Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0194-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Revisions to the Petition Provisions of the Title V Permitting Program
Posted Date: 2016-08-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57822-57846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20029]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0194; FRL-9951-09-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS61

Revisions to the Petition Provisions of the Title V Permitting 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to 
revise its regulations to streamline and clarify processes related to 
submission and review of title V petitions. This notice covers five key 
areas, each of which should increase stakeholder access to and 
understanding of the petition process and aid the EPA's review of 
petitions. First, the EPA is proposing regulatory provisions that 
provide direction as to how petitions should be submitted to the 
agency. Second, the EPA is proposing regulatory provisions that 
describe the expected format and minimum required content for title V 
petitions. Third, the proposal clarifies that permitting authorities 
are required to respond to significant comments received during the 
public comment period for draft title V permits, and to provide that 
response with the proposed title V permit to the EPA for the agency's 
45-day review period. Fourth, guidance is provided in the form of 
``recommended practices'' for various stakeholders to help ensure title 
V permits have complete administrative records and comport with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Fifth, to increase 
familiarity with the post-petition process, this notice presents 
information on the agency's interpretation of certain title V 
provisions of the CAA and its implementing regulations regarding the 
steps following an EPA objection in response to a title V petition, as 
previously discussed in specific title V orders.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 
2016.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts EPA requesting a public hearing 
on or before September 6, 2016, we will hold a public hearing. 
Additional information about the hearing would be published in a 
subsequent Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0194, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The 
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not 
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which 
is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) 
must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is 
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all 
points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments 
or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on 
the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional 
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information 
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making 
effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning these proposed 
rule revisions should be addressed to Ms. Carrie Wheeler, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, (C504-05), Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-9771, email at 
wheeler.carrie@epa.gov. To request a public hearing or information 
pertaining to a public hearing on the proposed regulatory revisions, 
contact Ms. Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, 
(C504-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 
541-0641; fax number (919) 541-5509; email address: long.pam@epa.gov 
(preferred method of contact).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this document 
is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    C. How can I find information about a possible hearing?

[[Page 57823]]

    D. Where can I obtain a copy of this document and other related 
information?
II. Overview of Proposed Regulatory Revisions and Information in 
This Notice
III. Background
    A. The Title V Operating Permits Program
    B. Statutory and Regulatory Basis for This Proposal
    C. Title V Petition Process and Content
    D. Prior Interpretations and Applications of the Title V 
Provisions
IV. Proposed Revisions to Title V Regulations
    A. Additional Legal Background for the Proposed Revisions to the 
Part 70 Rules
    B. Electronic Submittal of Petitions
    C. Required Petition Content and Format
    D. Proposed Administrative Record Requirements
V. Pre- and Post-Petition Process Information/Guidance
    A. Recommended Practices for Complete Permit Records
    B. Post-Petition Process
VI. Implementation
VII. Proposed Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect
VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations.
    K. Determination Under Section 307(d)
X. Statutory Authority

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected directly by the proposed revisions to 
the EPA's regulations include anyone who intends to submit a title V 
petition on a proposed title V permit prepared by a state, local or 
tribal title V permitting authority pursuant to its EPA-approved title 
V permitting program. Entities also potentially affected by this rule 
include state, local and tribal permitting authorities responsible for 
implementing the title V permitting program. Entities not directly 
affected by this proposed rule include owners and operators of major 
stationary sources or other sources that are subject to title V permit 
requirements, as well as the general public who would have an interest 
in knowing about title V permitting actions and associated public 
hearings but do not intend to submit a petition.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA 
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the specific 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that 
you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and 
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 
information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket.
    2. Tips for preparing comments. When preparing and submitting your 
comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

C. How can I find information about a possible public hearing?

    To request a public hearing or information pertaining to a public 
hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Long, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by phone at (919) 541-
0641 or by email at long.pam@epa.gov.

D. Where can I obtain a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this Federal Register document will be posted at the regulations 
section of our Title V Operating Permits Web site, under Regulatory 
Actions, at http://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/current-regulations-and-regulatory-actions. A ``track changes'' version of the 
full regulatory text that incorporates and shows the full context of 
the proposed changes to the existing regulations in this proposal is 
also available in the docket for this rulemaking.

II. Overview of Proposed Regulatory Revisions and Information in This 
Notice

    Title V of the CAA establishes an operating permit program. Section 
505 of the CAA requires permitting authorities to submit a proposed 
title V permit to the EPA Administrator for review for a 45-day review 
period before issuing the permit as final. The Administrator shall 
object to issuance of the permit within that 45-day review period if 
the Administrator determines that the permit contains provisions that 
are not in compliance with the applicable requirements under the CAA. 
If the Administrator does not object to the permit during the 45-day 
EPA review period, any person may petition the Administrator within 60 
days after the expiration of the 45-day review period to take such 
action (hereinafter ``title V petition'' or ``petition''). The title V 
petition provisions of the current implementing regulations found at 40 
CFR part 70 largely mirror the CAA, and have not been revised since 
original promulgation in 1992. With 20 years of experience with title V 
petitions as well as feedback from various stakeholders, the agency is 
now proposing changes to 40 CFR part 70 intended to provide clarity and 
transparency to the petition process, and to improve the efficiency of 
that process.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The revisions proposed in this rule only impact 40 CFR part 
70, which applies to federally-approved state, local, and tribal 
operating permit programs; 40 CFR part 71, which covers the title V 
operating permit program for permits issued under the EPA's federal 
permitting authority, utilizes a different administrative review 
process, through the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). The EAB has 
its own review process for title V permits issued under 40 CFR part 
71 that is separate and distinct from the process of petitioning the 
Administrator for an objection to a 40 CFR part 70 permit; thus, 
these proposed changes are intended to streamline and clarify the 
EPA's title V petition review process under 40 CFR part 70 only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes proposed and the information provided in the preamble 
to the proposal are intended to benefit permitting authorities, 
permitted sources, and potential petitioners, as well as the EPA. 
Permitting authorities and permitted sources are expected to benefit by 
early consultation with the appropriate EPA Regional Office when the 
permitting authority is preparing a permit to ensure it includes 
conditions that assure compliance with applicable requirements under 
the CAA and part 70). These early actions should minimize potential 
permit deficiencies and reduce the associated likelihood that a 
petition will be submitted on that title V permit.
    Potential petitioners are expected to benefit by having better 
notification of permits and review deadlines (e.g., the EPA is 
proposing to post on EPA Regional Web sites when a proposed permit is 
received and the corresponding 60-day deadline for submitting a 
petition) and by better

[[Page 57824]]

access to permitting decision information (e.g., the permitting 
authority's written response to comments). These updates will clarify 
the expected minimum content of petitions and provide a standardized 
format, simplifying the process and enhancing the likelihood that 
petitions will be clear and complete. In addition, potential 
petitioners may also derive a benefit from more efficient responses to 
petitions and a better understanding of the process.
    The EPA is expected to benefit by improving the agency's ability to 
meet its statutory obligations to review proposed permits, respond to 
title V petitions and provide more transparency in the title V petition 
process. These were concerns expressed by a Clean Air Act Advisory 
Committee task force in recommendations provided to the agency in 
2006.\2\ The EPA believes that the proposed regulatory revisions and 
shared information are responsive to these concerns and could, if 
finalized, improve the efficiency of the agency's response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 2004, the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) 
established a Task Force to evaluate the title V program. The 18-
member panel, comprised of industry, state, and environmental group 
representatives, identified what Committee members believed was and 
was not working well. After hosting public meetings and receiving 
written feedback, and compiling the information with the personal 
experience of panel members, the Title V Task Force issued a final 
report that highlighted concerns and recommendations for 
improvement. See, Final Report to the Clean Air Act Advisory 
Committee on the Title V Implementation Experience: Title V 
Implementation Experience (April 2006). The Title V Task Force Final 
Report is available at: https://www.epa.gov/caaac/caaac-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulatory revisions described in Section IV of this 
notice would, among other things: (1) Provide direction as to how title 
V petitions should be submitted to the agency, including encouraging 
the use of an electronic submittal system as the preferred (but not 
exclusive) method to submit title V petitions; (2) describe mandatory 
content and format for title V petitions, which is intended to clarify 
the process for petitioners and improve the EPA's ability to review and 
act on petitions efficiently; and (3) require permitting authorities to 
respond in writing to significant comments received during the public 
comment period on a draft title V permit and to provide that written 
response to the EPA along with the proposed title V permit at the start 
of the EPA's 45-day review period. This proposal also requests comment 
on the proposed revisions to the regulations governing the CAA title V 
petition process, as well as comment on questions related to 
potentially establishing page limits on title V petitions. The proposed 
revisions to the 40 CFR part 70 regulations are described more fully in 
Section IV of this notice.
    Separate from the regulatory revisions proposed in Section IV, 
Section V.A of this notice provides guidance on ``recommended 
practices'' for permit development for various stakeholders that, when 
followed, helps to ensure permits have complete administrative records 
and comport with the requirements of the CAA. Lastly, to increase 
stakeholder familiarity with the post-petition process, Section V.B. 
provides information concerning the agency's interpretation of certain 
provisions of title V of the CAA and the implementing regulations at 
part 70 regarding the steps following an EPA objection in response to a 
title V petition, as previously discussed in specific title V orders. 
The following paragraphs briefly provide additional information on each 
area.
    First, in order to reduce confusion with and add clarity to the 
process of submitting title V petitions, the EPA has developed a 
centralized point of entry for all title V petitions using an 
electronic submittal system. As described in Section IV.A of this 
notice, the EPA encourages petitioners to use this electronic system 
when submitting title V petitions, which will improve customer service 
by allowing for better access to and tracking of petitions. This is the 
preferred method identified in the proposed regulatory revisions that 
would be acceptable to use to submit a title V petition to the agency. 
Alternative methods for submittal are also identified in this notice.
    Second, with regard to petition content, the EPA is proposing 
regulatory revisions that would specify requirements for mandatory 
petition content and standard formatting for all petitions. This is 
expected to benefit potential petitioners by ensuring completeness 
while promoting streamlining and improving the EPA's ability to review 
and act on petitions efficiently. In its orders responding to title V 
petitions, the EPA has already identified key elements that are 
critical for demonstrating that a title V permit does not assure 
compliance with applicable requirements under the CAA or under the part 
70 regulations, and has explained their relevance to its 
determinations. In this proposal, the EPA is proposing new regulatory 
language to codify what has already been discussed in prior orders. If 
finalized, petitioners would be expected to follow these requirements 
and include this content following a standard format. As described 
later in this notice and in the proposed regulatory text, this content 
includes identifying where the issue being raised in the title V 
petition was raised during the public comment period on the draft title 
V permit and addressing the permitting authority's response to the 
comment in the petition in order to demonstrate that an objection is 
warranted.
    Along with the proposed changes and requests for comment regarding 
petition content and format in Section IV.B of this notice, the EPA 
proposes to add new regulatory language to 40 CFR 70.8 that would 
require a petitioner to send a copy of the petition to both the 
permitting authority and the permit applicant. The current title V 
regulations do not have provisions implementing this requirement of 
section 505(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, this rule proposes to insert a 
requirement into the part 70 rules mirroring the Act's requirement in 
order to ensure consistency with this provision of the statute.
    Third, Section IV.C of this notice contains requirements for 
certain procedures related to responding to significant public comments 
on the draft title V permit, as well as the administrative record for 
and submittal of proposed title V permits to the EPA by permitting 
authorities. The changes being proposed now would require that all 
permitting authorities respond to significant comments received on 
draft permits. The EPA is also proposing that the 45-day review period 
under section 505(b)(1) would not begin until the permitting authority 
forwards the proposed permit, the written response to comments (RTC) or 
statement that no public comments were received, and the statement of 
basis document, to the EPA for its review. These changes are expected 
to benefit permitting authorities and permitted sources by resulting in 
a more complete permit record and greater clarity for all stakeholders. 
If finalized, these changes may result in a need to revise at least 
some state, local and tribal part 70 programs.
    In addition to these three areas, as part of the agency's effort to 
share information with stakeholders about the title V petition process, 
this notice includes guidance to help ensure permits have complete 
administrative records and comport with the requirements of the CAA. 
Presented in the form of ``recommended practices'' for stakeholders, 
this guidance is shared in the spirit of providing information and 
context to give a more comprehensive view of the title V

[[Page 57825]]

petition process, including the time before a petition may be filed. 
Following the suggested recommended practices contained in Section V.A 
of this notice is expected to positively affect the permit issuance 
process resulting in better permits and may reduce the likelihood that 
a title V petition will be submitted on a title V permit.
    All four of the previously mentioned areas should help to improve 
title V permits issued by permitting authorities, promote access to and 
provide better understanding of the title V petition process for 
potential petitioners, and reduce delays in decisions and support the 
agency's efforts to meet its obligations in responding to title V 
petitions. The proposed revisions to the part 70 regulations associated 
with the first three key areas are anticipated to increase transparency 
and add clarity to the title V petition submittal, review, and response 
processes. Codifying existing practices into title V regulations of the 
CAA is also expected to make the EPA petition review process more 
efficient. In addition, providing ``recommended practices'' for 
stakeholders, including some related to permit issuance, also increases 
transparency and clarity to further improve the stakeholder experience 
and understanding surrounding title V petitions.
    Section V.B of this notice discusses steps following the EPA's 
issuance of an objection in response to a title V petition, 
particularly where the state, local, or tribal permitting authority 
subsequently amends the permit terms and conditions and/or the permit 
record in response to the EPA's objection. This process is often 
referred to as the post-petition process. The information provided in 
Section V.B reflects interpretations of certain statutory and 
regulatory provisions related to this aspect of the title V petition 
process that have previously been discussed by the EPA, including in 
title V petition orders. This information is repeated as a convenience 
to stakeholders and the general public: The agency is not proposing to 
alter its interpretation of that process in this notice and the 
regulatory revisions proposed in this notice do not relate to or modify 
this interpretation. The agency is not soliciting comment on this 
interpretation or otherwise reopening or revising the already-issued 
title V petition orders or other EPA documents in which it has 
previously been discussed. Rather, this discussion is included to 
provide additional transparency and clarity.
    Finally, as a convenience to stakeholders and the general public, 
and to provide context and background that informs how the EPA 
determines whether to grant an objection and to promote awareness of 
the EPA's existing interpretation of key provisions of section 
505(b)(2) of the Act, Section III.D of this notice includes a summary 
of some past orders responding to title V petitions and court decisions 
addressing the burden on a title V petitioner to demonstrate that an 
objection is warranted.

III. Background

A. The Title V Operating Permits Program

    Congress amended the CAA in 1990 to add title V, now found at 42 
U.S.C. 7661-7661f, to assist in compliance and enforcement of air 
pollution controls. CAA Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549, 
sections 501-507, 104 Stat. 2399, 2635-48 (1990). Before this, the CAA 
pollution control requirements that might apply to a particular source 
could be found in many different provisions of the Act and its numerous 
regulations. As one court opinion has described it: ``Before 1990, 
regulators and industry were left to wander through this regulatory 
maze in search of the emission limits and monitoring requirements that 
might apply to a particular source. Congress addressed this confusion 
in the 1990 Amendments by adding title V of the Act, which created a 
national permit program that requires many stationary sources of air 
pollution to obtain permits that include relevant emission limits and 
monitoring requirements.'' Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673, 674 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008).
    Accordingly, title V of the Act establishes an operating permits 
program for major sources of air pollutants, as well as certain other 
sources. CAA section 502(a). Under title V of the CAA, states were 
required to develop and submit to EPA for approval title V permitting 
programs consistent with program requirements promulgated by the EPA. 
Those requirements are now found in 40 CFR part 70. Most states, 
certain local agencies, and one tribe have approved part 70 
programs.\3\ As part of an approved part 70 program, title V of the CAA 
requires every major source and certain other sources to apply for and 
operate pursuant to an operating permit. CAA sections 502(a) and 503; 
see also 40 CFR 70.5(a) and 70.1(b). It further requires that the 
permits contain conditions that assure compliance with all of the 
sources' applicable requirements under the Act, including the 
requirements of the applicable implementation plan. CAA section 504(a); 
see also 40 CFR 70.1(b) and 70.6(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Southern Ute Indian Tribe has an EPA-approved operating 
permit program under 40 CFR part 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the title V program, CAA requirements for major sources of 
air pollutants were implemented in multiple and various ways. As a 
lawmaker involved in the 1990 CAA Amendments explained:

    Title V creates, for the first time, a unifying permit program 
for facilities subject to the [A]ct's various control requirements. 
In the past, some provisions of the Clean Air Act--for example, the 
nonattainment and PSD new source requirements--were, and will 
continue to be, implemented through preconstruction permits. Other 
control requirements were effected without Federal, or in some 
cases, State permits--for example, NESHAPS and NSPS--although States 
often incorporated these requirements into their own permit 
programs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 136 Cong. Rec. E3663, E3673 (1990) (Speech of Rep. Michael 
Bilirakis), reprinted in Environment and Natural Resources Policy 
Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of 
Congress, 6 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990, at 10768 (1993) [hereinafter CAAA Leg. Hist.].

    More specifically, a title V permit must contain enforceable 
emission limits and standards, including operational requirements and 
limitations, and such other conditions as necessary to assure 
compliance with all applicable requirements that apply to the source at 
the time of permit issuance, as well as the monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements to assure compliance. In sum, the title V 
permit program is a vehicle for ensuring that air quality control 
requirements are appropriately applied to a source's emission units and 
for assuring compliance with such requirements.
    For the most part, title V of the CAA does not impose new pollution 
control requirements on sources. The definition of ``applicable 
requirements'' in the part 70 regulations includes many standards and 
requirements that are established through other CAA programs, such as 
standards and requirements under sections 111 and 112 of the Act, and 
terms and conditions of preconstruction permits issued under the New 
Source Review programs. 40 CFR 70.2. Once those air quality control 
requirements are established in those other programs, they are 
incorporated into a source's title V permits as appropriate. Hence, a 
title V permit is a comprehensive document that identifies all the 
specific CAA requirements that must be met by a source in order to 
operate. Developing

[[Page 57826]]

such a comprehensive document can be a complex process that involves 
some harmonization of all the source's applicable requirements. As a 
lawmaker involved in the 1990 CAA Amendments explained:

    The creation of the new permit program in title V provides an 
opportunity and an obligation for EPA to harmonize the substantive 
provisions of the other titles in this complex legislation. Many of 
the same sources and pollutants will be controlled under multiple 
titles--the same facilities and pollutants will often be controlled 
under the hazardous air pollutant, nonattainment, and acid rain 
programs. EPA must make every effort to harmonize and prevent 
unproductive duplication among those titles. The permit provisions 
of title V provide a focus for this harmonization, although title V 
does not change, and gives EPA no authority to modify, the 
substantive provisions of these other titles.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 136 Cong. Rec. E3663, E3673 (1990) (Speech of Rep. Michael 
Bilirakis), reprinted in 6 CAAA Leg. Hist., at 10768 (1993).

    As this language suggests, in providing an opportunity for 
harmonization through title V of the CAA, Congress did not replace or 
remove the procedures and requirements for establishing substantive 
requirements that exist in other provisions of the CAA. Nor did 
Congress alter or supplant the opportunities for public participation 
and administrative and judicial review that are found in other CAA 
programs, such as those for public participation and judicial review of 
certain final agency actions under section 307 of the Act. In addition, 
the Act requires that title V permitting programs provide opportunities 
for public participation in title V permitting processes and an 
opportunity for judicial review in state court. CAA section 502(b)(6); 
see also 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(x) (judicial review) and 70.7(h) (public 
participation). The petition process co-exists with those provisions, 
without superseding them.
    Although title V of the CAA does not generally impose new pollution 
control requirements on sources, it does require that certain 
procedural measures be followed especially with respect to assuring 
compliance with underlying applicable requirements, and it also 
requires sources to pay certain fees. For example, title V of the CAA 
requires permits to contain adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting provisions to assure sources' compliance with permit terms 
and conditions. See CAA 504(c); Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008). The part 70 regulations contain monitoring rules designed 
to satisfy this statutory requirement. Finally, as an additional 
measure to ensure permits are in compliance with the CAA, the title V 
program provides for public participation at various steps in the 
permitting process, including the opportunity to submit a title V 
petition.

B. Statutory and Regulatory Basis for This Proposal

    In general terms, as noted above, the title V permit program was a 
significant development that established new procedural requirements 
for permitting authorities and sources. In crafting the program, 
Congress balanced the benefit of a single document that contains all 
applicable requirements of the Act with the need to process these 
complex documents in an efficient manner. As part of the effort to 
promote efficient implementation of the operating permits program, the 
provisions relating to title V objections establish an orderly process 
with specific deadlines, which give the EPA an opportunity to raise 
objections to a title V permit before it is issued and which give any 
person the opportunity to timely raise specific issues to the EPA 
through a title V petition. In light of the complexities of 
implementing a program of title V's scope, a statement of one lawmaker 
in the legislative history indicates that the opportunity to 
``challenge EPA's failure to object'' through the petition process was 
``designed to avoid delays'' while preserving the discretion of both 
the EPA and the states.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 136 Cong. Rec. E3663, E3675 (1990) (Speech of Rep. Michael 
Bilirakis), reprinted in 6 CAAA Leg. Hist. at 10774.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, under CAA section 505(a), and the current 
implementing regulations found at 40 CFR 70.8(a), permitting 
authorities are required to submit each proposed title V permit to the 
EPA for review.\7\ Upon receipt of a proposed permit and all necessary 
supporting information, the Administrator has 45 days in which to 
object to the final issuance of the permit if he/she determines that 
the proposed permit is not in compliance with applicable requirements 
of the Act, including the requirements of the applicable state 
implementation plan (SIP), or part 70 requirements. CAA section 
505(b)(1) and 40 CFR 70.8(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As the part 70 rules in 70.8(c) and (d) largely mirror the 
Act's provisions, the statutory and regulatory requirements are 
addressed together in this background discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the EPA explained when proposing the initial title V regulations 
in 1991, the Act limits the EPA's opportunity for its initial review 
and an objection based on that review to 45 days in order to minimize 
delays. 56 FR 21749 (May 10, 1991). If the Administrator objects under 
CAA 505(b)(1), he/she must provide a statement of the reasons for the 
objection, providing a copy of both the objection and the statement to 
the permit applicant. CAA 505(b)(1); see also 40 CFR 70.8(c)(1).
    If the Administrator does not object during the 45-day review 
period, consistent with section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 
70.8(d), any person may petition the Administrator within 60 days after 
the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period to object to the 
permit. The Administrator shall grant or deny such a petition within 60 
days after it is filed. CAA section 505(b)(2) establishes several 
requirements related to such petitions. Among other things, it provides 
that such a petition shall be based only on objections to the permit 
that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment 
period, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to 
raise objections during that period or the grounds for objection arose 
after completion of the public comment period. It also provides that 
the Administrator shall issue an objection if the petitioner 
demonstrates that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements 
of the CAA, including the requirements of the applicable implementation 
plan.
    The implementing regulations are found in 40 CFR 70.8(d) and 
largely mirror this provision. As the EPA explained in proposing the 
initial title V regulations, the title V petition opportunity serves an 
important purpose because title V permits are frequently complex 
documents, and given the brevity of the agency review period there may 
be occasions when the EPA does not recognize that certain permit 
provisions are not in compliance with applicable requirements of the 
Act. 56 FR 21751 (May 10, 1991). CAA section 505(b)(2) states that the 
Administrator ``shall'' object if the petitioner makes the required 
demonstration. If the Administrator denies a petition for an objection, 
CAA 505(b)(2) provides that denial is subject to judicial review under 
CAA section 307; however, under CAA section 505(c), no objection is 
subject to judicial review until the Administrator has taken final 
action to issue or deny the permit. Further, the requirements under CAA 
section 505(b)(2) may not be delegated by the Administrator.
    In addition to the provisions of title V, the rulemaking of 
provisions under CAA section 307(d) are relevant to this notice. The 
Administrator is applying the rulemaking provisions of CAA section 
307(d) to the rulemaking discussed in this notice, pursuant to

[[Page 57827]]

CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), which provides that the provisions of 307(d) 
apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.''

C. Title V Petition Process and Content

    After 20 years of experience in implementing the title V petition 
process, the EPA has identified some general trends in petition content 
and aspects of the petition review process that pose challenges for 
potential petitioners in preparing petitions and for the EPA in 
providing an efficient response to petitions. These are described in 
this section of the notice to provide additional context for this 
proposal. This proposed rulemaking is aimed in part at increasing 
stakeholder access to and understanding of the petition process and 
increasing the efficiency of the agency's response to petitions 
received and at mitigating some of the factors that contribute to 
poorly prepared or incomplete petitions, misunderstanding of applicable 
permit and CAA requirements, and longer response times. These factors 
include: (1) The lack of administrative requirements around petition 
submittals, which results in a variety of inconsistent methods used by 
petitioners; (2) the lack of specific rules regarding petition content, 
which results in considerable inconsistency in the format and content 
of petitions; and (3) the need to often deal with numerous and highly 
complex issues that arise in title V petitions given that title V 
permits must address many applicable requirements. These include issues 
relating to compliance with the requirements of the prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program, the hazardous air 
pollutant program (i.e., requirements implementing the provisions of 
CAA 112), and other air quality issues. For example, petitioners often 
raise issues related to compliance with the requirements of the major 
and minor preconstruction permit programs, such as the PSD permitting 
requirements found in part C of Title I of the Act. This permitting 
program has a separate process under the CAA, its implementing 
regulations and SIPs, for evaluating applicability of the permitting 
requirements, determining the appropriate terms and conditions for 
permits, and for public participation and administrative and/or 
judicial review of those permits. At times, the PSD issues raised in 
the context of a title V petition relate to projects that occurred a 
considerable time in the past, and in some situations, the title V 
permit record may not contain all the relevant information for 
understanding the determinations that were made. For these reasons, 
consideration of these issues in the title V petition context can be 
time-consuming to research and complex to resolve, even to come to the 
seemingly simple determination that the permit record is inadequate. 
Further, title V petitions frequently include lengthy arguments that 
primarily concern CAA programmatic or policy issues, rather than the 
terms of a particular permit.
    Over time, petitions have raised increasingly more complex policy, 
legal, and technical matters. Through the review of such extensive and 
complicated petitions, the petition review process has evolved into a 
resource-intensive effort by the EPA. To increase stakeholder 
understanding of the title V petition process, help ensure consistent 
presentation of critical information in such petitions, and facilitate 
more efficient review of them, the EPA is proposing to revise its 
regulations to establish procedural parameters which, if finalized, 
would govern the title V petition process moving forward. As described 
in more detail in Section IV of this notice, this proposal includes 
proposed requirements for petition submittal, petition content and 
format, and certain administrative record requirements. As mentioned 
previously, one of the primary goals of the proposed changes is to 
improve stakeholder access to and understanding of the petition process 
and improve the agency's ability to meet its statutory obligations to 
review proposed permits and respond to title V petitions, in light of 
the overall structure of the CAA.
    Yet another overarching factor that hampers the current petition 
review process is the confusion or lack of familiarity with the process 
itself. In the 2006 Title V Task Force Final Report noted earlier, for 
example, the CAAAC task force expressed a concern with the lack of 
transparency in the title V petition process. This concern has been 
echoed in the years since the 2006 report through feedback the agency 
has received from various stakeholders. In response, the EPA has tried 
to provide more explanation and insight into the title V petition 
process in the administrative orders it issues in responding to 
petitions. Some of these issues have also been discussed in the 
opinions courts have issued in reviewing such EPA orders. However, the 
EPA expects that not all stakeholders, including the public, may have 
read these response orders or related court decisions.
    Therefore, the next section of this notice seeks to provide 
additional transparency concerning the petition process by repeating 
some of the relevant interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
provisions that the EPA has previously explained in title V petition 
orders, as well as interpretations of certain provisions related to the 
title V petition process provided in judicial opinions. Reiterating 
these prior statements concerning the EPA's application and 
interpretation of the statute to reviewing title V petitions may also 
provide useful context for the proposed changes to 40 CFR part 70, 
which are discussed in Section IV of this notice.

D. Prior Interpretations and Applications of the Title V Provisions

    This section includes a discussion of certain aspects of the 
statutory elements of CAA section 505(b)(2) as well as the implementing 
regulations that have previously been interpreted by the EPA and/or 
courts. The discussion that follows serves to inform the public, 
stakeholders, permitting authorities, and other interested parties of 
these interpretations. Although the matters discussed in this section 
are available to the public,\8\ and in some cases have been available 
for years and/or already subject to judicial review, in the interest of 
transparency and clarity, the agency is collecting these 
interpretations and judicial decisions in this notice. That information 
is repeated here merely as a convenience for the public. The agency is 
not in this notice proposing to change these previously-presented 
interpretations, soliciting comments on these interpretations, or 
reopening the already-issued title V orders or other EPA documents in 
which these interpretations were discussed. None of the regulatory 
revisions proposed in this notice would alter these interpretations or 
the prior title V orders or other EPA documents in which these 
interpretations were discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Title V Petitions Database contains petitions and EPA 
Orders responding to petitions and is available at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. ``Threshold'' Requirements
    Certain of the requirements under CAA section 505(b)(2) related to 
petitions are sometimes referred to as ``threshold'' requirements, 
which provide some procedural requirements and some limitations on the 
scope of title V petitions. These include, for example, that the 
petition be filed within 60 days following the agency's 45-day review 
period. Another example is the requirement that the petition be based 
only on objections to the permit

[[Page 57828]]

that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment 
period provided by the permitting agency. The agency has previously 
addressed these ``threshold'' issues in prior title V orders, and some 
of those statements are reiterated in this section.
a. Timeliness
    Generally speaking, the first step in the petition response process 
is for the agency to ascertain if the petition was timely filed 
pursuant to CAA section 505(b)(2). The Act and implementing regulations 
at 40 CFR 70.8(d) provide for a 60-day window in which to file a title 
V petition, which runs from the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review 
period. A petition received after the 60-day petition deadline is not 
timely. The agency is aware that because the petition period runs from 
the end of the EPA's 45-day review period, and the date a proposed 
permit is received by the EPA is not always apparent, the petition 
deadline is not always readily apparent. The agency currently 
encourages permitting authorities to provide notifications to the 
public or interested stakeholders regarding the timing of proposal of 
permits to the EPA, for example making that information available 
either online, such as Region 4 has done on the EPA Web site, ``Region 
4 Proposed Title V Permits and State Contacts,'' \9\ or in the 
publication in which public notice of the draft permit was given.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA Region 4's Web site provides links with lists of permits 
that have been proposed and are still under the public petition 
deadline, organized by state: https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/region-4-proposed-title-v-permits-and-state-contacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Reasonable Specificity
    The second ``threshold'' requirement described in the statute 
regards the content of a petition. CAA section 505(b)(2) requires that, 
unless one of the enumerated exceptions applies, the petition must be 
based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable 
specificity during the public comment period provided by the permitting 
agency. Subject to the exceptions contained in the provision, the EPA 
understands this statutory language to require that the issues 
presented in a petition be raised during the public comment process 
with reasonable specificity. Such issues could, however, be raised in 
comments filed by a commenter other than the petitioner.
    The EPA continues to believe that, as stated in the preamble to the 
1991 part 70 proposal, Congress did not intend for petitioners to 
create an entirely new record before the EPA that the permitting 
authority had no opportunity to address. The requirement to raise 
issues ``with reasonable specificity'' places the burden on the 
petitioner. Unless there are unusual circumstances, the Petitioner 
needs to provide evidence that would support a finding of noncompliance 
with the Act to the permitting authority before it is raised in a 
petition. See, 56 FR 21712, 21750 (1991).
    Where an issue is raised to the EPA in a title V petition without 
first raising it with reasonable specificity to the permitting 
authority to give it the opportunity to address the issue, the 
Administrator has generally denied such claims consistent with the 
statutory requirements. The EPA has specifically addressed the 
reasonable specificity threshold requirement in a number of title V 
petition orders. Some key highlights are summarized next.
    In 2013 in the Luminant Order, the EPA responded to a petition that 
raised a number of issues, including several that were raised only in 
general terms or not raised at all during the public comment period by 
any commenter. See, In the Matter of Luminant Generating Station, 
Petition, Order on Petition No. VI-2011-05 (January 15, 2013). For 
example, the petitioners claimed that the permit in question failed to 
identify emission units that were associated with permit by rules to 
which the facility was subject. The EPA noted that no mention was made 
in the public comments concerning the lack of identification of 
emission units, and denied the claim. Id. at 12. The Administrator 
similarly denied other claims not raised with reasonable specificity 
during the public comment period: The comments did not present evidence 
or analysis to support these petition claims, and thus the state had no 
opportunity to consider and respond to those claims. Id. at 6, 11, 13, 
15. The Luminant Order also included a discussion of the reasonable 
specificity standard, that absent unusual circumstances, the 
requirement to raise issues ``with reasonable specificity'' places the 
burden on the petitioner to bring forward evidence before the State 
that would support a finding of noncompliance with the CAA. See id. at 
5.
    As noted above, the Act contains two enumerated exceptions to the 
``reasonable specificity'' requirement. Namely, issues that were not 
raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period can 
be raised in a petition if the petitioner demonstrates that it was 
impracticable to raise such objections within such period or unless the 
grounds for such objection arose after such period. CAA section 
505(b)(2). For an issue to fit within one of these exceptions, the 
petitioner would have to demonstrate the impracticality, or show that 
the grounds arose after the comment period. The EPA has also addressed 
this issue in petition orders.
    One example is in the 2012 San Juan Generating Station Order, where 
the EPA responded to a petition claim that the permit failed to assure 
compliance with PSD applicable requirements because it did not address 
significant increase of a specific pollutant after a change at the 
facility. See In the Matter of Public Service Company Of New Mexico, 
San Juan Generating Station (SJGS), Order on Petition VI-2010 (February 
15, 2012) at 10. According to the petitioners, these concerns were not 
raised during the comment period because the State did not make the 
information about the significant emission increase available until 
after the public comment period, when the permitting authority noted in 
its response to the EPA that the change triggered PSD and expressed its 
intent to add a title V compliance schedule to the permit. The 
Administrator found that in this case, the petitioners demonstrated 
that the grounds arose after the comment period and therefore, the EPA 
would consider their claim on this matter. See id. at 10.
c. Scope of Permit Action
    Petitions may be submitted on several types of proposed title V 
permits, such as proposed initial permits, permit renewals, or permit 
revisions, which may include minor or significant modifications to the 
title V permit. Some stakeholders have indicated there may be confusion 
on the matter of petition opportunities, particularly for minor 
modification actions. In cases where the permitting authority has not 
provided for a prior public comment period on a minor permit 
modification, petitioners can still submit a petition to the 
Administrator. 57 FR 32283; see also 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv) (for a minor 
modification, the permitting authority may not issue a final permit 
until after EPA's 45-day review period or until EPA has notified the 
permitting authority that it will not object, whichever is earlier) and 
70.8(e) (a part 70 permit, including a modification, may not be issued 
until after EPA has had an opportunity to review the proposed permit as 
required under this section). As the EPA may receive a petition on 
different types of proposed title V permits, it is important for the 
agency to be able to identify the

[[Page 57829]]

particular action of concern to the petitioner.
    Under CAA section 505(b)(2), a petition pertains to a particular 
permit. Thus, the EPA must be able to discern from the petition what 
permit action the petition is based on in order to review and respond 
to it. The EPA has interpreted the potential scope of the petition as 
related to the scope of the permit action that is the basis of the 
petition. In the 1992 preamble to the final part 70 rule, the EPA 
explained that public objections to an initial permit, permit revision, 
or permit renewal must be germane to the applicable requirements 
implicated by the permitting action in question. For example, 
objections raised on a portion of an existing permit that would not in 
any way be affected by a proposed permit revision would not be germane. 
57 FR 32250, 32290/3 (July 21, 1992). Consistent with CAA section 
505(b)(2), the EPA has considered the scope of the permit proceeding in 
reviewing petitions and denied petitions that concern issues that are 
outside the scope of the permit proceeding. See, e.g., In the Matter of 
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's JP Pulliam Power Plant (Order in 
response to Petition Number V-2012-01) (January 7, 2013) at 8; In the 
Matter of Consolidated Environmental Management, Inc.--Nucor Steel 
Louisiana, Order on Petition Numbers VI-2010-05, VI-2011-06 and VI-
2012-07 (January 30, 2014) (Nucor III Order) at 12.
    One such denial can be found in the 2007 Weston Order, in which the 
EPA received a petition that claimed that the proposed modification 
permit was deficient because it did not incorporate limits from PSD and 
preconstruction permit applications for a particular unit at the Weston 
facility. See, In the Matter of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation--
Weston Generating Station (Order in response to Petition) (December 19, 
2007). The EPA denied the claim because the unit in question had not 
been affected by or related to the significant modification on which 
the title V permitting action was based. The Order stated:

    EPA interprets its title V regulations at 40 CFR part 70 to 
require different opportunities for citizens to petition on initial 
permit issuance, permit modifications, and renewals. The regulations 
state that a permit, permit modification, or renewal may be issued 
if specified conditions are met, 40 CFR 70.7(a)(1), including a 
requirement that `[t]he permitting authority shall provide a 
statement that sets forth the legal and factual basis for the draft 
permit conditions.' 40 CFR 70(a)(1)(ii) and 70.7(a)(5) (emphasis 
added). Further, 40 CFR 70.7(h), in requiring the permitting 
authority to provide adequate procedures for public notice and 
comment for permit proceedings that qualify as significant 
modifications, provides that the notice shall identify `the activity 
or activities involved in the permit action; the emissions change 
involved in any permit modification; . . . and all other materials 
available to the permitting authority that are relevant to the 
permit decision . . .' 40 CFR 70.7(h)(2) (emphasis added). We 
interpret these provisions to limit petitions on significant 
modifications to issues directly related to those modifications. Id. 
at 5.

    The Weston Order further noted that this limitation on petitions 
for title V significant modifications did not affect the public's 
ability to participate in the permit issuance or enforcement processes. 
When a title V permit is renewed, all aspects of the title V permit are 
subject to public comment and petition as part of the process to issue 
a renewal permit. Generally speaking, members of the public can also 
bring an enforcement action in situations of alleged noncompliance with 
any permit terms. Furthermore, if the public is concerned that the 
permit fails to incorporate all applicable requirements, a petition may 
be submitted to the Administrator to reopen the permit for cause under 
CAA section 505(e). Id. at 7.
2. Demonstration Requirement
    In addition to the threshold requirements, the statute identifies 
another general guideline for the EPA's consideration. Specifically, to 
compel an objection by the EPA, CAA section 505(b)(2) requires the 
petitioner to demonstrate that a permit is not in compliance with 
requirements of the Act, including the requirements of the applicable 
implementation plan. The EPA has interpreted the demonstration burden 
under CAA section 505(b)(2) in numerous title V petition orders and 
court opinions have also interpreted it. What follows is a brief 
restatement of interpretations previously articulated in some of those 
orders and opinions.
    In the 2013 Nucor II Order the EPA stated:

    The petitioner demonstration burden is a critical component of 
CAA section 505(b)(2). As courts have recognized, CAA section 
505(b)(2) contains a ``discretionary component'' that requires the 
exercise of the EPA's judgment to determine whether a petition 
demonstrates noncompliance with the Act, as well as a 
nondiscretionary duty to object where such a demonstration is made. 
Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d at 1265-66 (``it is undeniable [CAA 
section 505(b)(2)] also contains a discretionary component: it 
requires the Administrator to make a judgment of whether a petition 
demonstrates a permit does not comply with clean air 
requirements''); NYPIRG, 321 F.3d at 333. Courts have also made 
clear that the Administrator is only obligated to grant a petition 
to object under CAA section 505(b)(2) if the Administrator 
determines that the petitioners have demonstrated that the permit is 
not in compliance with requirements of the Act. See, e.g., Citizens 
Against Ruining the Environment, 535 F.3d at 667 (section 505(b)(2) 
``clearly obligates the Administrator to (1) determine whether the 
petition demonstrates noncompliance and (2) object if such a 
demonstration is made'') (emphasis added); NYPIRG, 321 F.3d at 334 
(``Section 505(b)[2] of the CAA provides a step-by-step procedure by 
which objections to draft permits may be raised and directs the EPA 
to grant or deny them, depending on whether non-compliance has been 
demonstrated.'') (emphasis added); Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 
at 1265 (``Congress's use of the word `shall' . . . plainly mandates 
an objection whenever a petitioner demonstrates noncompliance'') 
(emphasis added). Courts reviewing the EPA's interpretation of the 
ambiguous term ``demonstrates'' and its determination as to whether 
the demonstration has been made have applied a deferential standard 
of review. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d at 1265-66; 
Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, 535 F.3d at 678; 
MacClarence [v. EPA], 596 F.3d [1123] at 1130-31 [9th Cir. 2010)].

See, In the Matter of Consolidated Environmental Management, Inc.--
Nucor Steel Louisiana, Order on Petition Numbers VI-2011-06 and VI-
2012-07 (June 19, 2013) (Nucor II Order) at 4-5.
    The EPA highlighted in the Nucor II Order several reasons why the 
petitioner's demonstration is important in the context of a title V 
petition, including first, the relatively short time frames title V of 
the CAA provides for the EPA to review title V permits and petitions. 
As previously explained, under CAA section 505(b)(1), the Administrator 
has only 45 days after receiving a copy of the proposed permit to 
review that permit and object if she determines that the permit is not 
in compliance with the CAA. If the Administrator does not object, then 
any petition for an objection must be filed within 60 days after the 
expiration of the 45-day review period, and the agency is required to 
grant or deny that petition within 60 days. See CAA section 505(b)(2). 
Given these short time frames, the Nucor II Order explained that EPA 
does not believe it is reasonable to conclude that Congress would have 
intended for the EPA to engage in extensive fact-finding or 
investigation to analyze contested petition claims, and in support of 
this interpretation it cited Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, 
535 F.3d at 678, which noted that because the limited time frame 
Congress gave the EPA for permit review ``may not allow

[[Page 57830]]

the EPA to fully investigate and analyze contested allegations, it is 
reasonable in this context for the EPA to refrain from extensive fact-
finding.'' Nucor II Order at 5. Therefore, it is imperative that the 
petitioner make the demonstration.
    After discussing the relatively short time frames for the EPA to 
review as the first point, the Nucor II Order continued:

    Second, the Act is structured so that the EPA's evaluation of a 
petition under CAA section 505(b)(2) follows and is distinct from 
its review of a proposed permit under section 505(b)(1), which 
requires the Administrator to object on his own accord if he 
determines the permit is not in compliance with the Act. By 
contrast, under section 505(b)(2), the Administrator is compelled to 
object only if the necessary demonstration has been 
made.[10]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Footnote 3 of the Nucor II Order explained: ``Further, CAA 
section 505(b)(2) provides that `the Administrator may not delegate 
the requirements of this paragraph.' This reflects the significance 
Congress attached to the decision on whether or not to object in 
response to a petition, and means the process requires additional 
time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the EPA is also sensitive to the fact that its response 
to title V petitions often comes late in the title V permitting 
process and often after the title V permit has been issued. See CAA 
section 505(b)(3) (acknowledging that the EPA's response to a 
petition may occur after the permit has been issued). The EPA's 
evaluation of the petitioners' demonstration can have consequences, 
as a determination by the EPA that the petition demonstrates the 
permit is not in compliance with the Act requires the Administrator 
and the state permitting authority to take certain actions. 
MacClarence, 596 F.3d at 1131. The EPA also acknowledges Congress' 
direction that permitting authorities must provide ``streamlined'' 
procedures for issuing title V permits, indicating that the title V 
permitting process should proceed efficiently and expeditiously. CAA 
section 502(b)(6); 40 CFR part 70.4(d)(3)(ix). These circumstances 
make it all the more important that the EPA carefully evaluate the 
petition's demonstration and not issue an objection under section 
505(b)(2) unless the petition demonstrates that one is required.
    Fourth, and consistent with its importance in CAA section 
505(b)(2), the petitioner demonstration requirement helps to ensure 
the equity, procedural certainty, efficiency, and viability of the 
title V petition process for petitioners, state and local permitting 
authorities, the EPA and source owner/operators. This petitioner 
demonstration requirement helps to ensure that each and every 
petitioner is treated equitably in the petition process because the 
same standard for demonstration applies to each petitioner. Where 
petitioners meet their burden, the EPA will grant the petition. 
Where they do not, the EPA will not grant the petition. In this way, 
the EPA gives equal consideration to the petitioner's arguments, as 
appropriate.
    In addition, the petitioner burden requirement also helps to 
ensure that the title V petition process is consistent with the 
division of responsibilities and co-regulator relationship between 
the EPA and state or local permitting authorities established in the 
CAA. When carrying out our title V review responsibilities under the 
CAA, it is our practice, consistent with that relationship, to defer 
to permitting decisions of state and local agencies with approved 
title V programs where such decisions are not inconsistent with the 
requirements under the CAA. The EPA does not seek to substitute its 
judgment for the state or local agency. As we discuss above in this 
section, sections 505(b)(1) and (2) of the Act, require the EPA to 
object to the issuance of a title V permit if it determines that the 
title V permit contains provisions that are not in compliance with 
applicable requirements of the Act, including the requirements of 
the applicable SIP. State and local agencies must ensure that the 
title V permit includes all applicable requirements under the CAA 
for that source, and provide an adequate rationale for the permit 
requirements in the public record, including the response to 
comment. When the EPA grants a particular title V petition under CAA 
section 505(b)(2), the EPA directs the state or local agency 
regarding actions necessary to ensure that the title V permit meets 
the applicable requirements with regard to the particular issue(s) 
that was raised, including appropriate and necessary changes to the 
permit.
    The petitioner burden requirement assures that petitioners have 
clearly and sufficiently articulated the basis for an objection 
before a title V petition is granted. Thus, state and local agencies 
have certainty regarding the standard against which petitions on 
their title V permits and permit records will be assessed. The 
petitioner burden requirement also helps to ensure that the EPA does 
not have to spend significant time and resources responding to 
ungrounded claims regarding the title V permit or permit record. For 
example, petitioners might include claims in petitions unrelated to 
applicable requirements for the title V permit at issue or that do 
not provide sufficient information for the EPA to analyze the claim. 
Without the petitioner demonstration burden, the EPA could be 
required to investigate and respond to claims that ultimately prove 
to be ungrounded or frivolous. This would increase the complexity 
and uncertainty of the title V permit process, and would be 
burdensome and unproductive for the EPA, as well as for state and 
local agencies. The petitioner burden standard also helps to ensure 
certainty of the permitting process for source owner/operators, 
because it provides a consistent standard against which petitions on 
their title V permits will be assessed.

Nucor II Order at 5-7.
    In light of the EPA's interpretation of the demonstration 
requirement and its importance to the implementation of the statutory 
structure that Congress created for addressing objections to title V 
permits, the EPA has discussed and applied its interpretation of the 
demonstration burden in numerous title V orders. Examples of the EPA's 
application of this standard can be found in: In the Matter of Scherer 
Steam-Electric Generating Plant Juliette, Georgia, et al., Order on 
Petition Nos. IV-2012-1, IV-2012-2, IV-2012-3, IV-2012-4, and IV-2012-5 
(Apr. 14, 2014) at 12-13; In the Matter of Hu Honua Bioenergy Facility, 
Order on Petition No. IX-2001-1 (July 2, 2014) (Hu Honua Order) at 25-
27; In the Matter of EME Homer City Generation LP, et al., Order on 
Petition No. III-2012-06, III-2012-07, and III-2013-02 (July 30, 2014) 
at 24-25; In the Matter of Public Service of New Hampshire Schiller 
Station, Order on Petition No. VI-2014-04 (July 28, 2015) at 11-12.
    The interpretation quoted from the Nucor II Order is based on the 
discussion of the demonstration burden in opinions from federal courts 
of appeal. These courts have recognized that the term ``demonstrates'' 
in CAA section 505(b)(2) is ambiguous and have accordingly deferred to 
the EPA's interpretation. See Wildearth Guardians v. EPA, 728 F.3d 
1075, 1081-1082 (10th Cir. 2013); MacClarence v. EPA, 596 F.3d 1123, 
1130-1131 (9th Cir. 2010); Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1257, 1265-
1267 (11th Cir. 2008); Citizens Against Ruining the Env't v. EPA, 535 
F.3d 670, 677-678 (7th Cir. 2008). In so deferring, these courts have 
discussed the seminal Supreme Court decision, Chevron USA, Inc. v. 
Natural Res. Def. Council Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984), which 
provides guiding principles for judicial review of agency 
interpretations and determinations under statutes that the agency 
administers.\11\ Chevron establishes a well-known two-step test: First, 
if the Congress has ``directly spoken to the precise question at 
issue'' both the court and the agency must ``give effect to the 
unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.'' Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-
843. Second, if the statute is ambiguous, courts will generally defer 
to the agency's interpretation and uphold it so long as it ``is based 
on a permissible construction of the statute.'' Id. at 843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The principle of deference named after this decision--
Chevron deference--is discussed in more detail in Section IV.A of 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several federal courts of appeal have agreed with the EPA's 
position that the term ``demonstrates'' in CAA section 505(b)(2) is 
ambiguous. MacClarence, 596 F.3d at 1130 (collecting cases). As one 
opinion pointed out, ``[n]either the Clean Air Act nor its regulations 
define the term `demonstrates' or give context to how the Administrator 
should make this judgment.'' Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d at 1266; 
see also Citizens Against Ruining the Env't, 535 F.3d at

[[Page 57831]]

677-678. After considering the plain meaning of the term 
``demonstrates'' as shown by various dictionary definitions, courts 
have agreed that the plain meaning ``does not resolve important 
questions that are part and parcel of the Administrator's duty to 
evaluate the sufficiency of a petition, for example, the type of 
evidence a petitioner may present and the burden of proof guiding the 
Administrator's evaluation of when a sufficient demonstration has 
occurred.'' Sierra Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d at 1266; MacClarence, 596 
F.3d at 1131 (same). Similarly, another court observed that the Act 
``does not set forth any factors the EPA must take into account in 
determining whether a petitioner has demonstrated noncompliance under 
[CAA 505(b)(2)].'' Wildearth Guardians, 728 F.3d at 1082.
    This recognition of the ambiguity in CAA section 505(b)(2) leads to 
the conclusion that ``the statute's silence on these important issues 
means Congress has delegated to the EPA some discretion in determining 
whether, in its expert opinion, a petitioner has presented sufficient 
evidence to prove a permit violates clean air requirements.'' Sierra 
Club v. Johnson, 541 F.3d at 1266. Accordingly, as one opinion put it, 
``the EPA has discretion under the statute to determine what a petition 
must show in order to make an adequate `demonstration.' '' Citizens 
Against Ruining the Env't, 535 F.3d at 678. Similarly, another court 
explained, ``because we conclude [section 505(b)(2)] is ambiguous when 
it comes to defining the type of demonstration required to trigger the 
Administrator's duty to object, we are willing to defer to a reasonable 
interpretation by the agency as to when a petitioner has sufficiently 
demonstrated noncompliance with PSD requirements.'' Sierra Club v. 
Johnson, 541 F.3d at 1267. In so deferring to the EPA's interpretation 
of the demonstration standard under CAA section 505(b)(2) some courts 
have noted that they need not resolve the question of the exact degree 
of deference to be accorded to the EPA because its ``interpretation is 
persuasive even under [the] less deferential standard of review'' under 
Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134 (1944) and ``would thus prevail under 
either standard.'' Wildearth Guardians, 728 F.3d at 1082; MacClarence, 
596 F.3d at 1131 (same).
    In the context of reviewing particular applications of the 
demonstration burden in title V petition orders, courts have also 
deferred to the agency's interpretation as to whether or not a petition 
had adequately demonstrated that an objection was warranted. For 
example, in MacClarence, the petition was denied in part because it 
``failed to provide adequate information to support [a claim]'' and 
made ``only generalized statements . . . and did not provide adequate 
references, legal analysis, or evidence in support of these general 
assertions.'' 596 F.3d at 1131 (internal marks omitted). The court 
found the EPA's construction of the burden under CAA section 505(b)(2) 
as encompassing an expectation that a petition provide ``references, 
legal analysis, or evidence'' a reasonable interpretation, which 
comported with both the plain meaning of the term ``demonstrates'' and 
with CAA section 505(b)(2). Id. In addition, in MacClarence, the 
petitioner argued that the EPA should not have denied his petition for 
failing to address the permitting authority's reasoning in the final 
permitting decision and documents, which differed from the draft 
documents and explained why the changes had been made. The court upheld 
the EPA's decision, determining that it was reasonable for the EPA to 
expect the petitioner to address the permitting authority's final 
decision. Id. at 1132-33. As another example of the deference that 
courts have accorded the EPA's application of the demonstration 
standard, in the Wildearth Guardians case cited above, the court found 
reasonable the EPA's determination that the petitioner could not rely 
solely on the fact that a Notice of Violation (NOV) had been previously 
issued to demonstrate noncompliance. Wildearth Guardians, 728 F.3d at 
1082. The court noted that the EPA had explained that an NOV may be a 
relevant factor in `` `determining whether the overall information 
presented by Petitioner--in light of all the factors that may be 
relevant--demonstrates the applicability of a requirement for the 
purposes of title V' '' but explained that other factors may also be 
relevant. Id. The EPA further explained that if the petitioner had not 
addressed other relevant factors, it could find that petitioner `` 
`failed to present sufficient information to demonstrate that the 
requirement is applicable.' '' Id. Finding this interpretation of the 
demonstration requirement persuasive, the court deferred to it. Id.
3. Raising PSD Issues in a Petition
    As noted earlier, many petitions raise numerous and highly complex 
issues around PSD permitting, a separate permitting program under the 
CAA. Because of the frequency with which title V petitions raise PSD 
claims, statements in prior petition orders regarding such claims is 
worth a separate mention here. In the Meraux Refinery Order, In the 
Matter of Meraux Refinery, Order on Petition Number VI-2012-04 (May 29, 
2015), at 3-4, the EPA stated:

    Where a petitioner's request that the Administrator object to 
the issuance of a title V permit is based in whole, or in part, on a 
permitting authority's alleged failure to comply with the 
requirements of its approved PSD program (as with other allegations 
of noncompliance with the Act), the burden is on the petitioner to 
demonstrate to the Administrator that the permitting decision was 
not in compliance with the requirements of the Act, including the 
requirements of the SIP. CAA section 505(b)(2). . . . Such 
requirements, as the EPA has explained in describing its authority 
to oversee the implementation of the PSD program in states with 
approved programs, include the permitting authority: (1) following 
the required procedures in the SIP; (2) making PSD determinations on 
reasonable grounds properly supported on the record; and (3) 
describing the determinations in enforceable terms. See, e.g., In 
the Matter of Wisconsin Power and Light, Columbia Generating 
Station, Order on Petition No. V-2008-01 (October 8, 2009) at 8. The 
permitting authority for a State's SIP-approved PSD program has 
substantial discretion in issuing PSD permits. Given this 
discretion, in reviewing a PSD permitting decision, the EPA will not 
substitute its own judgment for that of the State. Rather, 
consistent with the decision in Alaska Dep't of Envt'l Conservation 
v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004), in reviewing a petition to object to a 
title V permit raising concerns regarding a state's PSD permitting 
decision, the EPA generally will look to see whether the petitioner 
has shown that the state did not comply with its SIP-approved 
regulations governing PSD permitting or whether the state's exercise 
of discretion under such regulations was unreasonable or arbitrary. 
See, e.g., In re Louisville Gas and Electric Company, Order on 
Petition No. IV-2008-3 (Aug. 12, 2009); In re East Kentucky Power 
Cooperative, Inc. Hugh L. Spurlock Generating Station, Order on 
Petition No. IV-2006-4 (Aug. 30, 2007); In re Pacific Coast Building 
Products, Inc. (Order on Petition) (Dec. 10, 1999); In re Roosevelt 
Regional Landfill Regional Disposal Company (Order on Petition) (May 
4, 1999).

As is indicated by the internal citations to a number of other title V 
orders in the Meraux Refinery Order, the agency has made similar 
statements in several previous orders over the years.
4. Raising Emissions Monitoring Issues in a Petition
    Many petitions also raise issues surrounding emissions monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting in title V permits. Title V of the CAA 
requires permits to contain adequate emissions monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting to assure sources' compliance with 
applicable requirements. 57 FR 32250, 32251 (July 1, 1992). Because of

[[Page 57832]]

the frequency with which monitoring claims are raised, statements in 
prior petition orders regarding such claims are also worth a separate 
mention here. As an example, In the Matter of the Premcor Refining 
Group, Inc., Order on Petition Number VI-2007-02 (May 28, 2009), at 7, 
the EPA stated:

    As a general matter, permitting authorities must take three 
steps to satisfy the monitoring requirements in the EPA's part 70 
regulations. First, a permitting authority must ensure that 
monitoring requirements contained in applicable requirements are 
properly incorporated into the title V permit. 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3)(i)(A). Second, if the applicable requirements contain no 
periodic monitoring, permitting authorities must add monitoring 
``sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period 
that are representative of the source's compliance with the 
permit.'' 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). Third, if the applicable 
requirement has associated periodic monitoring but the monitoring is 
not sufficient to assure compliance with permit terms and 
conditions, a permitting authority must supplement monitoring to 
assure compliance. See 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1).

5. Addressing Permitting Authority's Rationale
    The EPA has previously noted that as part of the CAA section 
505(b)(2) demonstration requirement, the petitioner is expected to 
address the permitting authority's final decision, and the permitting 
authority's final reasoning (including the RTC), where these documents 
were available during the timeframe for filing the petition. Where a 
permitting authority has articulated its rationale for the permit terms 
and conditions concerning an applicable requirement in its record (RTC 
and statement of basis) and the petitioner did not adequately address 
that rationale in its petition, the EPA has often denied the petition, 
at least in part, on that basis. See e.g., In the Matter of Noranda 
Alumina, LLC, Order on Petition No. VI-2011-04 (December 14, 2012) at 
20-21 (denying title V petition issue where petitioners did not respond 
to state's explanation in response to comments or explain why the state 
erred or the permit was deficient); In the Matter of Kentucky Syngas, 
LLC, Order on Petition No. IV-2010-9 (June 22, 2012) at 41 (denying 
title V petition issue where petitioners did not acknowledge or reply 
to state's response to comments or provide a particularized rationale 
for why the state erred or the permit was deficient). Caselaw supports 
this interpretation. See MacClarence, 596 F.3d at 1132-33 (the 
Administrator ``reasonably expected'' the petitioner to challenge the 
state permitting authority's explanation and reasoning for final 
permit).

IV. Proposed Revisions to Title V Regulations

    This notice proposes several changes to part 70. Many of the 
proposed revisions fall within three key areas. First, regulatory 
language is proposed that encourages the use of the agency's electronic 
submittal system for title V petitions. Alternative methods for 
submittal are also identified in this notice. Petitioners who 
experience technical difficulty when attempting to submit a petition 
through the electronic submittal system may send it to the designated 
email address, while those without access to the Internet or unable to 
access email for other reasons may send a paper copy to the specific 
physical address identified in this proposal.
    Second, this rule proposes mandatory petition content requirements 
and standard formatting for title V petitions. The EPA has identified 
key pieces of information that are critical when assessing claims and 
potential flaws in a title V permit or permit process, and these pieces 
are now proposed as required content for petitions and would be a new 
provision, 40 CFR 70.12. Under the proposed revisions, in order to 
demonstrate a flaw in the permit, permit record, or permit process that 
warrants an objection under CAA section 505(b)(2), the petition would 
present the required content in the same manner and order as contained 
in the new section of the title V regulations, 40 CFR 70.12.
    A related change is proposed that would add new regulatory language 
to 40 CFR 70.8, which would require a petitioner to send a copy of the 
petition to both the permitting authority and the permit applicant. The 
current title V regulations do not have provisions effectuating this 
requirement of section 505(b)(2) of the Act. Therefore, this proposal 
would insert a requirement into the regulation identical to the one in 
the Act in order to ensure consistency with this provision of the 
statute.
    Third, the agency proposes to require that permitting authorities 
respond in writing to significant comments received during the public 
comment period on a draft title V permit. Further, the EPA proposes 
regulatory language stating that this response to significant comments, 
often referred to as the RTC, must be sent with the proposed permit and 
statement of basis for the 45-day EPA review period of the proposed 
permit.\12\ Under the proposed revisions, the EPA 45-day review period 
would not commence until the proposed permit and all necessary 
supporting information, including the written RTC, are received. 
Finally, the EPA proposes to require that within 30 days of sending the 
proposed permit to the EPA, that permitting authorities must provide 
notification that the proposed permit and the response to significant 
public comments are available to the public. Such notice must explain 
how these materials may be accessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The statement of basis is a statement that ``sets forth the 
legal and factual basis . . . (including references to the 
applicable statutory or regulatory provisions)'' for terms and/or 
conditions in a permit. 40 CFR 70.7(a)(5). Often a separate 
document, the statement of basis is intended to provide information 
to facilitate the EPA's review of permit terms and conditions and 
also to provide information that supports public participation in 
the permitting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These proposed revisions to part 70 provide increased transparency 
and clarity to the title V petition preparation, submittal, review, and 
response processes. Improved interactions with stakeholders that 
participate in the title V process and more accurate tracking of 
petitions may also result from the establishment of the preferred 
petition submittal method. If finalized, the proposed rule revisions 
would help facilitate a more effective process for the development of 
title V petitions and a more efficient process for the review and 
response to title V petitions. Overall, the EPA is intending that these 
rule revisions along with other shared information will help to improve 
title V permits issued by permitting authorities, promote access to and 
provide better understanding of the title V petition process for 
potential petitioners, and reduce delays in decisions and support the 
agency's efforts to meet its obligations in responding to title V 
petitions.
    For each of the three key areas, the agency describes the proposed 
regulatory changes, rationale for proposing the changes, and request 
for comment in the sections that follow. Before discussing each of the 
three key areas of this proposal, however, this notice provides some 
additional legal background related to these proposals.
A. Additional Legal Background for the Proposed Revisions to the Part 
70 Rules
    To provide context for the statutory and regulatory interpretations 
discussed below, the EPA first discusses some additional legal 
background, including principles generally applied by courts in 
reviewing agency interpretations.
    The Supreme Court decision, Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. 
Council

[[Page 57833]]

Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984), establishes principles that guide 
judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes that the agency 
administers. Under Chevron courts apply a well-known two-step test: 
First, if the Congress has ``directly spoken to the precise question at 
issue'' both the court and the agency must ``give effect to the 
unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.'' Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-
843. Second, if the statute is ambiguous, courts will generally defer 
to the agency's interpretation and uphold it so long as it ``is based 
on a permissible construction of the statute.'' Id. at 843. At the 
second step of this inquiry, also referred to as ``Chevron Step 2,'' 
courts such as the D.C. Circuit have frequently explained that `` 
`Chevron requires that we defer to the agency's reasonable 
interpretation of the term.' '' Miss. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 
790 F.3d 138, 151 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Pennsylvania Dept. of 
Envtl. Protection v. EPA, 429 F.3d 1125, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). In 
other words, under Chevron the agency's interpretation `` `governs if 
it is a reasonable interpretation of the statute--not necessarily the 
only possible interpretation, nor even the interpretation deemed most 
reasonable by the courts.' '' Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 
U.S. 208, 218 (2009) (quoted in Airlines for Am. v. Transp. Sec. 
Admin., 780 F.3d 409, 413 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).
    Similarly, courts accord deference to an administrative agency's 
interpretations of its own regulations under principles enunciated in 
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462-63 (1997). This type of deference is 
frequently referred to as Auer deference. When an agency's 
interpretation of a regulation receives Auer deference, the court 
accepts the agency's interpretation ``unless the interpretation is 
plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations or there is any 
other reason to suspect that the interpretation does not reflect the 
agency's fair and considered judgment on the matter in question.'' 
Rural Cellular Ass'n & Universal Serv. v. FCC, 685 F.3d 1083, 1093-1094 
(D.C. Cir. 2012) (internal marks and citations omitted).
    Finally, the EPA notes that administrative agencies have broad 
discretion to adopt procedures to discharge their obligations under the 
statutes they implement. In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court: 
``[T]he formulation of procedures [is] basically to be left within the 
discretion of the agencies to which Congress [has] confided the 
responsibility for substantive judgments.'' Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 524 
(1978). Later in the same case, the Court observed that ``[a]bsent 
constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances the 
administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of 
procedure to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to 
discharge their multitudinous duties.'' Id. at 543-544. Relatedly, 
courts have emphasized the inherent authority that administrative 
agencies have ``to control the disposition of their caseload'' and 
manage their own dockets. See, e.g., GTE Service Corp. v. FCC, 782 F.2d 
263, 273-274 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

B. Electronic Submittal System for Petitions

1. Proposed Revisions
a. Petition Submission to the EPA
    In this notice, the EPA is proposing to revise part 70 to add a new 
provision that would require petitions to be submitted using one of 
three identified methods. Among those three methods, the agency 
encourages petitioners to submit title V petitions through the 
electronic submittal system, the agency's preferred method. The EPA has 
developed a title V petitions submittal system through the Central Data 
Exchange (CDX) and information on how to access and use the system is 
available at the title V petitions Web site: http://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petitions. While the current submittal 
system was designed using CDX, the EPA recognizes that adjustments to 
the system or a different submittal system entirely may be needed in 
the future. Therefore, the title V petitions Web site will provide 
access to the designated electronic submittal system in use at any 
given time, which will remain the primary and preferred method for 
receiving title V petitions. The electronic submittal system allows for 
a direct route to the appropriate agency staff. It also provides 
immediate confirmation that the EPA has received the petition and any 
attachments.
    If a petitioner experiences technical difficulties when trying to 
submit a petition through the electronic submittal system identified on 
the title V petitions Web site, the petition may also be submitted to 
the agency through the following email address: 
titleVpetitions@epa.gov. This address is being established as an 
alternative method for use in instances when the electronic submittal 
system is not available. For petitioners without access to the Internet 
at the time of petition submittal, this notice also announces the 
establishment of one specific physical address to which all paper 
copies of petitions should be sent. Paper copies of all petitions 
unable to be sent electronically may be sent by mail or by courier to 
the following address: U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Operating Permits Group Leader, 
109 T.W. Alexander Dr. (C504-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 
Additional information on these alternative methods for submittal will 
also be available at the title V petitions Web site.
    Although regulatory changes are being proposed to integrate these 
methods of submission into the part 70 rules, all three of these 
methods are currently available for petition submission, and 
petitioners may elect to use any one of them now. Furthermore, although 
the proposed changes to the regulatory provisions identify three 
possible means to submit petitions, for any particular petition, once a 
petition and any attachments have been successfully submitted using one 
method, there is no need to submit a duplicate copy via another method. 
The EPA requests that petitioners only submit a petition using one 
method, which will expedite the administrative process and improve the 
EPA's efficiency in reviewing petitions. Finally, if these regulatory 
revisions are finalized, the agency would not be obligated to consider 
petitions submitted through any means other than the three identified 
in the rule.
b. Required Copy of the Petition to the Permitting Authority and 
Applicant
    Section 505(b)(2) of the Act requires that the petitioner provide 
copies of its petition to the permitting authority and the permit 
applicant. This requirement does not currently appear in the part 70 
rules. The EPA is proposing to revise the part 70 regulations in order 
to fill this gap in the regulations. Specifically, in this notice, the 
EPA proposes to add language to 40 CFR 70.8(d) that is identical to the 
statutory language.
2. Why is the EPA proposing this change?
    In general, feedback from stakeholders, as well as the EPA's 
experience in receiving petitions, indicate there is confusion at 
present as to where a petition should be submitted. While section 
505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) provide that any person may 
petition the Administrator to object within 60 days after the 
expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period for the proposed permit, 
both the statute and the regulations are currently silent as to how a 
petition should be submitted to

[[Page 57834]]

the EPA. Because the regulations do not dictate a specific address, 
title V petitions have been received in a number of different offices 
within the agency. Most of the recent petitions have been sent to the 
agency through email, in some cases with a duplicate paper copy sent to 
a physical address somewhere within the EPA. For example, the agency 
has received petitions that were sent directly to a staff person in a 
Regional office, as well as petitions sent directly to the 
Administrator, either by email or courier. One complication presented 
by this current practice is that by sending petitions via email, 
attachments supplied by petitioners as supporting materials may become 
separated from the petition or lost entirely. In addition, and 
potentially because of this fact, petition attachments are frequently 
submitted by mail or courier, while the petition itself is submitted by 
email. These various submission practices require additional 
administrative processing within the EPA and can delay the initiation 
of the substantive petition review process.
    One goal of this proposal is to clarify where and how title V 
petitions should be submitted. Another goal of this proposal is to 
announce the establishment of an electronic submittal system and 
promote its use as the preferred method for the submittal of petitions 
to the EPA. These proposed changes are expected to allow for more 
accurate tracking of petitions and to increase the agency's efficiency 
and effectiveness in responding to petitions by ensuring the timely 
receipt of petitions and any attachments in a central location.
    The EPA has identified several benefits of establishing the 
electronic submittal system as the preferred submittal method for 
receiving title V petitions. For petitioners, the electronic submittal 
system will provide immediate confirmation to the petitioner that the 
petition was received by the agency. In contrast to the size 
limitations that can be experienced when sending title V petitions 
through email, petitioners will be able to see that all intended 
supporting materials are attached to the petition and are submitted in 
one entry. Thus, submitting a petition and attachments via the 
electronic submittal system would avoid the need to send multiple 
emails to transmit the entire petition package. Sending petitions 
through the electronic submittal system also eliminates timeliness 
issues from potential mishandling due to courier issues.
    For the agency, there is a time savings as petitions and any 
attachments submitted through the electronic submittal system will be 
immediately and directly available to the agency. This saves 
administrative time otherwise spent processing the incoming petition 
and any attachments, especially those submitted separately from the 
petition. Thus, the EPA anticipates that using this system will 
facilitate more efficient processing for incoming petitions. Further, 
the electronic submittal system in its current form identifies the 
number of attachments a petitioner intends to submit, which can alert 
the EPA to any missing attachments.
    More information about the electronic submittal system, including 
information about security concerns regarding providing personal 
information, uploading and/or downloading files, personally 
identifiable information (PII), and CBI is available at the CDX Web 
site: https://cdx.epa.gov/. If this rule is finalized and there is 
interest from commenters, the EPA will consider developing training 
webinars on the use of the electronic submittal system.
    These proposed rule revisions to identify specific methods for 
petition submittal fall within the EPA's inherent discretion to 
formulate procedures to meet its obligations under CAA section 
505(b)(2), as discussed in Section IV.A of this notice. In addition, 
the Act is silent as to the methods that should be used for title V 
petition submittal but imposes a 60-day deadline for granting or 
denying such petitions. Accordingly, these proposed changes to improve 
the efficiency of the EPA's initial processing of petitions and to 
support the agency's efforts to satisfy that obligation are based on a 
reasonable interpretation of CAA section 505(b)(2), including the 
relatively short timeframe for the EPA to grant or deny a petition.
3. Request for Comment
    Comments are requested on all aspects of these proposed revisions. 
The EPA is also specifically soliciting comment on our proposal to add 
language to part 70 that identifies the electronic submittal of 
petitions through the agency's identified electronic submittal system 
as the preferred primary method for submitting a title V petition, as 
well as identifying two alternative methods that could be used in case 
of technical difficulties or by a petitioner without Internet access. 
Commenters are encouraged to address in their comments whether 
additional specification or direction is needed to ensure all 
stakeholders are aware and have a better understanding of the preferred 
electronic submittal process. The EPA is expressly requesting comment 
on whether the proposed regulatory revisions are necessary, or whether 
the same effect could be achieved through the direction provided in 
this preamble and through the title V petitions Web site. Further, the 
EPA is requesting comment on what, if any, outreach methods or training 
materials (e.g., written instructions) would assist users with 
submitting petitions through the CDX system.

C. Required Petition Content and Format

1. Proposed Revisions
    The following proposed regulatory changes are designed to assist 
the public with preparing their petitions, as well as to assist the EPA 
in its review of petitions. In this notice, the agency proposes to 
establish in the part 70 regulations key mandatory content requirements 
for title V petitions. These proposed requirements are based on 
statutory requirements under CAA section 505(b)(2) and aspects of the 
demonstration standard interpreted by the EPA in numerous title V 
petition orders and restated in Section III.D of this notice. By 
proposing to codify what has already been discussed in prior orders, 
the EPA aims to help all stakeholders understand the criteria that the 
EPA applies in reviewing a title V petition. The EPA also proposes to 
establish requirements to encourage similar formats for all petitions 
to further assist the agency in its review process.
a. Required Petition Content
    The EPA is proposing to revise part 70 to require standard content 
that must be included in a title V petition, laying out the agency's 
expectations with more specificity to assist petitioners in 
understanding how to make their petitions complete and to enhance the 
EPA's ability to review and respond to them promptly. Under this 
proposal, a new section of the title V regulations, 40 CFR 70.12, would 
add the following list of required elements:
     Identification of the proposed permit on which the 
petition is based. The proposed permit is the version of the permit the 
permitting authority forwards to the EPA for the agency's 45-day review 
under CAA section 505(b)(1).\13\ A petition would be required to 
provide the permit number, version number, and/or any other information 
by which the permit can be

[[Page 57835]]

readily identified. In addition, the petition must specify whether the 
relevant permit action is an initial issuance, renewal, or 
modification/revision, including minor modifications/revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A proposed permit may be any of the following permit 
actions: Initial permit, renewal permit, or permit modification/
revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Sufficient information to show that the petition was 
timely filed. A petition must be filed within 60 days after the 
expiration of the Administrator's 45-day review period, as required by 
section 505(b)(2) of the Act. Timeliness may be demonstrated by the 
electronic receipt date generated upon submittal of the petition 
through the agency's electronic submittal system, the date and time the 
emailed petition was received, or the postmark date generated for a 
paper copy mailed to the agency's designated physical address. It is 
helpful if the petition provides key dates, such as the end of the 
public comment period provided under 40 CFR 70.7(h), (or parallel 
regulations in an EPA-approved state, local or tribal title V 
permitting program), or the conclusion of the EPA 45-day review period 
for the proposed permit.
     Identification of Petition Claims. Any issue raised in the 
petition as grounds for an objection must be based on a claim that the 
permit, permit record, or permit process is not in compliance with the 
applicable requirements under the Act or requirements under part 70. 
All pertinent information in support of each issue raised as a petition 
claim must be included within the body of the petition. In determining 
whether to object, the Administrator would not consider information 
incorporated into the petition by reference (for example, comments 
offered during the public comment period on the draft permit that are 
incorporated by reference into the petition on the proposed permit, or, 
as another example, claims raised in one title V petition that are 
incorporated by reference into a different title V petition). However, 
petitions may and should still provide citations to support each 
petition claim (e.g., citations to caselaw, statutory and regulatory 
provisions, or portions of the permit record). For each claim raised, 
the petition would need to identify the following:
    [cir] The specific grounds for an objection, citing to a specific 
permit term or condition where applicable.
    [cir] The applicable requirement under the CAA or requirement under 
part 70 that is not met. Note that the term ``applicable requirement'' 
refers to Clean Air Act requirements only, and does not include other 
requirements (e.g., Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act) to which a 
source may be subject. The term ``applicable requirement'' of the CAA 
for title V purposes is defined in 40 CFR 70.2.
    [cir] An explanation of how the term or condition in the proposed 
permit, or relevant portion of the permit record or permit process, is 
not adequate to comply with the corresponding applicable requirement 
under the CAA or requirement under part 70.
    [cir] If the petition claims that the permitting authority did not 
provide for the public participation procedures required under 40 CFR 
70.7(h), the petition must identify specifically the required public 
participation procedure that was not provided.
    [cir] Identification of where the issue in the claim was raised 
with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided 
for in 40 CFR 70.7(h), citing to any relevant page numbers in the 
public comment as submitted and attaching the submitted public comment 
to the petition. If the grounds for the objection were not raised 
during the public comment period, the petitioner must demonstrate that 
it was impracticable to raise such objections within the period or that 
they arose after such a period, as required by section 505(b)(2) of the 
Act and 40 CFR 70.8(d).
    [cir] Unless the exception under CAA section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 
70.8(d) discussed in the immediately preceding bullet applies, the 
petition must identify where the permitting authority responded to the 
public comment, including the specific page number(s) in the document 
where the response appears, and explain how the permitting authority's 
response to the comment is inadequate to address the claimed 
deficiency. If the written RTC does not address the public comment at 
all or if there is no RTC, the petition should state that.
    In addition to including all specified content, it is important 
that the information provided or any analysis completed by the 
petitioner must also be accurate. However, including this content would 
not necessarily result in the Administrator granting an objection on 
any particular claim raised in a petition. For example, a petitioner 
could include all this information but not demonstrate noncompliance, 
or the petition might point to a specific permit term as not being 
adequate to comply with an air emission limit, but may not have 
identified the appropriate applicable requirement.
    One impediment to the EPA's review process is the use of 
incorporation by reference of other documents, in whole or in part, 
into petitions. As noted earlier in this section, under 
``identification of petition issues'' in the new proposed mandatory 
content requirements, the EPA would require all pertinent information 
in support of each issue raised as a petition claim to be included in 
the body of a petition. Incorporating information into a petition by 
reference is inconsistent with the demonstration obligations in the 
statute and would extend the petition review time as the agency spends 
time searching for and then attempting to decipher the petitioner's 
intended claim. In practice, the EPA often finds that where claims have 
been incorporated by reference it is not clear that the specific 
grounds for objection have been raised by the petitioner, which could 
lead to the EPA denying for failure to meet the demonstration burden. 
Relatedly, petitioners have sometimes used incorporation by reference 
to include comments from a comment letter, but a comment letter alone 
would typically not address a state's response to the comment. See, 
e.g. Nucor III Order at 16 (noting that the ``mere incorporation by 
reference . . . without any attempt to explain how these comments 
relate to an argument in the petition and without confronting [the 
State's] reasoning supporting the final permit is not sufficient to 
satisfy the petitioner's demonstration burden''). In practice, the EPA 
has found that the incorporation of comments by reference into a 
petition can lead to confusion concerning the rationale for the 
petitioner's arguments, as it is frequently unclear which part of the 
comment is incorporated, how it relates to the particular argument in 
the petition, and the precise intent of the incorporation. In addition, 
the incorporation of comments by reference increases the agency's 
review time, as the EPA must review more than one document to try to 
determine the complete argument that a petitioner is making. Therefore, 
the EPA is proposing to revise the regulations to state that the 
Administrator will not consider information incorporated by reference 
into a petition. However, a petition should still provide citations as 
needed to support its legal and factual assertions.
    For further transparency and clarity, the EPA in this notice gives 
examples of types of information that are not necessary to include when 
preparing an effective petition. In doing so, the EPA hopes to ease the 
effort associated with preparing a petition while promoting 
succinctness. For example, while a petitioner needs to cite to the 
legal authority supporting its specific claim, a petition does not need 
to include pages of background or history on

[[Page 57836]]

aspects of the CAA. If a petitioner wishes to include additional 
information for an alternate purpose unrelated to the EPA's review of 
the specific petition claim, the EPA recommends appending this 
information to the petition as a separate document and identifying the 
purpose for which it is provided.
b. Required Petition Format
    Even with all necessary information provided, a petition may still 
require substantial time to review because of how it is organized. 
Therefore, the EPA is also proposing and taking comment on format 
requirements. If information is presented in the same format, including 
the same order, in all petitions, the EPA anticipates this standard 
organization could reduce review time as the general location of 
specific details would be the same in every petition received. These 
proposed format requirements could also help petitioners better 
understand what is, and what isn't, necessary in an effective title V 
petition. To that end, the EPA proposes the use of a standard format 
following the same order as previously identified in the list of 
required petition content. Regulatory language to this effect is 
included in the proposed new provision, 40 CFR 70.12. If finalized, 
templates and/or guidance are planned for development for inclusion on 
the title V petitions Web site.
    Further, the EPA is requesting input from the public on several 
specific questions related to potentially establishing page limits for 
title V petitions, as explained further in Section IV.C.4 of this 
notice. While the EPA has received petitions ranging from approximately 
3 to 82 pages (excluding attachments), the length for most petitions is 
in the range of 20 to 30. The amount of detail required to successfully 
raise a claim and meet the demonstration standard may depend on the 
complexity of the issue. However, we expect that most claims could be 
written effectively and succinctly, as demonstrated in the example 
claim that follows.
2. Example Claim
    The following paragraphs contain an example of a concise and 
effective presentation of a hypothetical single claim that would be 
part of a larger petition--one that includes all pieces of required 
content for a claim proposed in this rule. Because this is only a 
sample claim, not a sample petition, it does not include some of the 
required content that relates to the petition as a whole (such as 
identifying information for the proposed permit). This example is 
organized following the order presented in the proposed required 
content changes identified previously, which is also the proposed 
standard format. The bullets highlight each element of the proposed 
content requirements.
    Although EPA is providing this sample claim to illustrate how the 
material that would be required under the proposed regulatory revisions 
could be presented succinctly and effectively, the information that is 
needed to satisfy the demonstration burden for any given petition claim 
will vary depending on the specifics of the claim, the applicable 
requirements, and the underlying permit terms and record. The following 
hypothetical claim is provided solely for purposes of illustration:
 Specific Grounds for Objection, Including Citation to Permit 
Term
    Facility X's title V permit lacks monitoring sufficient to assure 
compliance with the 4.5 pound per hour (lb/hr) nitrogen dioxide 
(NOX) emission limitation of the approved State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) at 30 State Administrative Code 66.54.2. 
Specifically, Permit Condition I.D.26 requires that NOX 
emissions from Facility X's combustion units (Units 1-6 and 11-14) 
cannot exceed 4.5 pounds of NOX per hour. Permit Condition 
II.D.105 requires once-per-year portable analyzer monitoring for Units 
1-6 and 11-14. The permit contains no other testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements on these units, and contains 
no other monitoring that could be used determine compliance with the 
4.5 lb/hr NOX emission limit for the units.
 Applicable Requirement or Part 70 Requirement Not Met
    CAA section 504(c), and the implementing regulations in 40 CFR 
70.6(c)(1) and 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B), requires all title V permits to 
contain monitoring requirements to assure compliance with permit terms 
and conditions. See also 30 State Administrative Code 66.55.5(b) and 
(c) (same requirements in state's approved title V program). The permit 
does not meet this requirement as explained in the following analysis.
 Inadequacy of the Permit Term
    The SIP-approved NOX limitation does not include any 
periodic monitoring requirements, so 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) requires 
state agency to add periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable 
data from the relevant time period that are representative of the 
source's compliance with the permit. The monitoring added by the state 
in Permit Condition II.D.105 fails to satisfy that requirement under 
part 70 because monitoring only once annually for the engines units is 
inadequate to assure compliance with an hourly emission limit.
 Public Participation Procedure Not Provided
    This petition does not claim that any public participation 
procedures were not provided.
 Issue Raised in Public Comments
    Public Group Y (Petitioners) raised this issue on page 5 of the 
July 31, 2015 comment letter it submitted on Facility X's July 1, 2015 
draft title V permit. (See Public Group Y Comments at 5; Petition 
Exhibit A at 5.)
 Analysis of State's Response
    In responding to Petitioners' comment stating that the frequency of 
the permit's compliance monitoring for the compressor engines' 4.5 lb/
hour NOX limit was inadequate to assure compliance with the 
permit term, state agency asserted that ``all that the title V 
provisions in 30 State Administrative Code 66.55.5(b) and the parallel 
requirements in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) require is periodic monitoring 
sufficient to yield reliable data that are representative of the 
source's compliance with the permit. Continuous monitoring is not 
required.'' [RTC) at 8; Petition Exhibit B at 8]. The RTC states that 
state agency's monitoring protocol for this unit type requires 
``quarterly portable analyzer testing on units with catalytic 
converters and annual testing on units without controls.'' Id. The RTC 
then concludes that ``[b]ecause the portable analyzer test is a short 
term test, it demonstrates compliance with the emission limits for that 
time period. Due to the steady state operation of these units, state 
agency believes that the portable analyzer testing along with proper 
operation and maintenance of the units provides reasonable 
demonstration of compliance with hourly NOX and CO emission 
limits.'' Id. Although state agency asserts that it included 
NOX monitoring in accordance with its monitoring protocols 
for engines, state agency's RTC does not adequately explain how the 
monitoring in Facility X's permit is sufficient to assure compliance 
with the hourly NOX limit in Permit Condition I.D.26.
    As explained, state agency is relying on the portable analyzer test 
results as a snapshot sampling of emissions to confirm annually whether 
the units continue to meet their 4.5 lb/hour NOX limits. 
Between annual portable analyzer tests, state agency relies on 
assumptions of steady state operation

[[Page 57837]]

and ``proper operation and maintenance of the units'' to provide a 
``reasonable'' demonstration of compliance with hourly NOX 
emission limits. The RTC, however, does not identify any permit terms 
or conditions that require proper operation and maintenance of the 
units; nor does it provide an explanation (or appropriate citation to 
the technical discussion) of why it believes its assumptions about 
steady-state operations are reasonable for this equipment, or explain 
how such assumptions, in conjunction with an annual emissions test, 
constitute monitoring that demonstrates compliance with a short term 
limit. Accordingly, the EPA must grants the petition on this claim.
3. Why is the EPA proposing this change?
    The CAA and part 70 regulations currently provide little 
information on what a title V petition must or should contain. In fact, 
the primary requirement in CAA section 505(b)(2) is that a petition 
(with a few identified exceptions) must be based on objections that 
were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment 
period for the permit, and that is the only specific requirement for 
petition content in the relevant regulation. See CAA section 505(b)(2) 
and 40 CFR 70.8(d). As a result, the content and format of petitions 
have varied widely. In the agency's experience, many petitions fail to 
include key pieces of information, making it more time-consuming and 
resource-intensive for the EPA to assess the claim. Many petitions are 
also convoluted, include extraneous or irrelevant information, or fail 
to present the key information in a logical progression, making it 
difficult for the agency to ascertain the specific issue being raised. 
Contributing to the confusion, petitions frequently include large 
sections of text that appear to have been developed for other reasons 
and are not relevant to raising or evaluating a claim about a specific 
flaw in the title V permit or permitting process.
    One of the EPA's desired outcomes for this proposed rule is to 
provide direction to petitioners that will assist them with preparing 
petitions. The agency anticipates receiving petitions that are both 
more concise and clear and that contain all the key relevant material, 
so that the EPA does not have to search for fundamental information or 
attempt to decipher the petitioner's intent. These proposed revisions 
are intended to facilitate a more effective petition development 
process and a more efficient petition review and response process, 
which are critical in this context because CAA section 505(b)(2) 
requires the agency to grant or deny a petition within 60 days. 
Similarly, this tight timeframe makes it imperative that a petitioner 
make a clear and concise demonstration that can be efficiently 
evaluated. By proposing to create obligations related to the content 
and structure of a petition, the EPA anticipates receiving petitions 
that more clearly articulate the petition claim and the basis for it, 
focusing on key information, including the alleged deficiency in the 
permit or permit process; the applicable requirements under the CAA or 
requirements under part 70 that are in question; and where the issue 
was raised during the public comment period (or a demonstration as to 
why it was impracticable to do so or that the grounds for the objection 
arose after the public comment period closed), how the state responded, 
and why that response did not adequately address the issue.
    These proposed rules are consistent with statements and conclusions 
that the EPA has made in previous orders responding to title V 
petitions. The EPA has identified and emphasized the importance of such 
key pieces of information in assessing petitioners' claims that a title 
V permit or permit process does not assure compliance with applicable 
requirements under the CAA or under part 70. For context, examples of 
some of these orders were discussed in Section III.D of this notice. 
The EPA is proposing to add petition content requirements that would 
make certain information mandatory in petitions. These requirements 
would help clarify for petitioners specific information that is useful 
or necessary to evaluate a petition claim. The EPA anticipates that 
these mandatory petition content requirements and standard formatting 
would help petitioners to succinctly focus their claims and present 
them effectively. The EPA anticipates that these proposed changes could 
also decrease the instances in which the Administrator denies a 
petition because the petitioner did not provide an adequate 
demonstration. The agency believes these changes would help petitioners 
to hone their claims to include the appropriate information and to 
realize when a claim does not meet the mandatory requirements and 
should not be included in the petition (e.g., the state adequately 
addressed the issue in its RTC).
    The EPA expects the proposed revisions to require mandatory content 
to improve the efficiency of the agency's review process for title V 
petitions, as the key information would be presented in a clear and 
succinct fashion. Similarly, the agency expects that the proposed 
revisions to require similar organization for all petitions could 
reduce agency review time as a result of having the specific 
information in the same format in every petition received. Increasing 
the efficiency of the review process, and more specifically reducing 
the time it takes to review petitions, are consistent with Congress's 
intent that the petition process proceed in a timely and expeditious 
fashion, as indicated by the 60-day time frame for the Administrator to 
grant or deny petitions provided in CAA section 505(b)(2). See Citizens 
Against Ruining the Environment, 535 F.3d at 678 (noting that because 
the limited time frame Congress gave the EPA for permit review ``may 
not allow the EPA to fully investigate and analyze contested 
allegations, it is reasonable in this context for the EPA to refrain 
from extensive fact-finding'').
    Moreover, as discussed in more detail in Section III.D of this 
notice, the EPA has explained in previous title V orders the importance 
of the demonstration burden in determining whether or not to grant an 
objection in response to a petition. See, e.g., Nucor II Order at 4-7. 
The Act does not dictate all the information that must be included or 
the format in which that information should be presented; nor does it 
address what kind of showing must be made in order to demonstrate that 
an objection is warranted. Courts have determined that the term 
``demonstrates'' in CAA section 505(b)(2) is ambiguous and have 
accordingly deferred to the EPA's reasonable interpretation of that 
term. See, e.g., MacClarence, 596 F.3d at 1131 (finding the EPA's 
expectation that a petition provide ``references, legal analysis, or 
evidence'' a reasonable interpretation of the term ``demonstrates'' 
under CAA section 505(b)(2)). The proposed changes are aimed in part at 
helping petitioners ensure that they are including information in their 
petitions that is necessary to satisfy the demonstration burden, under 
the EPA's interpretation.
    Furthermore, these proposed revisions to the part 70 rules related 
to mandatory petition content and format fall within the EPA's inherent 
discretion to formulate procedures to discharge its obligations under 
CAA section 505(b)(2), as discussed in Section IV.A of this notice. 
Similar procedural requirements have been established for other EPA 
programs and processes, including the procedures for appeals filed with 
the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). See 78 FR 5281 (2013) (adopting 
revisions to ``codify current

[[Page 57838]]

procedural practices, clarify existing review procedures, and simplify 
the permit review process'').
4. Request for Comment
    Comments are requested on all aspects of these proposed revisions. 
The EPA is proposing changes to part 70 to include mandatory petition 
content and format to facilitate the efficient review of issues raised 
in petitions. The EPA requests comment on all aspects of the required 
petition content in the proposed 40 CFR 70.12, including the 
requirement to provide all key information, arguments, or analysis in 
the petition, rather than incorporating it by reference. The agency 
also requests comments on the proposed requirement that the petition 
format follow the same order as the proposed list of required content, 
as well as the proposed revision to the regulatory language in 40 CFR 
70.8(d) that requires that copies of the petition be provided to the 
permitting authority and the applicant.
    The EPA is also requesting comment on whether or not page limits 
should be established for title V petitions, as a means of promoting 
concise petitions and to further facilitate efficient and expeditious 
review of petitions by the EPA. Procedural requirements specifying the 
maximum length of submissions have been instituted for processes such 
as the EAB appeal process, where petitions and response briefs may not 
exceed an identified word or page limit. See 40 CFR 12419(d)(3) 
(limiting petitions and response briefs to either 14,000 words or 
alternatively, a 30-page limit). Based on the EPA's assessment of 
petitions received to date, most claims could be written effectively 
and succinctly in one or two pages. However, we recognize that some 
claims are more complex and could benefit from more space for an 
effective demonstration. If page limits were established in the final 
rules, petitioners would need to include the mandatory required content 
(if finalized) while adhering to a specified page limit. We also 
request comments on the following questions: if a page limit is 
established, what would be an adequate number of pages, excluding 
attachments, for a complete but concise petition? Would a page limit in 
the range of 15-20 or 20-30 pages be reasonable excluding attachments? 
What would be an adequate number of pages for a complete but concise 
claim? When responding to these questions, the EPA requests that 
commenters provide a rationale or basis for their responses.

D. Proposed Administrative Record Requirements

1. Proposed Revisions
    The EPA proposes to revise 40 CFR 70.7 to require a permitting 
authority to respond in writing to significant comments received during 
the public participation process for a draft permit. The agency is 
proposing a regulatory revision to 40 CFR 70.8 that would require a 
written response to all significant comments (RTC) and the statement of 
basis document to be included as part of the proposed permit record 
that is sent to the EPA for its review under CAA section 505(b)(1).\14\ 
Finally, the EPA proposes to revise 40 CFR 70.4(b), 70.7(h), and 
70.8(a) to specifically identify the statement of basis document as a 
necessary part of the permit record throughout the permitting process. 
If no significant comments are received during the public comment 
period, the permitting authority should prepare and submit to EPA for 
its 45-day review a statement to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ While most permitting authorities prepare a separate RTC 
document, the response to significant comments may also be included 
within a statement of basis. Likewise, the statement of basis may be 
part of the title V permit, rather than a separate document. As long 
as there is clear indication that the RTC and statement of basis are 
provided along with the proposed permit, and where they can be found 
in the submission, the EPA will commence its 45-day review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Response to Comments
    Under the existing 40 CFR 70.7(h)(5), a permitting authority is 
required to keep a record of the commenters and also of the issues 
raised during the public participation process so that the 
Administrator may fulfill the obligation under CAA section 505(b)(2) of 
the Act to determine whether a title V petition may be granted. This 
provision also requires that such records shall be available to the 
public. The EPA is proposing regulatory language to revise 40 CFR 70.7 
to add a new requirement that a permitting authority respond in writing 
to significant comments from the public participation process for a 
draft title V permit.\15\ Significant comments in this context include, 
but are not limited to, comments that concern whether the title V 
permit includes terms and conditions addressing federal applicable 
requirements, including monitoring and related recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements. If no significant comments are received during 
the public comment period the permitting authority should prepare a 
statement to that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The EPA is aware that many permitting authorities elect to 
respond to all comments. While the EPA is proposing to require that 
permitting authorities must respond to all significant comments, the 
Agency's proposal is not intended to discourage permitting 
authorities from that practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Statement of Basis
    The statement of basis document, which provides the legal and 
factual basis for the permit terms or conditions, is a necessary 
component for an effective permit review. Under the current 
regulations, permitting authorities are required to send this 
``statement of basis'' to the EPA and ``to any other person who 
requests it.'' 40 CFR 70.7(a)(5). The EPA recently compiled best 
practices for developing and preparing statement of basis documents in 
the April 2014 guidance document, Implementation Guidance on Statement 
of Basis Requirements Under the Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permits 
Program.\16\ In most situations, the permitting authority makes the 
statement of basis document available for the public comment period on 
the draft permit (at least 30 days long), for the EPA's 45-day review, 
and during the 60-day petition period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, to Regional Air Division 
Directors, April 30, 2014. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/20140430.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address any occasions where it may be absent during the permit 
issuance process, the EPA now proposes to add language to the part 70 
regulations that would reaffirm its importance and require its 
inclusion at all points in the permit review process for every permit. 
To that end, we are proposing that 40 CFR 70.4(b), 70.7(h) and 70.8(a) 
would be revised to specifically identify the statement of basis 
document as a required document.
c. Incorrect Reference
    The EPA proposes one additional change to 40 CFR 70.4(b) to amend 
an incorrect reference. Specifically, the language in 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(3)(viii) currently reads: ``[t]he contents of a part 70 permit 
shall not be entitled to protection under section 115(c) of the Act.'' 
However, section 115(c) of the Act pertains to reciprocity related to 
statutory provisions addressing endangerment of public health or 
welfare in foreign countries from air pollution emitted in the United 
States.
    Therefore, the EPA proposes to revise the citation in 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(3)(viii) to section 114(c) of the Act, which pertains to the 
availability of records, reports, and information to the public. This 
change ensures the regulations comport with the parallel provision in 
the section 503(e) of the CAA, which states

[[Page 57839]]

that: ``The contents of a permit shall not be entitled to protection 
under section 7414(c) of this title.''
d. Commencement of EPA 45-Day Review Period
    The agency considers both the statement of basis and the written 
RTC to be integral components of the permit record. Having access to 
these documents during the agency's 45-day review period could improve 
the efficiency of the review, and also ensures that the agency has 
these critical parts of the record before it in reviewing a proposed 
permit under CAA section 505(b)(1). Further, it ensures that these 
documents are completed and available during the petition period under 
CAA section 505(b)(2). The EPA is proposing revisions to part 70 to 
require that any proposed permit that is transmitted to the agency must 
include both the statement of basis and written RTC among the necessary 
information as described in 40 CFR 70.8. The agency is proposing that 
the 45-day review period would not begin until all the supporting 
information listed in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 70.8(a)(1)(i) 
has been received by the EPA. This includes the proposed permit, 
statement of basis, and the written RTC (or when no significant 
comments are received during the public comment period a statement to 
that effect). Finally, the EPA proposes to revise 40 CFR 70.7(h)(7) to 
require that within 30 days of sending the proposed permit to the EPA, 
that permitting authorities must provide notification that the proposed 
permit and the response to significant public comments are available to 
the public. Such notice must explain how these materials may be 
accessed.
    The EPA recognizes that some permitting authorities run the 30-day 
public comment period and 45-day EPA review period concurrently, as 
long as no significant comments are received. Under this proposal such 
a practice could continue, but if a significant public comment is 
received, the Administrator would no longer consider the submitted 
permit as a proposed permit. In such instances, the permitting 
authority must make any necessary revisions to the permit or permit 
record, and per the regulations proposed in this notice, resubmit the 
proposed permit to EPA with the RTC and statement of basis, and any 
other required supporting information, with any revisions that were 
made to address the public comments, to re-start the EPA's 45-day 
review period. This reflects the EPA's understanding of how such 
concurrent permitting programs currently operate.
e. Notification to the Public
    Because the petition period runs from the end of the EPA's 45-day 
review period, and the date a proposed permit is received by the EPA is 
not always apparent, the petition deadline is not always readily 
apparent. To date, the agency has encouraged permitting authorities to 
provide notifications to the public or interested stakeholders 
regarding the timing of proposal of permits to the EPA, for example by 
making that information available either online or in the publication 
in which public notice of the draft permit was given. At this time, the 
agency is considering and requests comment on the best method for the 
public to be made aware of the date that a proposed permit is received 
by the EPA, as well as the deadline to submit a petition on a 
particular proposed permit. The EPA proposes to post when a proposed 
permit is received and the corresponding 60-day deadline for submitting 
a petition on the EPA Regional Office Web sites.
2. Why is the EPA proposing this change?
    Section 505(a)(1)(B) of the CAA requires in relevant part that 
permitting authorities transmit to the Administrator each proposed 
permit. The current regulations contain the same requirement in 40 CFR 
70.8(a)(1). Failure to submit any information necessary for the 
adequate review of the proposed permit is grounds for an objection. See 
40 CFR 70.8(c)(3)(ii). Part 70 also currently requires that the 
permitting authority provide a statement of basis that sets forth the 
legal and factual basis for the draft permit conditions (including 
references to the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions). See 
40 CFR 70.7(a)(5).
    As a general matter, initial and renewed title V permits are 
developed by a permitting authority and then go through a public notice 
and comment period. The draft permit may undergo some revisions based 
on the public comment period and this updated version of the permit, 
referred to as the proposed permit, is sent to the EPA for a 45-day 
review period per CAA section 505(b)(1). Many permitting authorities 
already send a written RTC and a statement of basis along with the 
proposed permit for the EPA 45-day review. However, there are other 
permitting authorities that do not; instead this information may be 
provided by these permitting authorities at some point later in the 
permitting process. When these documents, and the RTC document in 
particular, are unavailable for the EPA review period, the EPA cannot 
provide a fully effective review. Moreover, when these documents are 
unavailable to the public following the EPA's review, potential 
petitioners may be missing necessary information to determine whether 
to submit a petition or to provide a full argument in support of any 
issues they may raise in a petition.
    Notably, the EPA's 45-day review period under the current rules 
begins when the EPA has received the proposed permit and ``all 
necessary information'' from the permitting authority. 40 CFR 70.8(c). 
With regard to the availability of necessary information for the 
agency's 45-day review of a proposed permit, the EPA stated in the 
proposal to the original title V regulations that the agency believes 
it can object to the issuance of permit where the materials submitted 
by the permitting authority do not provide enough information to allow 
a meaningful EPA review of whether the proposed permit is in compliance 
with requirements of the Act (including the SIP). If the agency was not 
able to object under these circumstances, the EPA's oversight rule 
could be severely hampered. 56 FR 21750 (1991). The EPA continues to 
interpret the Act in this way and provides part of the rationale for 
these proposed revisions to the regulations.
    In reviewing title V petitions, the EPA generally pays careful 
attention to the permitting authority's RTC. The EPA also explained the 
benefits of making the written RTC available during its 45-day review 
period in 2014 in the Hu Honua Order:

    [P]roviding the entire record for a Proposed Permit at the 
beginning of the EPA's 45-day review period serves to enhance the 
EPA's review of the Proposed Permit by providing a fuller 
understanding of the permitting history and the state's rationale 
for its permitting decisions. Where the entire record is available 
at the beginning of the 45-day review period, the EPA has the 
benefit of understanding the permitting history and the state's 
rationale for its permitting decisions. Likewise, where the entire 
record is available at the beginning of the public's 60-day window 
to submit petitions to the Administrator, the public has the benefit 
of understanding the permitting history and the state's rationale 
for its permitting decisions. Providing the entire record before the 
start of the public's 60-day petition period would allow the public 
to better assess any issues with the permit that they may have 
identified.

    See, In the Matter of Hu Honua Bioenergy Facility, Order on 
Petition No. IX-2001-1 (July 2, 2014) at 30.
    As noted in Section III.D.5 of this notice under general principles 
of

[[Page 57840]]

administrative law, it is incumbent upon an administrative agency to 
respond to significant comments raised during the public comment 
period. See, e.g., Home Box Office v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 (D.C. Cir. 
1977) (``the opportunity to comment is meaningless unless the agency 
responds to significant points raised by the public.'') It is to the 
benefit of the permitting authority to respond to significant comments, 
as it is an opportunity to further refine the permit record and/or 
articulate the authority's rationale. As the issues raised in a title V 
petition must generally be raised with reasonable specificity during 
the comment period, responding to comments gives the permitting 
authority a chance to address any issues that may become the basis for 
a petition. Generally speaking, in order to make the demonstration 
required under CAA 505(b)(2), a petitioner is expected to address the 
permitting authority's final decision and reasoning, including any 
response in the RTC. See MacClarence, 596 F.3d at 1132-33; see also, 
e.g., In the Matter of Noranda Alumina, LLC, Order on Petition No. VI-
2011-04 (December 14, 2012) at 20-21 (denying title V petition issue 
where petitioners did not respond to state's explanation in response to 
comments or explain why the state erred or the permit was deficient); 
In the Matter of Kentucky Syngas, LLC, Order on Petition No. IV-2010-9 
(June 22, 2012) at 41 (denying title V petition issue where petitioners 
did not acknowledge or reply to state's response to comments or provide 
a particularized rationale for why the state erred or the permit was 
deficient). However, if the state has not responded to the comment, 
there is nothing for the petitioner to address. If the written RTC is 
not available during the petition period, it may not be clear how the 
petitioner would be able to address the permitting authority's response 
in its petition. Similarly, if a permitting authority has not 
adequately articulated its rationale for a particular permitting action 
that rationale may not be evident to the EPA from the permit record and 
a petitioner may be able to easily demonstrate that the articulated 
rationale is inadequate to support the action. For these reasons, 
without the availability of the written RTC during the petition period, 
there may be an increased likelihood of granting a particular claim on 
the basis that the state provided an inadequate rationale or permit 
record.
    While many permitting authorities submit the RTC and statement of 
basis with a title V proposed permit, these proposed revisions, if 
finalized, would promote national consistency and the availability of 
the RTC document during the EPA 45-day review and the 60-day window in 
which a petition may be submitted on the proposed permit. This proposed 
requirement would allow a petitioner to better determine whether flaws 
in the permit, permit record, or public participation procedures raised 
during the public comment period had been adequately addressed. In 
turn, this would enhance a petitioner's confidence in its judgment 
whether a title V petition is warranted, because it would have the 
benefit of the permitting authority's rationale for permit terms and 
permit actions. Thus, it could facilitate resolution of issues earlier 
in the permitting process and may reduce the number of petitions or 
petition claims filed. Further, when properly implemented by permitting 
authorities, the agency anticipates that this proposed requirement 
would likely reduce the number of EPA determinations to grant a 
petition because a permitting authority's rationale is inadequate. The 
EPA is proposing this regulatory change to ensure that petitioners have 
the opportunity to address the permitting authority's response to 
comment in order to meet their demonstration burden. As such, these 
proposed revisions are supported by and would help implement the EPA's 
interpretation in this context of the ambiguous term ``demonstrate'' 
under CAA section 505(b)(2). See MacClarence, 596 F.3d at 1132-33 
(finding the EPA's expectation that a petitioner challenge a permitting 
authority's final reasoning as reflected in the statement of basis of 
the permit a reasonable interpretation of the demonstration 
requirement).
    These proposed changes are responsive to recommendations from the 
CAAAC Title V Task Force Final Report. The 2006 report included a 
number of recommendations for implementation improvements, including 
specific recommendations regarding public notification and public 
participation in the title V process. The majority of Task Force 
members agreed that if a permitting authority receives comments on a 
draft permit, it is essential that the permitting authority prepare a 
written response to comments. See Title V Task Force Final Report 
Recommendation 1 at page 238. The majority of Task Force members also 
recommended that if a permitting authority received public comments 
(from anyone other than the permittee) during the public comment 
period, the RTC described in Recommendation 1 should be provided to the 
EPA for consideration during its 45-day review period. See Title V Task 
Force Final Report Recommendation 2 at 239.
    While the Act does not expressly require the submission of the RTC 
and statement of basis together with the proposed permit, it also does 
not preclude such a requirement or prescribe the specific materials 
that are needed to review a proposed permit. In light of the focus of 
CAA section 505(b)(2) on issues raised with reasonable specificity 
during the comment period, it is reasonable to interpret the Act to 
include a requirement that would allow the EPA and the public access to 
materials such as the RTC and statement of basis that would allow them 
to evaluate the issues raised with reasonable specificity during the 
comment period and the permitting authority's response.
    The agency believes these proposed revisions to the part 70 rules 
are within the EPA's inherent discretion to formulate procedures to 
discharge its obligations under CAA sections 505(b)(1) and 505(b)(2), 
as discussed in Section IV.A of this notice. If finalized, it would 
help the EPA more efficiently review both proposed permits and title V 
petitions.
3. Request for Comment
    Comments are requested on all aspects of these proposed revisions. 
Comments are specifically requested on the proposed regulatory language 
requiring the preparation of a written RTC. Additionally, the EPA 
requests comment on all aspects of the proposal to require both the 
written RTC and statement of basis be included in the record that is 
sent with the proposed title V permit for the EPA's 45-day review. The 
EPA is expressly taking comment on the best method(s) for proposed 
permits to be made available so that the public is aware when a 
proposed permit is received by the EPA for its 45-day review. States 
are also encouraged to provide information on whether any changes to 
state rules and programs would be necessary if this proposed revision 
to part 70 were finalized. The EPA is also expressly taking comment on 
the practices of permitting authorities that conduct concurrent review 
and is particularly interested in what processes or steps should be 
followed to allow for concurrent review, even if the permitting 
authority is not aware of whether or not it will receive comment on the 
title V permit when that permit is initially submitted to EPA. Finally, 
the EPA solicits comments on the proposed regulatory language in 40 CFR 
70.4, 70.7, and 70.8 requiring the

[[Page 57841]]

statement of basis is necessary or appropriate to ensure the document 
is available at all stages of the permit issuance process, or whether 
including it in fewer provisions would be adequate (and if so, which 
ones).

V. Pre- and Post-Petition Process Information/Guidance

    In this section of the notice, the EPA is providing information on 
certain steps in the title V petition process, namely the permit 
issuance process that occurs before a petition is submitted, and the 
post-petition process, which occurs after the EPA grants an objection 
on at least one issue in a petition. The EPA anticipates this 
information will help stakeholders gain a better understanding of the 
role a petition might play in the development of a permit that assures 
compliance with applicable requirements under the CAA and part 70. Most 
of what follows has been addressed publicly in various formats, but the 
EPA believes that repeating this information here for the public's 
convenience will provide stakeholders with a comprehensive look at the 
petition opportunity in CAA section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 70.

A. Recommended Practices for Complete Permit Records

1. Recommended Practices for Permitting Authorities
    The proposed changes in Section IV.D of this notice are intended to 
increase the effectiveness of the EPA 45-day review as well as ensure 
that the full permit record is before petitioners during the 60-day 
petition period. Making these documents available also provides an 
opportunity for a permitting authority to ensure that they have fully 
responded to comments when preparing the proposed permit. Permitting 
authorities have at least three opportunities to provide the permit 
record and ensure that it comports with the CAA: the draft, proposed, 
and final permit.
    While the EPA is not requiring the following actions, the agency is 
recommending practices for permitting authorities when preparing title 
V permits. In the agency's experience, these practices can minimize the 
likelihood that a petition will be submitted on a title V permit. Many 
involve taking action at an appropriate time to ensure that the permit 
includes the conditions to assure compliance with applicable 
requirements under the CAA and part 70. In addition, many focus on 
consulting with the appropriate EPA Regional Office early when 
preparing and issuing permits. These ``recommended practices'' include:
    [cir] Consulting with the appropriate EPA Regional Office as needed 
on key aspects of the permit before the draft permit stage, especially 
if the permit is expected to be highly visible or contested.
    [cir] On a case-by-case basis, considering whether a particular 
draft permit warrants outreach to the community.
    [cir] On a case-by-case basis, considering whether it is 
appropriate to provide for a public participation opportunity on a 
revised draft permit.
    [cir] Fully addressing significant comments on draft permits and 
ensuring the permit or permit record includes adequate rationale for 
the decisions made. For example, permitting authorities should provide 
sufficient rationale for selected monitoring to assure compliance. The 
EPA's objections based on an inadequate record most often occur when 
the EPA finds that a permitting authority did not sufficiently explain 
why the monitoring was sufficient to assure compliance with a 
particular limit.
    [cir] Consulting with the appropriate EPA Regional Office as needed 
to resolve issues related to comments on draft permits and 
incorporating those resolutions into the proposed permits.
    [cir] Consulting with the appropriate EPA Regional Offices as 
needed to resolve issues related to the EPA objections or comments on 
proposed permits and incorporating those resolutions into the final 
permits.
    [cir] For petitions on which the EPA grants an objection on a claim 
because the record is inadequate, revising the record and permit as 
necessary and in a timely manner to resolve the objection.
    [cir] Reviewing permits that are the subject of a petition and 
revising or reopening for cause to address any issues raised by the 
petition that have not been resolved.
    [cir] Posting the proposed permit and RTC online where possible.

2. Recommended Practices for Permit Applicants

    The EPA is providing the following recommended practices for a 
source to consider to help ensure that its permit includes the 
conditions to assure compliance with applicable requirements under the 
CAA and part 70. In some cases, this may minimize the likelihood that a 
petition will be submitted on its title V permit. These ``recommended 
practices'' include:
    [cir] Submitting permit applications that include all information 
required under the approved title V permit program.
    [cir] Consulting with the permitting authority when any discrepancy 
or inaccuracy is identified in the permit, at any stage of the 
permitting process.
    [cir] Promptly providing any updates to the permit application to 
the permitting authority.
    [cir] If public comments identify an issue in the draft permit, 
contacting the permitting authority to make revisions to address the 
concern before the permit is proposed to the EPA.
    [cir] Timely responding to inquiries from the permitting authority 
at each stage in the permitting process, including the draft, proposed, 
and final stages.

B. Post-Petition Process

    The following discussion provides information about the activities 
that occur, or may occur, after the EPA responds to a title V petition. 
Various stakeholders have indicated there can be confusion around the 
appropriate steps following an EPA petition order, particularly when 
the Administrator granted the petition in whole or in part. The summary 
below describes EPA's interpretation of key provisions of the CAA and 
implementing regulations. This interpretation has already been shared 
publicly in title V orders responding to petitions. See, e.g., In the 
Matter of Public Service of New Hampshire Schiller Station, Order on 
Petition Number VI-2014-04 (July 28, 2015) at 4; In the Matter of 
Meraux Refinery, Order on Petition Number VI-2012-04 (May 29, 2015) at 
7-10. In the interest of providing additional transparency and clarity 
for the title V petition process, and for the public's convenience, the 
EPA repeats that interpretation in the following paragraphs.
    When the EPA objects to a proposed permit under CAA section 505(b), 
section 505(b)(3) instructs that a permitting authority ``may not issue 
the permit unless it is revised and issued'' in accordance with section 
505(c) of the Act. If the permit has already been issued by the 
permitting authority before it receives the objection, then the EPA 
``shall modify, terminate, or revoke'' the permit, and the permitting 
authority may then only issue a revised permit in accordance with 
section 505(c) of the Act.
    Under CAA section 505(c), if the permitting authority fails to 
submit a permit revised to meet the Administrator's objection within 90 
days after the objection, the Administrator must issue or deny the

[[Page 57842]]

permit in accordance with the requirements under title V. Section 
505(c) further provides that no objection is subject to judicial review 
until the Administrator takes final action to issue or deny the permit.
    Neither CAA section 505(b)(3) nor section 505(c) provide express 
direction as to the specific procedures and steps the EPA must use to 
``modify, terminate, or revoke'' or ``issue or deny'' the permit, 
though section 505(c) points generally to the requirements under title 
V. Although the Act is ambiguous, the implementing regulations shed 
some light on the process. Those regulations provide a state with 90 
days to resolve the EPA's objection and terminate, modify, or revoke 
and reissue the permit, before the EPA would need to begin to act on 
the permit. 40 CFR 70.8(d), 70.7(g)(4)-(5); see also 40 CFR 71.4(e) 
(the EPA will take permitting action under part 71, when, among other 
things, a state fails to respond to the EPA's objection). A permitting 
authority may address an EPA objection by, among other things, 
providing the EPA with a revised permit. See, e.g., 40 CFR 70.7(g)(4). 
In some cases, the permitting authority's response to an EPA objection 
may not involve a revision to the permit terms and conditions 
themselves, but may instead involve revisions to the permit record. As 
an example, a permitting authority might opt to include additional 
rationale and detail to support its decision in response to the EPA's 
objection if such objection was based on the grounds that the permit 
record does not adequately support the permitting authority's decision. 
Whether the permitting authority submits revised permit terms, a 
revised permit record, or other revisions to the permit, the permitting 
authority's response is generally treated as a new proposed permit.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ When the permitting authority decides to modify a permit in 
order to resolve an EPA objection, it must go through the 
appropriate procedures for that modification. For example, when the 
permitting authority's response to an objection is a change to the 
permit terms or conditions or a revision to the permit record, the 
permitting authority should determine whether its response is a 
minor modification or a significant modification to the title V 
permit, as described in 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2) and (4) or the 
corresponding regulations in the state's EPA-approved title V 
program. If the permitting authority determines that the 
modification is a significant modification, then the permitting 
authority must provide for notice and opportunity for public comment 
for the significant modification consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(h). In 
other words, EPA's view that the state's response to an EPA 
objection is a generally treated as a new proposed permit does not 
alter the procedures for making the changes to the permit terms or 
condition or permit record that are intended to resolve EPA's 
objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in previous title V orders, such as the 2013 Nucor II 
Order, the EPA has generally treated the permitting authority response 
as a new proposed permit which is subject to the agency's opportunity 
to conduct a 45-day review per CAA 505(b)(1) and 40 CFR 70.8(c), and an 
opportunity for a petition if the EPA does not object. As stated in the 
Nucor II Order:

    [T]he EPA viewed the revised permit as providing the EPA an 
opportunity to object to the permit under CAA section 505(b)(l) and 
40 CFR 70.8(c), and, when the EPA did not object, an opportunity for 
a citizen to petition the EPA to object under CAA section 505(b)(2) 
and 40 CFR 70.8(d). The EPA has also treated state responses to EPA 
objections that revised the permit record to provide further support 
for its decision as constituting new proposed permits subject to 
review by the EPA under CAA section 505(b)(1) and 40 CFR 70.8(c), 
and, absent an EPA objection, citizen petition under CAA section 
505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 70.8(d). See, e.g., In the Matter of KerrMcGee/
Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Frederick Compressor Station, Order on 
Petition VIII-2008-02, at 2-3 (Oct. 8, 2009); In the Matter of 
Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Frederick Compressor Station, Order on 
Petition VIII-2010-4, at 4-5 (Feb. 2, 2011). A permitting 
authority's rationale for its permit terms is a fundamental 
component of its permit decision. Accordingly, the EPA has viewed a 
state response to an EPA objection that buttresses its basis for its 
permit decision as a new proposed permit for purposes of CAA section 
505(b) and 40 CFR 70.8(c) and (d).

Nucor II Order at 14.
    The EPA's interpretation that a state's response to an EPA 
objection generally triggers a new EPA review and petition opportunity 
is consistent with, and a reasonable interpretation of, the statutory 
and regulatory process for addressing objections by the EPA, as 
explained previously. Accordingly, at the end of the 45-day review 
period, if the EPA does not object, there is a 60-day window in which 
there is an opportunity for a second petition. If a second petition is 
received, the EPA must respond to the petition within 60 days under CAA 
section 505(b)(2).

VI. Implementation

    Costs associated with this proposed rule are expected to be 
minimal. Much of the focus in this proposal is to codify the 
established practice that has been publicly discussed and evolved over 
time. If finalized, the revisions should impose no costs on 
petitioners, and may reduce confusion over and the time necessary for 
preparing a title V petition. The agency anticipates that a small 
number of permitting authorities may need to amend their rules 
regarding permit issuance to require responses to significant comments 
and the submittal of those responses with the proposed permit that is 
sent to the EPA for review.
    The existing part 70 regulations provide for state program 
revisions if part 70 is revised and the EPA determines such conforming 
changes are necessary. 40 CFR 70.4(a) and 70.4(i). The EPA is 
soliciting comment as to whether revisions to any approved state 
programs would be necessary if the revisions to part 70 regulations 
proposed in this notice are finalized. States are expressly encouraged 
to provide information on any changes to state rules and programs that 
may be necessary if the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 70.7(h) and 70.8 
are finalized to require permitting authorities to respond in writing 
to all significant comments raised during the public participation 
process and to provide that response to the EPA for the agency's 45-day 
review period.

VII. Proposed Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of 
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by 
the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions 
for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of nationally 
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the 
Administrator; or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally 
applicable, if the action is determined to be of nationwide scope or 
effect and the Administrator publishes such a determination. The EPA 
proposes to find and publish that this rule is based on a determination 
of nationwide scope and effect. This proposed rule concerns revisions 
to the EPA's regulations in part 70 for operating permit programs, and 
these regulations apply to permitting programs across the country. 
Accordingly, we propose to determine that this is a rulemaking of 
nationwide scope or effect such that any petitions for review must be 
filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit.

VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations

    This action proposes certain revisions to part 70 regulations to 
improve the title V petition submittal, review and response processes. 
The proposed revisions and guidance provided in this rule should 
increase the transparency and clarity of the petition process for all 
stakeholders. First, the establishment of centralized petition 
submittal is expected to reduce or eliminate

[[Page 57843]]

confusion over where to submit a petition. When using the preferred 
method of an electronic petition submittal through the agency's 
electronic submittal system, a petitioner will also have immediate 
assurance that the petition and any attachments were received. However, 
alternative submittal methods are still available options for members 
of the public that experience technical difficulties when trying to 
submit a petition or for those that do not have access to electronic 
submittal mechanisms. Second, the proposed required content and format 
provides instruction and clarity on what must be included in a 
petition. This change is anticipated to assist petitioners in providing 
all the critical information in their petitions in an effective manner, 
which may increase the agency's efficiency in responding to petitions. 
Third, the proposed regulatory changes would require permitting 
authorities to respond to public comments in a written document that is 
provided to the EPA for the agency's 45-day review and is available 
during the 60-day opportunity to file a title V petition, which will 
provide increased availability of information regarding permits for the 
public in general and petitioners specifically. Further, this change 
may provide more timely notification of pertinent steps and documents 
in the permit issuance process. Fourth, the recommended practices for 
permitting authorities and sources, if followed, may improve the 
quality of public participation and the operating permits being issued. 
Finally, the description of the post-petition process is anticipated to 
reduce confusion regarding the appropriate steps when the EPA grants a 
petition for an objection on a particular issue. This proposed action 
does not compel any specific changes to the requirements to provide 
opportunities for public participation in permitting nor does it 
finalize any particular permit action that may affect the fair 
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people. Further, this 
proposed action is responsive to some of the feedback received during 
the Environmental Justice in Permitting workshops the agency provided 
in the North Birmingham area on September 15 and 16, 2014 and other 
such meetings held in EPA's Region 4.
    In preparation for this proposal, the agency participated in 
community calls where the EPA presented a brief overview and 
announcement of the rulemaking effort. The EPA provided additional 
details about a planned webinar that will describe the title V petition 
process, the content of this proposal, and when and how to submit 
comments.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant action and was, therefore, not 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action would not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0243 for the title V part 70 program. To the extent 
that a SIP revision or a title V program revision is necessary to 
effect the changes being proposed, we believe that the burden is 
already accounted for under the approved information collection 
requests noted earlier.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This 
proposed action would not impose any requirements directly on small 
entities. Entities potentially affected directly by this proposal 
include anyone that chooses to submit a title V petition on a proposed 
title V permit prepared by an EPA-approved state, local or tribal title 
V permitting authority. Other entities directly affected may include 
state, local, and tribal governments and none of these governments are 
small governments. Other types of small entities are not directly 
subject to the requirements of this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded federal mandate of $100 
million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and would not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed 
action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal 
governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither 
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized 
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The Southern Ute Indian 
Tribe has an EPA-approved operating permit program under 40 CFR part 70 
and could be impacted. The EPA conducted outreach to the tribes through 
a call with the National Tribal Air Association. Further, the agency 
plans to offer consultation to all tribal governments, and will 
specifically offer to consult with the Southern Ute Indian tribe. The 
EPA solicits comment from affected tribal governments on the 
implications of this proposed rulemaking.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an 
environmental health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health and environmental risk addressed 
by this proposed action will not have potential disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-
income or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are 
contained in Section

[[Page 57844]]

VIII of this notice titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.''

K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA provides that the provisions of CAA 
section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the administrator may 
determine.'' Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator 
determines that this proposed action is subject to the provisions of 
CAA section 307(d).

VIII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by 42 
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 15, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth 
below.

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for the part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

0
2. Section 70.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(viii) to reads 
as follows:

Sec.  70.4  State program submittals and transition.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (viii) Make available to the public any permit application, 
statement of basis, compliance plan, permit, and monitoring and 
compliance certification report pursuant to section 503(e) of the Act, 
except for information entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to 
section 114(c) of the Act. The contents of a part 70 permit itself 
shall not be entitled to protection under section 114(c) of the Act.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 70.7 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (h)(2) and (5); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (h)(6) and (7).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  70.7  Permit issuance, renewal, reopenings, and revisions.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) The notice shall identify the affected facility; the name and 
address of the permittee; the name and address of the permitting 
authority processing the permit; the activity or activities involved in 
the permit action; the emissions change involved in any permit 
modification; the name, address, and telephone number of a person from 
whom interested persons may obtain additional information, including 
copies of the draft permit, statement of basis for the draft permit, 
the application, all relevant supporting materials, including those set 
forth in Sec.  70.4(b)(3)(viii), and all other materials available to 
the permitting authority that are relevant to the permit decision; a 
brief description of the comment procedures required by this part; and 
the time and place of any hearing that may be held, including a 
statement of procedures to request a hearing (unless a hearing has 
already been scheduled);
* * * * *
    (5) The permitting authority shall keep a record of the commenters 
and of the issues raised during the public participation process, as 
well as records of the written comments submitted during that process, 
so that the Administrator may fulfill his obligation under section 
505(b)(2) of the Act to determine whether a citizen petition may be 
granted, and such records shall be available to the public.
    (6) The permitting authority shall respond in writing to all 
significant comments raised during the public participation process, 
including any such written comments submitted during the public comment 
period and any such comments raised during any public hearing on the 
permit. If no significant comments are raised during the public 
participation process, the permitting authority shall prepare a written 
statement to that effect.
    (7) The permitting authority shall give notice within 30 days of 
transmitting the proposed permit to the Administrator, consistent with 
the procedures under paragraph (h)(1) of this section, that the 
proposed permit in accordance with Sec.  70.8(a)(1) and responses to 
public comments in accordance with paragraph (h)(6) of this section 
have been transmitted to the EPA, the date of the transmission, and 
that these documents are available to the public. Such notice shall 
explain how the public may access the proposed permit and responses to 
comments. When possible, such notice shall include notification in the 
same manner used to announce the availability of the draft permit for 
public comment.
0
4. Section 70.8 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1) and 
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  70.8  Permit review by EPA and affected States.

    (a) Transmission of information to the Administrator. (1) (i) The 
permit program shall require that the permitting authority provide to 
the Administrator a copy of each permit application (including any 
application for significant or minor permit modification), the 
statement of basis for each proposed permit and for each final permit, 
each proposed permit, each final permit, the written response to 
comments (which shall include a written response to all significant 
comments raised during the public participation process on the draft 
permit and recorded under Sec.  70.7(h)(5), or if no significant 
comments are received, a statement to that effect), and an explanation 
of how those public comments and the permitting authority's responses 
are available to the public. The applicant may be required by the 
permitting authority to provide a copy of the permit application 
(including the compliance plan) directly to the Administrator. Upon 
agreement with the Administrator, the permitting authority may submit 
to the Administrator a permit application summary form and any relevant 
portion of the permit application and compliance plan, in place of the 
complete permit application and compliance plan. To the extent 
practicable, the preceding information shall be provided in computer-
readable format compatible with EPA's national database management 
system. The Administrator's 45-day review period for this proposed 
permit will not begin until the proposed permit and all necessary 
supporting material required under this paragraph have been received by 
the EPA.
    (ii) In instances where the Administrator has received a proposed 
permit from a permitting authority before the public participation 
process on the draft permit has been completed, and the permitting 
authority receives a significant comment on the draft permit after the 
submission of the proposed permit to the Administrator, the 
Administrator will no longer consider the submitted proposed permit as 
a permit proposed to be issued under section 505 of the Act. In such 
instances, the permitting authority must make any revisions to the 
permit or permit record necessary to address the public comments, 
including preparation or revision of the response to comment document, 
and must re-submit the

[[Page 57845]]

proposed permit and all necessary supporting material required in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section to the Administrator after the 
public comment period has closed. The Administrator's 45-day review 
period for this proposed permit will not begin until the proposed 
permit and all necessary supporting material required under paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) of this section have been received by the EPA.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The Administrator will object to the issuance of any proposed 
permit determined by the Administrator not to be in compliance with 
applicable requirements or requirements under this part. No permit for 
which an application must be transmitted to the Administrator under 
paragraph (a) of this section shall be issued if the Administrator 
objects to its issuance in writing within 45 days of receipt of the 
proposed permit and all necessary supporting information required under 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Public petitions to the Administrator. The program shall 
provide that, if the Administrator does not object in writing under 
paragraph (c) of this section, any person may petition the 
Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of the 
Administrator's 45-day review period to make such objection. The 
petitioner shall provide a copy of such petition to the permitting 
authority and the applicant. Any such petition shall be based only on 
objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity 
during the public comment period provided for in Sec.  70.7(h), unless 
the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise such 
objections within such period, or unless the grounds for such objection 
arose after such period. If the Administrator objects to the permit as 
a result of a petition filed under this paragraph, the permitting 
authority shall not issue the permit until EPA's objection has been 
resolved, except that a petition for review does not stay the 
effectiveness of a permit or its requirements if the permit was issued 
after the end of the 45-day review period and prior to an EPA 
objection. If the permitting authority has issued a permit prior to 
receipt of an EPA objection under this paragraph, the Administrator 
will modify, terminate, or revoke such permit, and shall do so 
consistent with the procedures in Sec.  70.7(g) (4) or (5) (i) and (ii) 
except in unusual circumstances, and the permitting authority may 
thereafter issue only a revised permit that satisfies EPA's objection. 
In any case, the source will not be in violation of the requirement to 
have submitted a timely and complete application.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 70.12 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  70.12  Public Petition Requirements.

    Standard petition requirements. Each public petition sent to the 
Administrator under 70.8(d) of this part shall include the following 
elements in the following order:
    (a) Identification of the proposed permit on which the petition is 
based. The petition shall provide the permit number, version number, or 
any other information by which the permit can be readily identified. 
The petition shall specify whether the permit action is an initial 
permit, a permit renewal, or a permit modification/revision, including 
minor modifications/revisions.
    (b) Sufficient information to show that the petition was timely 
filed.
    (c) Identification of Petition Claims. Any issue raised in the 
petition as grounds for an objection shall be based on a claim that the 
permit, permit record, or permit process is not in compliance with 
applicable requirements or requirements under this part. All pertinent 
information in support of each issue raised as a petition claim shall 
be contained within the body of the petition. In determining whether to 
object, the Administrator will not consider arguments, assertions, 
claims, or other information incorporated into the petition by 
reference. For each claim raised, the petition shall identify the 
following:
    (1) The specific grounds for an objection, citing to a specific 
permit term or condition where applicable.
    (2) The applicable requirement as defined in Sec.  70.2, or 
requirement under part 70, that is not met.
    (3) An explanation of how the term or condition in the permit, or 
relevant portion of the permit record or permit process, is not 
adequate to comply with the corresponding applicable requirement or 
requirement under part 70.
    (4) If the petition claims that the permitting authority did not 
provide for a public participation procedure required under Sec.  
70.7(h), the petition must identify specifically the required public 
participation procedure that was not provided.
    (5) Identification of where the issue was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the public comment period provided for in Sec.  
70.7(h), citing to any relevant page numbers in the public comment 
submitted to the permitting authority and attaching this public comment 
to the petition. If the grounds for the objection were not raised with 
reasonable specificity during the public comment period, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that such grounds arose after that period, or that it 
was impracticable to raise such objections within that period, as 
required under Sec.  70.8(d).
    (6) Unless the grounds for the objection arose after the public 
comment period or it was impracticable to raise the objection within 
that period such that the exception under Sec.  70.8(d) applies, the 
petition must identify where the permitting authority responded to the 
public comment, including page number(s) in the publicly available 
written response to comment, and explain how the permitting authority's 
response to the comment is inadequate to address the issue raised in 
the public comment. If the response to comment document does not 
address the public comment at all, the petition shall state that.
0
6. Section 70.13 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  70.13  Documents that May be Considered in Reviewing Petitions.

    The information that the Administrator considers in making a 
determination whether to grant or deny a petition submitted under Sec.  
70.8(d) on a proposed permit generally includes, but is not limited to, 
the Administrative Record for the proposed permit and the petition, 
including attachments to the Petition. For purposes of this paragraph, 
the Administrative Record for a particular proposed permit includes the 
draft and proposed permits; any permit applications that relate to the 
draft or proposed permits; the statement of bases for the draft and 
proposed permits; the permitting authority's written responses to 
comments, including responses to all significant comments raised during 
the public participation process on the draft permit; relevant 
supporting materials made available to the public according to Sec.  
70.7(h)(2); and all other materials available to the permitting 
authority that are relevant to the permitting decision and that the 
permitting authority made available to the public according to Sec.  
70.7(h)(2). If a final permit and a statement of basis for the final 
permit are available during the agency's review of a petition on a 
proposed permit, those documents may also be considered as part of 
making a determination whether to grant or deny the petition.
0
7. Section 70.14 is added to read as follows:

[[Page 57846]]

Sec.  70.14  Submission of Petitions.

    Any petition to the Administrator shall be submitted through the 
Operating Permits Group in the Air Quality Policy Division in the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, using one of the three 
following methods identified at the Title V Petitions Web site: An 
electronic submission through the EPA's designated submission system 
(the agency's preferred method); an electronic submission through the 
EPA's designated email address listed on that Web site; or a paper 
submission to the EPA's designated physical address listed on that Web 
site. Any necessary attachments shall be submitted together with the 
petition, using the same method as for the petition. Once a petition 
has been successfully submitted using one of these three methods, the 
petitioner should not submit additional copies of the petition using 
another method. The Administrator is not obligated to consider 
petitions submitted to the agency using any method other than the three 
identified in this paragraph.

[FR Doc. 2016-20029 Filed 8-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P