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 t hat permitting authority. EPA continues to recognize that the states are best-suited to the ta sk of permitting because they and their sources have experience working together in the sta te PSD program to process permit applications. EPA seeks to remain solely in its pr imary role of providing guidance and acting as a resource for the states as they make th e 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 tha t 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 seeki ng 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 t his SIP call and the companion FIP action only because the agency is proposes it is compelled to do so by the need to assure businesses, to the maximum extent possible a nd as promptly as possible, that a permitting authority is available to process PSD pe rmit applications for GHG-emitting sources once they become subject to PSD requirement s 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 circumstances in which states are simply unable to develop and submit those SIP r evisions 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 the y 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. T hey demand that we develop a plan to assure , within the limits of our power, tha t 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 facilitate in businesses’ planning. Within the design of the Cl ean 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 re quirements to establish EPA in that role. At the same time, we have designed propose these actions with the intent that to retain states retain as much discretion as possible in the hand of the s tates. The In this rulemaking, EPA proposes states may choose the deadline they consider reason able for submission of their corrective SIP revision. If , under Clean Air Act requirements, we are compelled to promulgate a FIP, we invite the affect ed state to accept a delegation of authority to implement that FIP, so that it will st ill be the state that processes the permit applications, albeit operating under Federal law. In addition, if we are compelled to issuea FIP, we intend to continue to work closely with t he 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, offic ials 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 sources in accordance wit h environmental safeguards . In addition, some states have indicated that they will closely consider thei r opportunities to accept delegation of the permittin g responsibilities.