From: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov > Date: 08/06/2010 03:53 PM Subject: RE: timing

Per your request,

SIP-Fix write-up.doc Please let me know asap if you have any concerns Raj Rao, P.E. Group Leader, NSRG OAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03) 109 TW Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709 919-541-5344 919-541-5509 fax Note: Positions or views expressed here do not rep resent official EPA policy. Interagency deliberati ve and Confidential.

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov > To: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/06/2010 03:04 PM Subject: RE: timing

Raj, can you send me the CEQ language separately st at? -----Original Message----- From: Rao.Raj@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Rao.Raj@epama il.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 2:55 PM To: Kymn, Christine J. Subject: Re: timing Also, can you let me know if you think we may need a call to wrap this up today? Perhaps I should schedule a placeholder ca ll at 4 or 4.30? Raj Rao, P.E. Group Leader, NSRG OAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03) 109 TW Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709 919-541-5344 919-541-5509 fax Note: Positions or views expressed here do not rep resent official EPA policy. Interagency deliberative and Confidential.SIP Fix Rule

Today’s proposal is secondary to our overarching go al, which is to assure that in every instance, it will be the state that will be that pe rmitting authority. EPA continues to recognize that the states are best-suited to the task of perm itting because they and their sources have experience working together in the state PSD progra m to process permit applications. EPA seeks to remain solely in its primary role of provi ding guidance and acting as a resource for the states as they make the various required permitting decisions for GHG emissions. Accordingly, beginning immediately we intend to wor k closely with the States – as we have already begun to do since earlier in the year -- to help them promptly develop and submit to

us their corrective SIP revisions that extend their PSD program to GHG-emitting sources. Moreover, we intend to promptly act on their SIP su bmittals. Again, EPA’s goal is to have each and every affected state have in place the necessar y permitting authorities by the time businesses seeking construction permits need to have their app lications processed and the permits issued – and to achieve that outcome by means of engaging wi th the States directly through a concerted process of consultation and support. EPA is taking up the additional task of proposing t his SIP call and the companion FIP action only because the agency is compelled to do s o by the need to assure businesses, to the maximum extent possible and as promptly as possible , that a permitting authority is available to process PSD permit applications for GHG-emitting so urces once they become subject to PSD requirements on January 2, 2011. Again, without a permitting authority, those sources will be unable to construct or modify. In order to provide that assurance, we are obligate d to recognize, as both states and the regulated community already do, that there may be c ircumstances in which states are simplyunable to develop and submit those SIP revisions by January 2, 2011 or for some period of time

beyond that date. As a result, absent further acti on by EPA, those states’ affected sources confront the risk that they will have to put on hol d their plans to construct or modify, a risk that may have adverse consequences for the economy – and a risk that can be minimized only by EPA’s taking the specific step of issuing today’s p roposal. . To be sure, these circumstances are exigent. They demand that we develop a plan to assure, within the limits of our power, that a back -up permitting authority is available – and to send that signal of assurance expeditiously in orde r to eliminate uncertainty and thus facilitate businesses’ planning. Within the design of the Cle an Air Act, it is EPA that must fill that role of back-up permitting authority. This SIP call action and the companion FIP action fulfill the Clean Air Act’s requirements to establish EPA in that rol e. At the same time, we have designed these actions to retain as much discretion as possible in the hand of the states. The states may choose t he deadline they consider reasonable for

submission of their corrective SIP revision. If we are compelled to promulgate a FIP, we invite the affected state to accept a delegation of author ity to implement that FIP, so that it will still be the state that processes the permit applications, a lbeit operating under Federal law. In addition, if we are compelled to issue a FIP, we intend to conti nue to work closely with the state to assist it in developing and submitting for approval its corre ctive SIP revision, so as to minimize the amount of time that the FIP must remain in place. Finally, we can report that in informal conversati ons, officials of various states have acknowledged the need for our SIP call and FIP acti ons. That is, they have acknowledged that a short-term FIP may be necessary in their states to protect their sources’ abilities to construct andmodify in accordance with environmental safeguards. In addition, some have indicated that they

will closely consider their opportunities to accept delegation of the permitting responsibilities.