancelled;andprovidesa contact phone number for thepublic 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 supportingtechnical materials and other information the State 

### has relied upon or intendsto rely upon tojustify the approvabilityof the SIP revision.

Caveats:
As noted above, States often publish a single public notice and hold 

### a single public hearing to satisfy State requirementsfor adoption of Stateruleslregulationsas well as Section 110 ofthe CAA and 40 CFR Part 51 requirements. Thisusually 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 110of 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 ofthe procedural requirements ofthe State's law and constitution

### in conducting and completingadoptionlissuanceof the SIP revision. So if State law requires public notice and hearing at the proposed stage ofregulation adoption, then public notice must be given and hearing must 

### be held on proposed regulationsto satisfy 40 CFR Part 5 1.
EPA is aware that under State law certainWoes of SIPredationsarenot rewired to undergo public notice and hearing proced&s 

### as part of ie Stateadoptionprbcess. 

### In such instances, the public notice and hearing requirementsof40 CFR Part 51.102 may be held on lllyadopted 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 obligationunder the CAA. 

### 2. The Federal requirement for public notice and hearing is to inform the public that the State intends certain regulations and other actionsto llfill specific CAA requirements and 

### thusto revise the SIP. So if a regulation is significantlychanged by the State between the time ofproposal 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 Statesto use satisfy Section 110, and 40 CFR Part 51.102 upon request.

### Attachment 

### C -Determinations ofAttainment by 

### an Area's Attainment Date
v. 

### Clean Data Determinations & 

### Redesignation Requests and MaintenancePlans

Introduction: The issue of Redesignations v. Clean Data Determinationsand what a State must provide to an EPA Regional Oficefor 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 differentresults 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.

TheDistinction between a Determination of Attainment by an Area's Attainment Date and
a Clean Data Determination
It is importantto distinguishbetween two different types of attainment determinationsthat EPA makes for areasthat 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 suspendingthe State's obligationto submit certainplanning SIPSlinked 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 attainmentdate. These Determinations of Attainment provide a historical snapshot

## -- they evaluate attainment only as of 

### an 

### area's attainmentdeadlime, 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 independentofthe second type of attainment determinations, Clean Data Determinations, which are not compelled by the CAA.
With respect to Type 2, Clean Data Determinationsoriginated in EPA's Clean Data Policy, but
are now linked to EPA regulations. These determinationsinvoke either 40 CFR Part 51.918 for
ozone or 51.lOO4(c) for PMZ5. Unlike determinationsby an attainmentdeadline, Clean Data Determinations are subjectto revision based on changes in air quality, and must be sustained by continuing attainment. They fimctionto suspend a State's obligationto submit

### certain attainment-related planning SIP obligations for a designated nonattainment area. The suspension continuesuntil EPA determines that a violation 

### has occurred, or EPA redesignatesthe area from nonattainmentto attainment.
These two types of determinationsare conceptually and legally distinct. They arise from different authoritiesand result in differentconsequences. However, they both address air quality and can be based on the same or overlappingyears 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 Statemay 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 indicateattainment. In addition,the 

### air quality data availableto date (meaning asofthe date ofthe final rulemakiig action), even if not complete. should be consistent with continued attainment. As the determinationof what is complete and incomplete data as ofthe 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 ensurethat the available data at the time of final rulemakine is considered consistent 

# - with continued attainment.

The EPA Regional Office will conduct the notice and commentrulemaking 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 operationofthe 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 Stateto submit for such 

### an area the attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progressplan, contingency measures, and other attainment-related planning requirementsis suspended until such time as the
area isredesignated 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 obligationswould again apply.
The suspensionofthe 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 asnotice 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 redesignationto attainment. The 

### area remains designatednonattainment and nonattainment area requirements such asNew Source Review (NSR) and conformity continue to apply until the State submitsa request for redesignation including the CAA-required maintenance plan and EPA approvesthem.

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 SIPSapproved (for example, to enablethe State to submit a redesignation request). Otherwise the Statemay opt to withdraw the SIPSsubmittedfor the suspended requirements. Prior to requesting withdrawal, the State should considerthe fact that it may want the mobile budgets in an attainmentdemonstration or 

### RFP plan approved. Where the State does not withdraw any such SIP submissions, EPA remains obligated to act on them.Requests forRedesignations 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 qualityplanning process. Redesignation acknowledges not only that an 

### areahas met the relevant air quality standard, but also that the Statehas satisfied relevant requirements and shown that the area can continueto meet the standard for the decade following redesignation. EPA recognizesthat the nonattainment designation of an area 

### can affect its ability to attract economic development. Once an area is redesignated from nonattainmentto attainment, it is likely better positioned to attract new and expandingbusinesses 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 existingpopulation. Given 

### these considerations, EPA is committed to work closely with Statesin the preparation and submittal ofredesignation 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 determinewhich SIP revisions
are the highest priorities ascertain 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 redesignationfrom nonattainmentto 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 approvethe redesignation of an areafrom nonattainmentto attainment:
1. EPA determines that 

### areahas attainedthe 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 nonattainmentpollutant) under section 110(k) ofthe CAA; 3. EPA determinesthe improvement in the area's air quality is due to enforceable reductions in emissionsresulting from implementation ofthe applicableimplementation plan, applicable

### Federal air pollution control regulations, and other permanent enforceablereductions; 4. The 

### areahas a fully approved maintenance plan meeting section 175Aof the CAA; and 5. The State 

### has met all ofthe requirements applicable (for purposes of redesignation) to the
area under Section 

### 110(the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements) and Part D (the applicable nonattainmentarea SIP elements).
SIPSubmittals: A Section 175Amaintenance plan 

### is a 

### SIP revision and must 

### meet all ofthe 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 ofthe NAAQS in the area for at least 10years the redesignation; this means for at least 10years from EPA's 

### final rule approvingthe redesignation. Asthe CAAprovides up to 18months for EPA to complete mlemaking on a redesignation request, the maintenance plan at the time of submittal should provide for attainment for at least 11years and six months. EPA recommends to States that it provide for attainment for 12years from the time of formal submittalto 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 ofthe CAA. 

### In its submittal of the redesignationrequest 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 ofthe EPA approvals.
When evaluating a redesignation request and maintenance plan to determinewhether 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 permittingprogram 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 demonstrationplan or reasonable further progress (RFP)plan, may not be implemented "early" by the State. These are the contingency measures that the Statewill - - - - 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 violatesthe NAAQS). These contingency measures and their schedulefor implementation need to be clearly identified in the maintenanceplan.
How much documentation is necessary for the maintenance plan's "maintenance demonstration" ofmaintenance for 10 years after the EPA's 

### final approval ofthe redesignation is dependent upon the form of the "maintenance demonstration." For example, if growth projections are used to "grow" a recently already approved SIPemission inventory (or inventories where multiple precursors are involved) for the 

### area, it may not be necessary to resubmit all ofthe documentation for that emission inventory 

### as part of the maintenance plan. In such cases the State may be ableto cite to the submittal and/or approval ofthat emissions inventory to EPA. However, the Statewill 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 maintenanceplan will stillneed to include provisions for how conformitywill be done after the area is redesignated.


### Effects of a 

### Redesignation: Once redesignated to attainment, the area's applicable SIP'SNSR provisions for minor sources apply and the requirements ofthe Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program apply for the pre-construction permitting of new major sources and major modifications. The conformity requirementsapplicable 

### 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 Stateto pro&ptly correctthe violation (e.g. non-compliance of a source or sources) and addressthe situation.

### Attachment 

### D 

# -The Use 

### ofLetter Notices

Constraints: Becausethe 

### use ofLetter 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 exemptionofthe APA's notice and commentrequirements.
Even purely administrative SIP revision approvals that do not make any substantive changes to SIPrequirements do amend the CFR, namely the State's Subpart of 40 CFR Part 52. Accordingly, the 

### Office ofthe Federal Rertister would have to be consulted before additional types of SIPrevisions would become candidatesfor approval by LetterNotices. 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 letterto the affected states and parties rather than undertaking a notice-and-comment rulemaking. Use ofLetter Notice is limited to truly insignificant SIP actions. No notice will be published 

### in the Federal Registerprior to sending final letter notice approvals to the State and affectedparties. 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 Registerto keep the general public informed of SIP matters. The effective date ofthe Letter Notice approvals is the date ofthe letter sentto the State, not the date ofthe subsequent summary Fed& Reeister notice. Letter Notice approvals do, however, remain subject to judicial review until sixty days afterthe date ofthe summary Federal Rerrister notice is published.

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

1. Re-codification involving no substantivechanges; 

### 2. Minor technical amendments or error corrections; 3. Typographical corrections, 4. Address changes; and 5. Similarnon-substantive matters

Caveats: The SIP revisions submitted by states that are eligible for approval by EPA by Letter Notice must still meet the administrativerequirements for SIP submittal of 40 CFR Part 5 1 .lo2 and Appendix V

### Future Activities: 

### The 

### members ofthe 

### SIP Reform Workgroup will continue to pmue whether additional 

### types ofnon-substantive 

### SIP revisions may be added to the list ofactions appropriate for Letter Notice. The Workgroupwill 

### also explore whether to 

### modify 

### 40 CFR 

### Part 

### 51.I02to provide less to provide less rigorousnotice and commentrequirements for such non-substantive SIP 

### revisions.