UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



### APR - 6 2011 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

SUBJECT: Regional Consiste ncy for the Admini s tr ativ e Requireme nts of
FROM: 

### TO : State Impl eme ntation Plan Submitta ls and the Use of"Letter Notices" Janet McCabe, Deputy Assi s tant Admini strator )E:(l

..... Office of Air & Radiation Regional Administrato rs, Regions I

- X The Nati onal S tat e Implementation Plan (SIP) Reform Workg roup is a cooper ative initi ative betwee n EPA, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), and the Environmental Counci l ofthe States (ECO S), and i ncludes representatives from Sacramento, Cal ifo rn ia; Linn County, Iowa; Kentucky; Maryland ; Neva d a; New York; Ohio ; South Carolina, Uta h and Wisconsin, as we ll as EPA's Office of A ir and Radiation (OAR), EPA Regi ons I , III and VII and the ECOS and NACAA He adqu arters offices . It i s facilitated by Jim Blizzard of ECOS , Nancy Kruger ofNACAA, and Carey Fitzmaurice of OAR

. T h e ECOS an d N ACAA me m berships hav e id entified a number of SIP-related issues for improv ing the en tire "S IP Pro< :ess" fro m the tim e EPA promulgates a new or re vised NAAQS through to the t ime of fo rmal submittals to Regional Offic es fo r complete n ess d et erminations and rulemakin gs . G i ven these**issUt ~s**  identified by EC OS and NACAA, as well as our own recogniti o n that th e S IP p roce ss ne e d s to be improved and stream l ined, there are a number o f ongoin g i nitiative s relate d to SIP Ref o rm. Many of the ECO S/NACAA-identified SIP reform issue s i nvolve EPA pro viding s tates and l ocaliti es the opportunity to participate upfront in such thin gs as designation procedure s, impl e mentation rul es, and other forms of national SIP gu idance relate d to modelin g, weight of evid e nce ( WOE) , etc. Tac kling these SIP reform i ss ues requires act io n on the part of O AR, and r epre se ntatives from OAQPS are actively participa t ing on th e Workgrou p . However, man y of the ECO S/NACAA -identified issues ce nter a r ound Reg io nal consi stency. The Reg ional Air Division Dir ectors and Air Program Manage rs agree that address ing these i ss ues is primarily the Reg ions' r espon sib ilit y. The purp ose of thi s memorand um i s to addre ss th e first group of issue s id e ntified b y the Workgroup. Th ese issues involve consistency between a ll ten R egional Office s and re present the first increment of s uccess in this co ll ective effort to imp rove th e SIP process. Attachment A's fo c u s i s to standardize what eve ry Regional Office requires from it s State, L ocal , and Tribal agencies when tho se agenci es formall y submit a SIP rev i s ion (hereafte r the term State will be used to mean all tho se agencies formall y authorized to submit SIP s an d TIPs) and to si mpl ify

lntemet Address (UR L ) • http://www

. epa
.gov R ecycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperthose requirements where possible. It addresses the issue raised b y ECOS and NACAA urging EPA to reduce the number of hard paper cop ie s required when submitting SIP revis ions. The other attac hme nts to this memorandum cover issues relate d to th e public no tic e and hearing requireme nts fo r SIP r evis ions , the diff erences between Clean Data Determinations and Red!signations, and the types of S IP revisions eligible for approval by "Letter Noti ce" versu s f ull · 'n otice and comment" rulemaking. Nothing in the attachme nts to thi s memorandum is intended to require changes to the Clecn Air Act (CAA), the curren t Code of Federal Regu lations (CFR) at 40 CFR Part 51 or Appendi x V to Part 51. However, with regard to Attachment A there r e m ain s the nee d to satisfy the requirements of 4 0 C FR Part 51. 1 03(a) as t o the number and types of copies of a S IP rev ision that mu s t be submitted by the Sta te to EPA

. 4 0 CFR Part 51.103(a) says the S tate mu st pro vid e " fiv t ! hard copies or at least two hard copies with an e l ectronic version of th e hard copy (unless otherwise agreed to by the State and Regional Office) of the plan to the approp ri ate Regional Offi ce with a le tter g iving notice of s uch action. If the State submits a n e l ectron i c co p y, it must be a n exact duplicate of the hard copy." Given the flexibi li ty afforded in Part 51. 103 (a), comp li ance w ith its requi reme nts c an be achieved by each Regional Office having a reco rd of an agreement b etween the Region and its States that the procedures o utl ined in Attachment A be fo ll o wed w hen su bm itti ng a SIP rev i sio n. The Office of General Counse l (OGC) has advised that all t en Regions cou ld eas ily pursue such an agreeme nt with a presumptive l etter from each Reg ,onal Admini s trator (RA) to the States in his/her Region, i.e. "We are agree ing to the fo ll owing procedure s f or S IP subm ittal s from you, and assume th at you agree to th ese procedure s unless w e hear otherwise from you by (date ] ." Suc h letters would enclose thi s memorandum and its attachments. A model letter has been d evelope d fo r use by all ten Regions. Th e attachments to this memorandum h ave the concurrence of all te n Regional Air Div i sion Di rectors, OAR and OGC. Ther e is consensus among all ten Reg io ns to imp lement thes**~** stand ardi zed proce du res as quickly as possib l e via the RA letter described in the preceding paragraph. The ECOS/NACAA memb ers of the Na tional SIP Reform Workgroup were given the opportunity to prov ide feedback on these proc edu res and have endorsed their implementation as a significant step in our S IP reform efforts

. There will be additional efforts to address the remaining and any future i ssues concerning Reg onal con sistency and communica tion s with States. For exam pl e, the Regions will work toge t her to develop proce dures to: 1. Requir e t he same level of detail and documentation in the technical portions of SIP submittals from a ll States

. 2. Provide ea rl y, upfront and consiste nt guidance to all S tat es regard in g how to interpret and meet th e requirement s of impl eme ntation plans and other natio nal rul es. 3. Work with Multi-juris dictional Organizat ions (MJOs) and Regional P lanning Organizations (RPOs) that are pe rf orming th e technical wo rk (em ission inventories , modeling , etc.) , deve l oping model rules , and de signing SIP te mpl ates for their member States such that when the States submit their SIPs th at include th ese

2MJO/RPO work products there are no EPA requests for additional submissions and/or revisions late in the SIP submittal process. The Regional memb ers of the longstanding SIP Processing Work Group (which is sepa rate from the Nation al SIP Reform Workgro up) are contacts to whom qu estion s regarding this memorandum may be addressed. They are as follows: Reg i on 1

- Donald C ooke Reg i on 2

- Paul Truc han Reg i on 3

- H arold Fr ankford Reg i on 4

- Nacosta Ward/Sara Waterson Reg i on 5

- Christos P anos Reg i on 6

- Car l Young Reg i on 7- Jan Simpson Reg i on 8

- Kathy Do lan Reg i on 9

- Cynthia Allen/Li s a Tharp Reg i on 10

- Donna D e neen

cc: Regional Air Divi s ion Directors Regional Air Pro g ram Managers Regiona l Counsels for Air OAR Office Directors in OAQPS, OTAQ , and OAP OGC Air Office ECOS/NACAA S IP Reform Work Gr oup Members (for di stribution to full memberships)

3

### Attachment A- N umber and Types of Copies of SIP Submittals Required to be Submitted

lde 1 1

tified Constraints: Curr ently the Federal Courts only recognize the "paper" (hard copy) of the rulemaking 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, at this time , each EPA Regional Office must create and maintain a paper docket, including the State submitta l , as well as theE-Docket to upload in the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) f or each SIP-related rulemaking. It is also, therefore, neces s ary for the letter submitting the**~IP** revision to be a signed, dated paper original letter from the State official authorized to s ubmit SIP revisions. EP A also needs an electronic copy of the S tate submittal in searchable.pdf format to l oad into the FDMS. The Regions are prepared to generate this form of electronic copy in those instances when a S tate i s unabl e to do so. 

### SIP Submittals : l. One paper copy of the SIP revision submitted to EPA by an or i ginal, dated le tte r signed by the State official authorized to submit SIP revisions and ad dressed to either the Re gional Administrator (RA) or the Director of the Air Di v i sion in a given Regional Office (provided 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 51, Appendix V, 2.1, may be met by statements made in the submittal letter s. 

### 2. One electronic copy of the entire SIP rev ision along with the paper copy, preferably on disk, or otherwise made available to the Regional Office e . g., by e-mail , from a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site or from the Sta te website at the same time the paper copy is submitted. It makes it much easier for EPA i f 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 official authorized to submit SIP revisions, there must be statement certifying that any electronic copy provided by the State to EPA whether by disk or otherwise made available to the Regional Office is an exact duplicate of the hard copy.

· 1. If the State is unable to provide an e le ctronic copy in searchable.pdf format, the Regional Office can accept an electronic copy in image.pdfformat , Microsoft Word, or Microsoft Excel and convert it to searchable.pdf format to load into the F DMS. Likewise, if a State only submits a paper copy and has no means of making an elec t ronic copy available to EPA, the EPA Regional Office will scan the paper copy and create an electronic copy in searchable.pdf format to load into the FDMS

.
45. Even for the s i ngle official paper copy identified under number 1. above; States do not have to submi t paper copies of large data files such as ambient air quality data, emissions i nven tories, 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. S uch disks should be submitted with the official paper copy in order for the official SIP submittal to be compl ete
. EPA cannot "complete" the official submitta l for the State by accessing such da ta files from an e -mai l , FTP or website. 

### 5

. "Model" SIP submittal letters are available from the Regional Offices.

CaYeats: l

. EPA is able to "retrieve" the "unofficial" electronic copy v ia e -mail , from an FTP or a state website only because the State submitte d the official paper copy. Whatever material EPA receives via e - mail or accesses from 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-D ocket for loading into FDMS

. 3. States are urged not to include any material considered Confidential Business Information (CBI) in their SIP submittal s. In rare ins tances where such information is nece ssary to j ustify the control re qui remen ts and emission limita tions established by the SIP revision (e.g., for a source - spec ific SIP revision) , Sta tes should confer wi th their Regional Offices prior to s ubmittal and must clearly identify suc h material as CB I in the s ubmittal itsel f

. EPA does not p l ace such material in either the paper docket or the web when creating theE

- Docket for loading into FDMS. However, where any such material is considered emissio ns d ata within the meaning of Section 1 1 4 of the CAA, it cannot be withheld as CBI and must be made pub li ca ll y availab le.
Notes: The us e of STAG (1 05) funds by States to purchase the software/equipment 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 1 05 grant app licati on . Futlue Activities: EPA is committed to work w ith the Department of Justice to cont inue to purwe options for reducing and eventually eliminating th e paper (hardcopy) submi ttals of SIP revi >ions in favor of el ectron i c submittals.

5

### Attachment B- Public Notices/Hearings Required by Sec. 110 of the CAA

lde11tified Constraints: As explained below, EPA has made significant reforms in the SIP process regarding public noti c es and public hearings. However, States may implement these reform opportunities only to the t.! xtent 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 accordance with such law and its legal autl.ority.**Pu~** lie/Notice Hearing: l

. The public notice and public hearing requirements for SIP revisions are found at 40 CFR Part 51.102. 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 mus t have le gal 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 referring 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. J. EPA recognizes that many States use a single public notice and hearing to sat i sfy 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 51 , the notice must clearly s tate that the regulations and/or documents that are the subject ofthe public notice will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency to be included in or to revise the Sta t e Implementation Plan required by the Clean Air Act and should identify the CAA requirements the revisions are intended to meet. Unless the public notice includes this statement, Sec tion 110 of the CAA has not been satisfied. •L 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 ti me of the public hearing. 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 schedu le 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 51.1 02(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 as the original public notice aiiDouncing the 30- day notification period clearly states: 

## If no request for a public hearing is received, the hearing will be cancelled; identifies the method and time for announcing that the hearing has been cancelled; and provides a contactphone number for the public to c a ll to find out 

### if the 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 n oted above, States often publish a single public notice and hold a single public hearing to**sati~** fy State requirements for adoption of State rules/regulations as well as Section 1 1 0 of the CAA and 40 CFR Part 51 requirements. This usually means that the public notice and hearing are held on a propose d state rule/regulation. Two important points: l

. There is no independent Federal requirement that the public notice and hearing required by Section 110 of the CAA or 40 CFR Part 51 be held on proposed State regulations. However, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, 2.1 (e) requires that the State must h ave followed all ofthe procedural requirements of the State's law and constitutio n in co nducting and completing adoption/issuance of the SIP revision. So if State l aw 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 regulation s to sa t isfy 40 CFR Part 51. EPA is aware that under State law certain types of SIP regulations are not req u ired to undergo public notice and hearing procedures as part of the State adoption process. In such instances , the public notice and hearing requirements of 40 CFR Part 51.102 may be held on fully adopted State regulations. The Federal 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 ob ligation under the CAA. 

### .?. The Federal requirement for public notice and hearing is to inform the public that the State intends certain regulations and other actions to fulfill 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 regu lations being submi tted as a SIP revision. Note s : EPA Regional Offices will provide "model" public notices for States to use s atisfy Section 110, and 40 CFR Part 51.102 upon request.

7

### Attachment C- Determinations of Attainment by 

### an Area's Attainment Date 

### v. Clean Data Determinations & 

### Redesignation Requests and Maintenance Plans
Introduction : The issue ofRe designations v. C lean Da ta Determin a tions and w hat a State must pro v id e to an EP A Regional Office fo r eac h type of submittal has bee n raised by the States to EP A for both clarification and Regional consistency. These are very different types o f actions and achieve different r esults as explaine d in this Attachment. The r e is also a distinct ion between a Determination of Attainment by an area's attainment date and a Clean Data Determination which is explained below.**The ~**  Distinction between a Det ermination of Attainment by an A r ea's Attainment Date and

a Clean Data Determination It is important to disti n gu i s h between two different types of a tt ainment determinations that EPA makes for areas that are designated nonattainment. Both types req u ire notice-and-comment rulemaking. ( 1) Determinati ons of A ttainment by an area's att ainment date , and ( 2) Determinations of Attainment for purposes of sus pending th e State's obligation to submit certain planning SIPs linked to attainment (so-called C l ean Data Determinations).
Wif1 respect to Type 1, the C lean Air Act req u ires EPA to determine whether a nonattainment area has atta ined the s tandard as of its applicable attainme nt date. These Determinations of Attainment pro vide a h istorical snapsh ot-- they evaluate attainment only as of an area 's attai nment deadline, and are issued to comply with Sectio n 181 (b)(2) for ozone and Sections 1 72 and 179 fo r PM2 . 5 • Determina tions of Attainment by an attainment d eadlin e are se p arate and independent ofthe second typ e of attainment determinations, Clean Data Determinations, which are not compe ll ed by the CAA. Wit h respect to T ype 2 , Clean Data Determinations originated in EPA's Clean Data Policy, but are now li nked to EP A regulations. These determinations invoke e ither 40 CFR Part 5 1.918 for ozone or 51.1 004( c) for PM 2 . 5 . Unlike determinations by an attainment deadline , C lean Data Det erminations are sub ject to revision b ased on c h anges in ai r quality , and must be sustained b y co ntinui ng attainment. They function to suspend a State's obli gation to submit ce rta in at

tainment-related planning SIP obligations for a designated nonattainment area. The suspension continues until EPA determines that a violation has occurred, or EPA r edes i gnates the area from nonattainment to attainment. Tht: se two types of determinations are conceptually an d legally distinct. They arise f r om diff erent a uthori ti es and result in different consequences. However, they both addres s a ir q u ali ty and can be based on the same or overlapping years of a ir qualit y data

.

8Clnn 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 Determinati on requires a demonstration that what is needed is for the most recent 3 years of complete air quality data have been entered i nto AIRSAQ S, have been quality assured, and indicate attainment. In addition , the air quality data avaiI able to date (meaning as of the date of the final rulemaking action), even if not complete. should be consistent with continued attainment. As the determination of what is complete and inccmp l ete data as of the time of final rulemaking differs from criteria pollutant to criteria pollutant depending upon the form of the standard, the Regional Offi ce will work closely with the S tate to ensure that the available data at the time of final rulemaking 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 qual ity 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 comp lete, quality assured and repres entati ve of the des i gnated nonattainment area. Res ults: Upon EPA's promulgation of a final Clean Data Determination for a nonattainment area, the obligation fo r the State to submit for such an area the attainment demonstration, asscciated reasonably availab l e control measures , reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures , and other attainment-re lated planning requirements i s 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 ha s violated the NAAQS, at which time the obligations would again app ly. The suspension of the planning requirements saves the State and EPA the re sources in vo l ved in devdoping, adopting, submitting, evaluating , and performing rulemaking for unneeded planning reqeirements as SIP re visions. 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 rede signation to attainment. The area remains desi gnated nonattainment and nonattainment area requirements such as New Sou · ·ce Review (NSR) and conformity continue to apply until the Sta te submits a request for redesignation including the CAA -required maintenance plan and EPA approves them. If a S tate has an area for which a Clean Data Determina tion has been made and the State has submitted or submits SIP revisions for the s u spended planning requirements , it may i nform 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 req u irements. Prior to requesting withdrawal, the State should consider the fact that i t may want the mobile budgets in an attainment demonstration or RFP plan approved. Where the State does not w ithdraw any such SIP submissions, EPA remains obligated to act on them.

9Requests for Redesignations and Maintenance Plans

- See Section 107(d)(3)(E) Intl'oduction: To redesignate an area from nonattainment to attainment is an important action that demon strates success in the air quali ty planning process. Redesignation acknowledges not**nl '**  that an area h as met the relevant a ir quality standard, but al s o tha t the State has sa tisfied rele vant requi rements and sh own that the area can continue to meet the standard for the decade foll o win g redes ignation. EPA recognizes that the nonattainme nt d es i gnation of an area can affect its abili ty to attract econo mic developm ent. Once an area i s redes ignated from non'ilttainment to attainment, it is likely better positio ned to attract new and expan din g bu sin esses and indu s try. When an urban area is redes ignated from nonattainment to attainment, t he c i ty ma y move up in the ranking of "Most Livable Cities" which may help it attract new residents and retain its existing population. Given these co nsidera tion s , EPA i s committ ed to w ork closely w it h States in the preparation and submittal of re de s ignation requests and ma inte nanc e plans and to make this work a pri ority so that submittals can b e evaluated quickly and effectively

. That sa

id , individual Regions and States are e ncouraged to co n fe r and determine which SIP revisions are ;:he hi ghest pri or i t ies a s certain SIP revisions may be needed to avoid findings , halt sanc :tions / FIP c l ock s , r espond to SIP calls , and/or be necessary to be approved in or der for an area to b e e li g ib le for red esigna tion from nonattainment to attainment. Cri t eria: Reques ts to redesignate an area from nonattai nment to attainment and th e s ubmittal of the C AA-requir ed mai ntenance plans as S I P rev i sions are State

- initiated actions. EP A app roves the r edes ignati ons in 4 0 C FR Part 81 and the main te nance plans as SIP revisions in 40 CFR Part 52. There are five statutory requirements that must be met for EPA t o approve the redesignation of 

### a: 1 are a from nonattainment to attainment: l

. EPA d e termines th at area h as attain e d the NAAQS (three years of complete quality assured data in AIRS-AQS that s how attainment);**~.** EPA has fully app roved the area's applicab le implementation plan (i.e., the plan de ve loped for the particular nonattainrnent pollutant) under sect ion llO(k) of the CAA ; :3. EPA determines th e improvement in th e area's air quality is due to enforcea bl e reductions in emissions resultin g from implementation of the applicable implementation plan, app lic able Fe d eral air poll u tion co ntrol r eg ulat ions , an d other permanent enforceable reductions ; 

### •L The area has a fully approved maintenance plan meeting section 175A of the CAA; and )

. The State h as met a ll of the requ irements applic able (for purposes ofredesignat ion) to the area under Section 110 (the app licable infrastructu r e SIP requirements) and Part D (the app li ca ble non attainme nt area SIP elements)

. SIP Submittals : A Section 175A maintenance plan is a SIP revision and must meet all of th e administrat ive requiremen ts of Part 5 1 and Part 51 Appendix V fo r a complete submittal. Under the CAA, a Section 175A maintenance p lan must provide for the maintenance ofthe NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after the redesi gnation; this means for at le ast 10 years fro m EPA ' s final rule approving the rede s i gn ation. As the CAA provides up to 18 mo nths for EP A to complete rulemakin g on a redesignation reque st , the maintenance plan at the ti me of s ubni ttal should provide for attainment fo r at least 11 years and six months. EPA recommend s to S l ates th at i t provi de for attai nment for 1 2 years from th e time of f ormal submi ttal to a ll ow for com p leting the rede s i gnation rulemaking processes. 10Wh e n submitting a request for redesignation, the State does not have to re-submit SIP revisions it has already submitted to EPA to satisfy section 11 0 and Part D of the CAA. In its submittal of the r edesignation requ est 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 cita t ions of the EPA approvals. Wh : m evaluating a re designation request and maintenance plan to de termine whether or not all Sec : ion 110 and Part D SIP requirement s have been met, EPA doe s not require that t h e area have a fully approved nonattainment pre-construction NSR permitting program for new major sources and major modifications, if the State demons trates that t he area can continue to maintain the stan dard with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program . Once an area is**rede signated**  from nonattainment to attainment the Part C requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration apply for the pre-construction permitting of new major sources and mod ifications. The contingency measures of a Section 

### 175A maintenance plan, unli ke the contingency me a sures of an attainment demonstration plan or reasonable further progress (RF P) plan, may not be implemented "ea rly" by the State. These are the contingency measures that the State will imp l ement if the maintenance plan's triggers for such measures occur (e.g., emi ssions projections exceed the levels projected in the plan or the area violates the NAAQS). These com ingency measures and their schedule for implementation need to be clearly identi fied in the mabtenance plan. How much documentation is necessary for the mainten a nce plan's " mainte nance demonstration " of maintenance for 1 0 years after the EPA's final approval of the rede signation is dependent upo . 1 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 involv ed) for the area, it may not b e necessary to resubmit all of the documentation for that emission inventory as part of the maintenance plan. In suc h cases the Stat! may be able to cite to the submittal and/or approval of that emissions inventory t o EPA. However, the State will still need to explain and justify their growth projections and any other factors applied to that inventory. The maintenance plan for areas where RFP plans 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 i s redesignated. 

### Efft cts of a Redesignation: Once redesignated to attainment, the area's applicable SIP's NSR provisions for minor sources apply and the requirements of the Preven tion of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program apply for the pre-construction permitting of new major sources and major modifications. The conformity requirements app licable 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 rfdesignation back to nonattainment. Rather the maintenance plan's contingency measures are to be implemented and other actions taken by the State to promptly correct the violation (e.g. 

### non· compliance of a source or sources) and address the situation.

11

### Attachment D- The Use of Letter Notices Coustraints: Because the use of Letter Notices by EPA to approve SIP revisions does not prO ' f ide for public comment, the use of such letters is limited to thos e types of SIP revisions where "common sense" would indicate that the public and regulated sector would have no inte r est in commenting on EPA's approval. EPA's rulemaking procedures for SIP revision s are governed by the Federal Administrative Proe edures Act (AP A). While that statute does not include provisions for Letter Notices to do SIP approvals, EPA has been using Letter Notices to approve a very narrow range of SIP revi sions because such actions fit under the good cause exemption of the APA's notice and corrJnent 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 Register would have to be consulted before additional types of SIP revisions would become candidates for approval by Letter Notices. Ty1= es of SIP Revisions for Which Letter Notices May be Used by EPA: As tirst described in the 1989 SIP Processing Reform notice (54 FR 2218), under the Lette r Not.ce procedure , EPA sends a letter to the affected states and partie s rather than undertaking a noti :e-and-comment rulemaking. Use of Letter Notice is limited to truly insignificant SIP actions. No notice will be published in the Federal Reg i ster 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 Federa l Reg ister to keep the general pub li c informed of SIP matters. The effective date of the Letter Not: ce approvals is the date of the letter sent to the State, not the date of the su bsequent summary Federal Register notice. Letter Notice approvals do, however, remain subject to judi : ial review until sixty days after th e date of the summary Federal Register notice is pub l ished. Catego ries of SIP actions appropriate for letter notice include: 1.**~e- codification**  in volving no s ubstantive changes; 2. Mi nor technical amendments or error corrections; 3. Typographical corrections; 4. Address changes; and 5. :) imilar non-substantive matters Caveats: The SIP revisions submitted by states that are eligible for app roval by EPA by Letter Notice must still meet the administrative requirements for SIP submittal of 40 CFR Part 5 1 .102 and Appendix V

12Future Activities: The member s of the SIP Reform Workgroup will continue to pursue whether add itiona l types of non-sub stantive SIP re visions may be added to the list of actions appropriate for Letter Notice. The Workgroup will also explore whether to modify 40 CFR Part 51.102 to pro v ide l ess to provide less rigorous notice and comment requirements for such non-substantive SIP revis ions .

13