1 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Information Gathering Exercise for Tailoring Rule Step 3 

FROM: Michael S. Brooks, Environmental Protection Specialist, EPA 

TO: Project Docket [Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3, GHG Plantwide Applicability 

Limitations and GHG Synthetic Minor Limitations. Docket ID No. EPA–

HQ–OAR–2009–0517] 

This memorandum explains the process EPA undertook to gather information from 

permitting authorities to help inform our analysis on the feasibility of reducing the GHG 

permitting applicability thresholds for Step 3 of the Tailoring Rule. To gain an 

understanding of the states’ progress in the implementation of Steps 1 and 2 of the 

Tailoring Rule and the potential impact of reducing the GHG thresholds in Step 3 on state 

permitting capacity, we consulted with the state permitting agencies with the most GHG 

permitting experience. We identified eight states: Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Utah. In addition, we reviewed 

the experience of the EPA Regional offices that act as PSD permitting authorities in state 

jurisdictions: Region 4, which issues PSD permits for GHG emissions in Florida and for 

all regulated pollutant emissions from outer continental shelf sources in the eastern 

portion of the Gulf of Mexico; Region 6, which issues PSD permits for GHG emissions 

in Arkansas and Texas; and Region 9, which issues PSD permits for all regulated 

pollutants in many of the local air quality management districts in California. 

I. Background 

In the Tailoring Rule, we indicated that further phase-in of GHG applicability would 

depend on three criteria: (i) whether the EPA could develop streamlining measures, (ii) 

the time that permitting authorities need to ramp up their resources, and (iii) sources’ 

abilities to meet the requirements of the PSD program and permitting authorities’ abilities 

to issue timely permits. To predict the burden that would be created by further lowering 

the thresholds, we analyzed which types and number of source categories would emit 

GHGs at several different thresholds. However, this gave us no indication as to the 

current burdens placed on the states due to GHG permitting or an indication of the level 

of resources available, at state permitting authorities, to process GHG permitting actions. 

While we were able to identify the number of PSD permits issued for GHGs and the 

number of applications permitting authorities are currently processing, it provided no 

indication of the number of actions that were occurring to avoid PSD through processes 

like synthetic minor permitting and gave us no indication of the infrastructure established 

or the resource constraints brought on by the need to handle these types of permitting 

actions. To gather additional information to aide our decision-making based on the three 

criteria, we consulted with the identified permitting agencies. 
2 

II. Identification of Appropriate States to Survey 

In consultation with EPA Regional Offices we identified states with the most greenhouse 

gas permitting experience while considering all aspects of permitting that might be 

affected by GHGs, not just PSD permitting. 

After careful consideration of the Regions' feedback, we selected 8 states (Iowa, 

Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and 

Utah) and worked with the Regions to distribute a short list of questions to the identified 

states. 

III. Questions for Consultation with the States 

The questions were designed to help us better understand the states’ progress in GHG 

permitting. The questions focused on issues such as: have states had the time that 

permitting authorities need to ramp up their resources, and do they have the ability 

(through FTE and infrastructure) to issue timely permits. Below are the consultation 

questions we provided to the permitting authorities, followed by a summary of the 

responses.

 

General Existing Permitting Burden/Resources 

1. Does your state currently have the necessary resources (funding and staff) to run 

the PSD and title V permitting program as they exist today? 

a. If your state is strained for resources, what are the reasons for it? Please 

list all that apply and provide a short description of the problem. 

i. GHG Permitting 

ii. Other Permitting Issues (SO2, NO2, etc) 

iii. Budget cuts 

iv. Lack of personnel 

v. Other (please specify) 

2. Has your state agency experienced any impact from state budget cuts during 2009-

2011? 

a. If so, what percentage of your overall budget does this represent? 

b. Were there specific cuts to the permitting program? 

c. What effect, if any, has this had on your ability to issue permits? 

d. In particular, what changes have you noticed in processing times for 

permits? 

3. Is your state expecting next year’s budget to be the same, improve, or decline? 

a. If your budget were to remain constant or decline next year, how would 

that impact your ability to permit additional sources added to the 

permitting programs because of GHG emissions? 

4. Did your state experience a change in the number of permitting actions during the 

last 12 months compared to normal permitting levels? If so, please specific if there 

was an increase, decrease, and estimate by how much (percentage). 
3 

GHG Specific Permitting Burden Questions 

1. Has GHG permitting added burden to the permitting process in your state? 

a. Increased number of source meetings? 

b. Increased number of daily permitting questions? 

c. Increased number of incomplete permit applications? 

d. Increased training for permitting staff to understand the GHG permitting 

process? 

e. Is your staff unsure of how and when to permit GHG sources? 

2. Do you think 2011 has been representative of the permitting burdens you expect 

under the current tailoring rule? If not, why? Please select all that apply. 

a. Sources accelerated permitting actions prior to GHG trigger dates 

b. Sources took synthetic minor limits to avoid GHG permitting 

c. Economic Cycle Impacts on number of projects 

d. Legal uncertainty related to GHG permitting 

e. Other (please specify) 

3. For states where PSD permits for GHG have been issued, how was the burden 

(monetary and man-hours) compared to a typical non-GHG permit? 

4. Did you see an increase in major source modifications prior to the January 2011 

Step 1 deadline? 

a. If so, by what amount? 

5. Did you see an increase in minor source modifications prior to the July 2011 Step 

2 deadline? 

a. If so, by what amount? 

6. How many minor source actions has your state processed for sources trying to 

avoid major source permitting for PSD? 

7. Does your state have an active outreach initiative and the resources necessary to 

reach out to smaller sources that may not be aware of their obligation to apply for 

TV or PSD permits due to GHGs? 

8. Have the GHG requirements created or added to a backlog of unissued permits? 

a. If so, by what amount? 

9. Are your current resources adequate to meet the additional challenges that you 

face because of GHG permitting requirements? 

a. If not, what additional resources would you need? 

10. If the levels were to be reduced to 50,000 tpy CO2e (the lowest we said we would 

go in the Tailoring Rule), bringing in an additional 3,000 newly major sources on 

a national basis, what resources would you need? Please provide quantities where 

possible (both monetary and staffing). 

11. What new challenges have been added solely because of GHG requirements? 

12. If the threshold levels lowered for step 3, do you foresee an increase in permitting 

actions before step 3 kicks in (July 2013)? 

13. Has your state modified its title V fees to cover GHG permitting needs? If not, 

would your state need to do so if additional sources were added to the permitting 

programs as a result of lowered thresholds? 
4 

Streamlining Specific Questions 

1. Is your state processing applications through any electronic permitting measures? 

If not do you plan on implementing a type of electronic permitting? 

2. Has your state implemented LEAN techniques to streamline the permitting 

process? If so, how has this improved the efficiency for permitting actions? If 

not, do you plan on doing this in the future? 

3. Is your state considering any other permitting streamlining technique to help 

improve the efficiency and reduce the burden associated with permitting of GHG 

sources? Please list all streamlining techniques under consideration and the 

expected implementation timelines. 

IV. Summary of State Responses 

The following table presents a summary of the information received from state permitting 

authorities. Generally, the responses show that even at today’s lower than expected 

permitting activity levels, only about 50% of the respondents have adequate resources to 

conduct permitting at current GHG thresholds. Also, at the current GHG thresholds, 

there is a decline in the level of resources with additional reductions expected and an 

increased permitting burden. 

All respondents agreed that if the thresholds were lowered to 50,000 tpy, thus adding 

about 3,000 additional sources, they would need additional resources to be able to handle 

the workload. 
5 

State/

Region General Existing Burden/Resources GHG Specific Burden/Resources

Current

resources

adequate?

Budget cuts in

09‐11?

Expecting

further cuts?

Has 2011 been

representative in

terms of permitting

burden expected?

Added burden

due to GHG?

Increased per

permit burden

due to GHGs?

If thr

were 

ade

reso

IA No Yes Yes No Yes Yes PA Yes Yes No No Yes Yes MI No Yes Yes No No Yes SD Yes Yes No Yes UT Yes No Yes No Yes Yes NC No No No NJ Yes Yes No No LA No Yes No R4 Yes Yes Yes No Yes YesR6 No No Yes No R9 Yes No No Yes Yes