SIP Fix Rule 

Today’s proposal is secondary to our overarching goal, which is to assure that in 

every instance, it will be the state that will be that permitting authority. EPA continues to 

recognize that the states are best-suited to the task of permitting because they and their 

sources have experience working together in the state PSD program to process permit 

applications. EPA seeks to remain solely in its primary role of providing 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 work 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 GHGemitting sources. Moreover, we intend to promptly act on their SIP submittals. Again, 

EPA’s goal is to have each and every affected state have in place the necessary 

permitting authorities by the time businesses seeking construction permits need to have 

their applications processed and the permits issued – and to achieve that outcome by 

means of engaging with the States directly through a concerted process of consultation 

and support. 

EPA is taking up the additional task of proposing this SIP call and the companion 

FIP action only because the agency isproposes it is compelled to do so 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 

sources 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 obligated to recognize, as both states 

and the regulated community already do, that there may be circumstances in which states 

are simply unable 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 action by EPA, those 

states’ affected sources confront the risk that they will may have to put on hold 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 proposal. .

To be sure,Given these exigent circumstances, EPA proposes this plan are 

exigent. They demand that we develop a plan to assure, within the limits of our power, 

that with the intent to make a back-up permitting authority is available – and to send that 

a signal of assurance expeditiously in order to eliminate reduce uncertainty and thus 

facilitatein businesses’ planning. Within the design of the Clean 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 

role. 

At the same time, we have designedpropose these actions with the intent that to 

retain states retain as much discretion as possible in the hand of the states. The In this 

rulemaking, EPA proposes states may choose the deadline they consider reasonable for 

submission of their corrective SIP revision. If, under Clean Air Act requirements, we are 

compelled to promulgate a FIP, we invite the affected state to accept a delegation of 

authority to implement that FIP, so that it will still be the state that processes the permit 

applications, albeit operating under Federal law. In addition, if we are compelled to issue 
a FIP, we intend to continue to work closely with the state to assist it in developing and 

submitting for approval its corrective SIP revision, so as to minimize the amount of time 

that the FIP must remain in place. 

Finally, we can report that in informal conversations, officials of various states 

have acknowledged the need for our SIP call and FIP actions. That is, they have 

acknowledged that a short-term FIP may be necessary in their states to establish 

permitting authority protect their sources’ abilities to construct and modify in accordance 

with environmental safeguards for these sourcesin accordance with environmental 

safeguards. In addition, some states have indicated that they will closely consider their 

opportunities to accept delegation of the permitting responsibilities.