Good morning. My name is Craig Segall and I am an attorney with the Sierra Club.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed State Implementation Plan

(“SIP”) call and Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) which EPA has proposed to ensure

that state greenhouse gas permitting continues to function smoothly. See 75 Fed. Reg.

53,892 (Sept. 2, 2010) & 75 Fed. Reg. 53,883 (Sept. 2, 2010). We will also submit written

comments.

The Clean Air Act provides that “air pollution control at its source is the primary

responsibility of States and local governments,” while recognizing that “Federal financial

assistance and leadership is essential” to support the states. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(a). Globalwarming pollution poses an especially pressing pollution control responsibility. TheSierra Club agrees with EPA that “[t]he science supporting the Administrator’s findingthat elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be

anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future U.S.

generations is robust, voluminous, and compelling.” 75 Fed. Reg. 49,557, 49,557 (Aug.

13, 2010).

The lion’s share of stationary source greenhouse gas emissions comes from just a few

thousand very large facilities. See Table V-i, 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514, 31,540 (June 3, 2010).

EPA has therefore appropriately decided to phase in control requirements, focusing

initially only on these dominant polluters. See Id. Because greenhouses gases are

pollutants “subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act, new facilities, and facilities

conducting major construction projects, are required to use the “best available control

technology” to limit their emissions, and to obtain permits containing these limitations

before they begin construction. See 42 U.S.C. § 7475; see also Massachusetts v. EPA,

549 U.S. 497 (2007). Many of these facilities have long experience with this preconstruction permitting process for other pollutants and will readily adapt to thisadditional responsibility. We expect that the technologies used to control greenhousegases — including controlling leaks, using more efficient boilers, or burning cleaner fuels — will be familiar to most emitters, and will be relatively inexpensive to include in the

pre-construction planning process. States have the experience, and expertise to beginimplementing these controls, but some states will need EPA’s help to overcome some

technical legal hurdles.

Specifically, although EPA has determined that new pre-construction permits mustcontain greenhouse gas limits beginning January 2, 2011, see 75 Fed. Reg. 17,004,

17,007 (Apr. 2, 2010), some states’ SIPs have outdated language which may prevent
The Clean Air Act gives EPA the tools it needs to prevent that impasse. When a SIP is

inadequate in this way, EPA “shall require the State to revise the plan,” 42 U.S.C. §7410(k)(5), with a “SIP call” and, if the state cannot make the revisions in time, must put

a FIP in place to keep permitting running until the State fixes the problem, 42 U.S.C. §

7410(c). This overlapping authority keeps the states in the driver’s seat; state regulatorsmake the key decisions on when and how to revise their plans to be consistent with

federal law and EPA backs them up by using federal authority in the interim.

We agree with EPA that, with the January 2, 2011 greenhouse gas control deadline fastapproaching, it makes sense to issue a SIP call by early December of this year. EPA may

establish “reasonable deadlines” for the states, 42 U.S.C. § 7410 (k)(5), and we agree

that a 12-month deadline is appropriate in this context, where EPA has already begun towork with the states on their revisions and where atmospheric greenhouse gas

concentrations are well above safe limits and climbing daily.We hope, like EPA, that many states with out-dated regulations will either succeed in

making revisions by the end of this year, or take EPA up on its offer of setting an earlier

submission deadline. States that take an earlier deadline will trigger EPA’s legalauthority to supplement their programs with federal permitting rules while theycontinue their own state law revisions processes. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c). We agree

with EPA that this federal authority, or FIP, should apply as soon as the submission

deadlines run, which will help ensure that there is no interruption in the permitting

process.

EPA regularly uses SIP calls, and FIPs, like the ones proposed today to help the states

keep their rules up-to-date while retaining their primary role as guardians of their

citizens’ health and welfare. The process is one of the hallmarks of the state/federalcooperative partnership that drives the Clean Air Act’s continued success. Today’s

proposed rules continue in that long tradition as they work to help states control thepressing problem of global warming. We thank EPA for its efforts, and look forward to

working with it to implement these rules.

_7 -