EPA's Operating Permit Regulations:
Title V Permit Appeals and Strategic Considerations
Introduction
Of the many new provisions and programs enacted under the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments, the Title V operating permit program will
likely have significant impacts on the greatest number of facilities.
Because a source's Title V permit will govern the conditions under which
the source will operate on a daily basis, it is critical that the permit contain
reasonable terms that can be met and that provide the source necessary
operational flexibility. The importance of appropriate permit terms has
been further heightened by new enforcement provisions and policies which
may have the effect of increasing the stringency of particular standards and
creating enforcement liability for performance which was previously
deemed to be acceptable by regulatory agencies.
An understanding of Title V permit appeal procedures and relevant
strategic considerations in pursuing permit appeals will be vital for sources
subject to the Title V program. Because of the importance of reasonable
permit terms, the filing of Title V permit appeals is expected to become
relatively common as permitting programs reach maturity. Although it is
hoped that permitting authorities will generally issue Title V permits
containing reasonable terms and that EPA will ordinarily exercise its
authority in an appropriate manner, the permit appeal process will
nevertheless play a significant role. Given the vast number and novelty of
issues which can arise during the Title V permitting process and the
number and variety of emission points present in a major source, it is
inevitable that sources frequently will need to seek corrections of permit
terms by filing permit appeals. Moreover, unlike the situation with
construction permits, it is typically not critical for a source that its initial
Title V permit be issued and finalized by any particular time. Thus, a
source can ordinarily decide whether a permit appeal is warranted without
being concerned about any resulting delay in the receipt of a final Title V
permit.
It has also become clear that the time to begin considering the Title
V permit appeal process is during the early stages of the permitting process
not simply after a final permit has been issued. A source which is
preparing its permit application is also taking the initial step in the permit
appeal process. At that point, a source should be formulating a clear idea
of what terms and conditions it wants its final permit to contain and should
begin developing a record for the permit appeal process in case that step
becomes necessary. The development of an administrative record should
continue as the permit application is submitted, the permit negotiation
process ensues, and a draft permit is made available for comments.
This issue analysis examines the procedures that exist for
challenging Title V permit decisions under federal and state law and
discusses important strategic considerations in planning for a possible
permit appeal and/or filing an appeal when necessary. The analysis
primarily focuses on these topics from the perspective of industrial sources
needing to obtain Title V permits. The first section summarizes the Title
V permit issuance process and highlights the different ways in which Title
V permits may be issued. The second section provides an explanation of
the special public petition process created by Title V and its possible
impacts on the permit review process. The third section analyzes the
various state and federal procedures which govern Title V permit appeals
and discusses certain issues which will likely arise in permit review
proceedings. Finally, the last section focuses on certain strategic
considerations regarding permit appeals which sources should keep in mind
throughout the permitting process.
Initial Permit Issuance
This section provides a brief overview of the various ways in which
Title V permits initially may be granted or denied pursuant to EPA's Part
70 permitting regulations. Because the process of preparing and
submitting a Title V permit application has been extensively addressed in
other contexts, this discussion focuses on what transpires after the
application has been submitted rather than addressing the preparation of a
permit application. However, it should be noted that the application
process is an important part of creating a record which can later be used
effectively in any permit appeal.
Before issuing a Title V permit, the state permitting authority
must provide an opportunity for public comment and a hearing on the draft
permit. 40 C.F.R. 70.7(h). It must also notify "affected states" of the
draft permit. 40 C.F.R. 70.8(b)(1). Affected states may make
recommendations to the permitting authority based on applicable
requirements or the requirements of Part 70 but do not have the ability to
veto the issuance of a permit. 40 C.F.R. 70.8(b)(2). After considering
any comments made on the draft permit and recommendations of affected
states, the permitting authority must submit the proposed permit to EPA.
40 C.F.R. 70.8(a)(1).
The Act sets forth procedures for EPA review of proposed permits
and authorizes EPA to object to such permits under certain circumstances.
The grounds on which EPA may object to a proposed permit are prescribed
by the statute and EPA's implementing regulations. Section 505(b)(1) of
the Act provides for EPA to object to (or "veto") a proposed permit if it is
not in compliance with the Act's "applicable requirements . . . (including
the requirements of an applicable implementation plan)." EPA's
regulations provide that EPA will object to the issuance of any proposed
permit which is determined "not to be in compliance with applicable
requirements or requirements under [Part 70]." 40 C.F.R. 70.8(c)(1). In
addition, EPA may object if the permitting authority failed to provide
proper notice and supporting documentation to EPA, or if the permitting
authority failed to provide adequate opportunity for public participation or
"affected state" review. 40 C.F.R. 70.8(c)(3).
If EPA decides to object to a proposed permit, it must make the
objections in writing within 45 days to prevent the permit from being
issued. Section 505(b)(3); 40 C.F.R. 70.4(h)(3)(ix), 70.8(c)(1). At this
stage, the permitting authority may either revise the permit to meet EPA's
objections and resubmit the permit for approval, or it may deny the permit.
If the permitting authority fails to revise and submit a proposed permit in
response to the objection within 90 days, EPA is given the authority to
issue or deny the permit itself in accordance with the requirements of Title
V and the Part 71 federal program regulations. Section 505(c); 40 C.F.R.
70.8(c)(4), 71.4(e). If EPA does not object to the proposed permit
within 45 days, the permitting authority may grant the permit.
Thus, there are three ways in which a source may receive an initial
Title V permit under Part 70: (1) from the permitting authority absent an
EPA objection, (2) from the permitting authority after modification in
response to an EPA objection, or (3) from EPA following the permitting
authority's failure to respond to its objections.
The Public Petition Process
Section 505(b)(2) of the Act creates a special petition process
which allows "any person" under certain circumstances to petition EPA to
object to a permit where EPA has not exercised its authority to object to
that permit as proposed. Under this process, EPA may object to a permit
even where the state permitting authority has already issued the permit in
final form. As discussed in the next section, this "public petition" process
may also provide an optional path for the Title V source to obtain judicial
review of a state-issued Title V permit.
If a state permitting authority submits a proposed permit to EPA
and receives no objection within 45 days, it may issue the permit.
However, section 505(b)(2) provides that, once the 45-day veto period has
run, any person (including a source) may petition EPA to object to the
permit. See also 40 C.F.R. 70.8(d). Such a petition must be filed within
60 days of the expiration of the 45-day veto period. A petitioner is limited
to arguments raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment
period, unless he or she demonstrates that it was impracticable to have
raised such objections or unless the ground for objection arose after the
public comment period. EPA has 60 days within which to grant or deny the
petition. Id.
The statutory scheme may give rise to a situation where EPA will
object to a permit which has already been issued and has become effective.
Because a public petition cannot be filed until the 45-day veto period has
expired and because EPA has 60 days in which to respond, it is possible for
a permitting authority to issue a final permit before EPA has taken action
on the petition. Moreover, the filing of a public petition does not stay the
effectiveness of any permit issued after the expiration of the initial 45-day
period set aside for EPA objections. Id.
If, in response to a petition, EPA decides to object to a permit after
it has been issued, EPA is to modify, terminate, or revoke the permit as
necessary in accordance with prescribed procedures. In particular, EPA
must give the permitting authority 90 days in which to revise the permit to
satisfy its objection and must provide written notice to the permittee
regarding the reasons for the objection. 40 C.F.R. 70.7(g)(4) and (5),
70.8(d).
Appeals of Final Permits and Other Reviewable Actions
Introduction
The route which a source can pursue to appeal a final Title V
permit decision generally depends upon which agency state or federal
issues that decision. If the state permitting authority makes the final permit
decision, appeals ordinarily proceed in the state administrative or judicial
system in accordance with the state's Title V program and relevant state
law principles. If EPA makes the final decision, appeals ordinarily proceed
first to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board and then to the federal courts
of appeals. In addition, EPA's denial of a public petition requesting that
it object to a permit can give rise to direct judicial review in the federal
courts of appeals. Below we summarize the procedures for obtaining
review of state or federal Title V permit decisions and discuss some of the
issues that may arise in such proceedings.
Review of State Actions
The Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations contemplate that the great
majority of Title V permit decisions will be made by state permitting
authorities. Furthermore, the Act expressly provides that, when state
permitting authorities grant or deny Title V permits, judicial review is to
be sought in the state judicial system. Section 502(b)(6) requires, among
other things, that each state Title V program provide "an opportunity for
judicial review in State court of the final permit action by the applicant, any
person who participated in the public comment process, and any other
person who could obtain review of that action under applicable law." In
addition, section 502(b)(7) states that the failure of the state permitting
authority to take timely action on a permit application shall be treated as a
final action for purposes of obtaining judicial review in state court to
require the permitting authority to grant or deny the permit.
EPA's Part 70 regulations prescribe certain additional requirements
for judicial review which all state Title V programs must satisfy. The
regulations provide that the opportunity for judicial review required
pursuant to section 502(b)(6) of the Act must be the exclusive means for
judicial review of Title V permit terms and conditions and that any petition
for judicial review of a final permit decision must be filed within 90 days
of the decision or such shorter time as the state designates. 40 C.F.R.
70.4(b)(3)(xii). A petition can be filed later than the designated deadline
for judicial review only if it is based on grounds arising after the deadline.
A challenge to the state permitting authority's failure to take final action
on a permit may be filed anytime before such action is taken. Id.
The precise route for obtaining judicial review of permit actions by
state permitting authorities will vary from state to state. In some states, the
initial level of review takes place before an environmental appeals board
or similar administrative body. Appeals from the appeals boards'
decisions in those states are subsequently to be filed in a state court. In
other states, appeals from final decisions of the permitting authority are to
be filed directly in a state court.
Issues That Will Likely Arise in State Review Proceedings
We briefly discuss below some of the key issues which will likely
arise in state administrative or judicial proceedings involving the review of
Title V permit decisions. Because Title V permit review processes have
yet to be utilized in most states, numerous procedural and substantive
points remain unsettled. We also note that, because Title V review
proceedings will frequently take place in the context of existing state
administrative structures and procedures, many procedural requirements
may vary from state to state.
One important issue is whether the appeals board or state court will
confine its review of the final permit decision to the administrative record
before the permitting authority or whether it will allow the parties to submit
new documentary evidence and/or provide testimony regarding the legality
of the permit decision. Although some state systems may offer applicants
the opportunity to present new evidence, it is nevertheless imperative that
a source establish support in the administrative record for the permit terms
it seeks far in advance of appellate proceedings. Indeed, the failure to
articulate objections to particular terms and conditions and to provide
supporting materials prior to permit issuance may preclude a source from
raising certain challenges after the final permit is issued.
A closely related issue concerns the specific standard of review
which the appeals board or court will apply in reviewing the permit
decision. The standard of review will determine, as a legal matter, the
degree of scrutiny the reviewing body will give to the decision and what
burden the challenging party must meet to prevail. For example, the
standard may be articulated in terms of whether the decision being
reviewed is "arbitrary and capricious," "clearly erroneous," "contrary to the
weight of the evidence," or some other comparable formulation. In some
instances, state law may even provide for de novo review, i.e., the
reviewing body may decide the issues for itself without regard to how they
were presented and decided in the prior proceeding. Although for some
state programs the applicable standard of review may be spelled out, for
other state programs there may be no explicit mention of the standard of
review applicable to Title V permit decisions. In establishing the
applicable standard of review in such instances, however, state courts and
appeals boards likely will rely heavily on the procedures used in other
permit programs.
Another issue concerns the deference which state appeals boards
and courts will give to EPA's interpretation of regulatory terms which are
identical to, or correspond to, the terms in state Title V permit programs.
Such EPA interpretations may be set forth in such sources as Federal
Register preambles, guidance documents, or administrative decisions.
Although a state appeals board or court is not required to follow such an
EPA interpretation, it is likely that a state reviewing body would give the
federal interpretation significant weight in reaching decisions on EPA-adopted
regulations. The precise amount of deference due to EPA's
interpretations will typically be decided in each state as it becomes
necessary to address various Title V issues.
Review of EPA Actions
Although most initial Title V permit decisions will be made by
state permitting authorities, EPA itself has the authority to issue or deny
Title V permits in certain situations. EPA's exercise of this authority can
arise in two different ways.
First, if a state does not obtain Title V program approval or if EPA
withdraws approval from a state, EPA becomes the permitting authority
and is to issue permits pursuant to the Part 71 federal program regulations.
See sections 502(d)(3) and (i)(4) of the Act. Although EPA may
subsequently delegate its Part 71 permit-issuance authority to the state
under specified conditions, the state must comply with Part 71
requirements in exercising that authority, and appeals of such permit
decisions are brought in accordance with Part 71 procedures. 40 C.F.R.
71.10(a) and (i).
Second, if EPA objects to a proposed permit and the state
permitting authority fails within 90 days to revise and submit a proposed
permit in response to the objection, EPA is to issue or deny that permit in
accordance with Part 71, rather than Part 70, procedures. 40 C.F.R.
70.8(c)(4).
Part 71 sets forth a detailed set of procedures for obtaining review
of EPA Title V permit decisions (or decisions of a state with delegated Part
71 authority). Any person who filed comments on the draft permit or
participated in the public hearing may petition EPA's Environmental
Appeals Board ("EAB") to review any condition of the permit decision.
An appeal of EPA's issuance or denial of a Title V permit must be filed
with the EAB as a prerequisite to seeking judicial review. 40 C.F.R.
71.11(l)(4). Additionally, the EAB may, on its own initiative, review any
condition of any permit issued by EPA under Part 71. 40 C.F.R.
71.11(l)(2).
Petitions for EAB review must be filed within 30 days of EPA's
permit decision. The petition is to demonstrate, as appropriate, that
findings of fact or conclusions of law are "clearly erroneous" or that an
exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration warrants EAB
review. 40 C.F.R. 71.11(l)(1).
Within a reasonable time following the filing of a petition for
review, the EAB is to issue an order either granting or denying the petition.
40 C.F.R. 71.11(l)(3). To the extent that review is denied, the conditions
of the final permit decision become final agency action for purposes of
judicial review. If the petition is granted, the EAB will ordinarily issue a
briefing schedule and proceed to issue a decision on the merits. Id.
Final decisions of the EAB may be appealed to the federal courts
of appeals pursuant to section 307(b) of the Act. Section 307(b) provides
that any petition for review of an EPA action must be filed within 60 days
of the final decision, unless the petition is "based solely on grounds arising
after such sixtieth day." Under section 307(b), exclusive jurisdiction over
a final action which is "locally or regionally applicable" (such as a
permitting decision) would lie with "the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit." For purposes of Title V permit appeals, the
"appropriate circuit" would presumably be the circuit in which the source
is located.
The federal appellate court's review of the EAB's decision will be
conducted pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-706, and the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Accordingly, the court will uphold the Agency's factual
findings unless they are "unsupported by substantial evidence" and will
otherwise uphold the decision unless the court concludes that the decision
is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. 706(2). The record on review will
ordinarily consist of the administrative record before the EAB.
In addition to the procedures above for review of EPA decisions
issuing or denying Title V permits, the Act provides a second avenue for
judicial review of EPA action in certain circumstances. As explained
above, any person (including the permit applicant) may file a "public
petition" requesting that EPA object to a proposed permit. Section
505(b)(2) of the Act specifically provides that review of EPA's subsequent
denial of such a petition may be sought directly in the federal courts of
appeals pursuant to section 307(b). However, if EPA grants the public
petition and objects to the permit, EPA's objection is not subject to judicial
review until EPA takes final action on the permit itself. Section 505(c)(2).
Strategic Considerations
Throughout each step of the Title V permit application and
issuance process, sources should be aware of the need to prepare for a
possible permit appeal as well as the options available for seeking such
permit review. We discuss relevant strategic considerations in more detail
below.
The Need to Develop a Full Record in Preparation for a Possible Permit Appeal
It will be critical to make certain that the administrative record
includes the necessary support for those terms that the facility has
identified as being essential to be included in the Title V permit. The
highest priority typically will be those that are necessary for assuring that
the source can demonstrate that it is in compliance with all requirements
and, in turn, to certify such ongoing compliance in its periodic
certifications.
The development of the record begins with submission of the
permit application and continues at every stage of the permitting process.
The preparation of supporting documents should begin long before the
permit is made available for public comment in order to enhance the
chances of having permitting authorities ultimately write acceptable permit
terms. The guiding principle is that the official record before the
permitting authority should contain documentation to support every
essential permit term and should include responses to any relevant
comments submitted by other parties or to points raised in public hearings.
In many instances, the most significant document to be included in the
record is the document setting forth the permit applicant's comments on the
draft permit. Accordingly, such comments should be carefully drafted and
subjected to comprehensive legal and technical reviews before submission.
Examples of other types of documentation which should be submitted for
inclusion in the official record include guidance documents, preamble
discussions, engineering reports, and technical articles. In submitting
documents, the permit applicant should be aware that documents sent to
different offices within the state permitting authority, other state agencies,
or EPA will typically not be considered a part of the permit record unless
they are also sent to the specific address for that record and explicitly
designated for inclusion. Throughout the permitting process, it is important
to keep in mind that the record developed before the permitting authority
may constitute the only record that will be considered by a reviewing court.
In preparing submissions for inclusion in the administrative record,
the source should take into account relevant state law provisions and
agency practices. For example, where state law provides that emission
control requirements can be no more stringent than under federal law, this
stringency comparison may be a key element of the submission. In some
instances, the source may need to address in compelling detail the custom
in the state regarding the meaning of compliance, e.g., the factors that are
determinative are installation of necessary controls and proper operation of
such controls. As a result, the need to address important substantive issues
may require an early commitment of resources by the source .
Optional Judicial Review Route in Connection with EPA's Authority to
Object to Permits
Although permit appeal procedures generally prescribe a single
path by which a permittee can obtain review of a particular permit decision,
the Title V program provides an optional review path for sources in certain
situations related to EPA's authority to object to proposed permits. As
discussed above, if EPA takes no action within the 45-day review period
to object to a proposed permit, "any person," including a Title V source,
can file a petition with EPA requesting that it object to allegedly unlawful
terms. Section 505(b)(2). If EPA subsequently denies that petition, the
petitioner can obtain review of the denial in the appropriate federal court
of appeals pursuant to section 307(b).
Sources may wish to consider utilizing this review option in certain
circumstances. If a permit contains unacceptable terms, the source can
either seek review in accordance with state Title V procedures or it can
submit a public petition and seek federal court of appeals review if EPA
denies the petition. As a result, this option may allow a source to
determine whether a particular issue will be litigated before a state tribunal
(a state appeals board or state court) or before a federal court of appeals,
based on the nature of the particular issue in question. For example, where
the issue is whether certain requirements should be designated as state-only
requirements rather than federally enforceable "applicable requirements,"
it may be appropriate in some instances to seek direct federal judicial
review. Thus, if certain requirements do not constitute "applicable
requirements" under the definition in 40 C.F.R. 70.2, but the state
permitting authority essentially ignores the definition and refuses for
"policy" reasons to designate them instead as state-only requirements,
federal court review is probably more appropriate. However, where the
issue is whether particular permit limits are properly spelled out so that
they are achievable as a factual matter based on the administrative record,
state court review is probably more appropriate.
An additional consideration in determining what review path to
follow is that review in a federal court of appeals may be preferable in
terms of attempting to ensure uniform decisions on issues affecting sources
in more than one state. Rather than litigating a major issue of general
applicability on a state-by-state basis, a company may want to seek a
broader precedent from a federal court of appeals.
At the same time, a source should recognize that the scope of such
direct federal judicial review is limited in certain respects. While a state
appeals board or reviewing state court can address a wide array of issues
involving Title V permits, federal judicial review of EPA's denial of a
public petition is limited to those issues which would provide a basis for an
EPA permit objection. In other words, to be a proper subject of a public
petition, the permit term in question must not comply with the applicable
requirements of the Act or the requirements of Part 70. See 40 C.F.R.
70.8(c). In addition, the source can only seek direct judicial review
regarding those issues which were identified in its petition to EPA and
adequately raised during the public comment period. 40 C.F.R. 70.8(d).
Accordingly, it is important to provide a foundation in the record for
possible direct judicial review of EPA's denial of a public petition.
Such federal court review may also entail a different standard of
review as compared to state review. Federal judicial review will be based
on a standard of review concerning whether or not EPA's denial of the
petition was "arbitrary and capricious" a standard which is generally very
demanding. As discussed above, the applicable standard of review in state
proceedings can vary widely from state to state. Moreover, state court
review will focus primarily on the legality of the permit terms themselves,
not whether EPA was "arbitrary and capricious" in failing to object to them
based on the regulatory criteria for EPA objections.
Finally, the relief available to a successful challenger may differ
depending upon whether review is sought in a federal or state forum. In
most instances, the relief to be obtained upon direct federal review would
be a remand of the case to EPA so that it can grant the public petition and
exercise its objection authority properly. Assuming that an objection is
subsequently made, the state permitting authority would then have an
opportunity to propose a revised permit. In short, the relief granted may be
somewhat indirect because of the nature of the objection process. On the
other hand, in a state review proceeding, the relief granted could range
from an order expressly directing the permitting authority to delete or
include a particular term to an order simply remanding the case to the
permitting authority to reconsider a particular term in light of the appellate
decision. Thus, the scope of relief available is another factor which a
source should consider in determining what strategy to pursue in seeking
review of permit terms.
Addressing Situations Where EPA May Object To A Proposed Permit But The
Permitting Authority and Source Are In Agreement On The Permit Terms To Be
Included
Title V sources and state permitting authorities are generally
working together to develop permit terms that are reasonable and carry out
the Act's requirements. Inevitably, though, there will be situations where
EPA will submit comments on a draft permit which suggest that it may
veto a particular permit term that the source and permitting authority
believe should be included in the final permit or, alternatively, that it may
veto a permit for failing to contain a term that EPA maintains should be
included. For example, such disagreements may well arise with regard to
the manner in which the permit specifies what constitutes compliance with
certain applicable requirements or what monitoring provisions should be
included in the permit.
As an initial matter, there are, of course, two main options
available for the state permitting authority in this situation. The permitting
authority can either write the proposed permit in the manner agreed upon
by it and the source despite the indication that EPA may veto the permit or
it can make the changes in the proposed permit necessary to address EPA's
concerns. Below we address certain considerations regarding what course
of action may be preferable for the source in this situation.
If the permitting authority writes the proposed permit as it did the
draft permit and EPA in fact vetoes the proposed permit, the state
permitting authority will have 90 days in which to revise the permit to meet
EPA's objection or to deny the permit. If the permitting authority takes no
action within 90 days in response to EPA's objection, EPA is given the
authority to issue the final permit pursuant to Part 71 procedures. 40
C.F.R. 70.8(c)(4). As a result, the source's subsequent appeal route
would be first to the EAB and then to the federal courts of appeals, if
necessary.
On balance, the source will in many instances be best served by the
permitting authority's writing the proposed permit submitted to EPA in the
same way that it wrote the draft permit. If EPA decides not to veto the
permit, then the issue has almost certainly been resolved, and no permit
appeal would be necessary. If EPA does veto the permit, the permitting
authority would presumably revise the permit to satisfy EPA's objection.
Once the final permit is issued, the source can then challenge the disputed
aspect of the permit in a state forum and argue that EPA improperly
objected to the permit and directed that it be revised. The source could
further argue that the manner in which the permitting authority wrote the
proposed permit supports the source's position that EPA's objection was
improper. The permitting authority also would be able to explain its
reasoning for writing the proposed permit as it did. The permitting
authority's views in support of the proposed permit would likely receive
substantial deference from a reviewing state court.
If, on the other hand, the permitting authority were to write the
proposed permit in accordance with EPA's comments, i.e., to change the
disputed aspect of the draft permit, the source could subsequently pursue
an appeal in accordance with state permit appeal procedures challenging
the disputed aspect of the final permit. In this situation, the permitting
authority could also indicate its support for writing the final permit as it
wrote the draft permit rather than the proposed permit. However, the
permitting authority will not have gone on record in the proposed permit
as supporting the disputed aspect of the draft permit. Also, the opportunity
will be lost to test EPA's resolve to take an action that conflicts with the
state permitting authority's best judgment. Under Title V, as under state
implementation plans, states are, after all, to have the principal role in
carrying out the Act's requirements. Conclusion
The Title V permit appeal process will play a significant role in the
efforts of numerous sources to ensure that their Title V permits contain
reasonable, achievable terms and conditions. Although the prospect of an
appeal may sometimes seem distant, it is important that a source prepare
for the possibility at every stage of the application and permitting process
by developing a record that thoroughly supports requested permit terms and
conditions. It is also vital that a source become familiar with applicable
permit appeal procedures and with available options for seeking permit
review.
Please e-mail any comments or questions to the Clean Air Act Information Network.
Return to the Clean Air Act
Information Network Home Page