	Introduction

A key element of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments ( P.L. It was added to the CAA to enhance compliance by detailing for each covered facility all the emission control requirements to which the facility is subject. Adding these provisions to the CAA was controversial, and implementation, too, has generated controversies. Major Features of the Operating Permits Program

Prior to the 1990 amendments, the CAA required individual permits only for construction of new or modified industrial sources of air pollutants. Defining the parameters of this oversight has been a source of tension among EPA, states, and industry. Still, efforts to revise those rules have been driven by concerns of many permitting authorities and industrial sources that the current rules do not allow sufficient flexibility. In addition, EPA has issued some formal guidance on specific implementation issues. In part because of regulatory and program approval delays, state and local agencies were slow to begin issuing Title V permits. Permit issuance increased, but it continued to fall far short of the statutory deadlines and EPA's goals. A 2002 EPA Inspector General (IG) report criticized EPA and state and local agencies over the program's continuing problems. Key factors delaying the issuance of permits included insufficient state resources, complex EPA regulations and limited guidance, and conflicting state priorities, the IG reported. After that initial process, the ongoing tasks of permit reissuance (required after five years) and modification have become the focus of most permitting authorities' attention. Implications of Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Title V Permitting

In 2010 EPA initiated several CAA regulatory actions to limit emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) having implications for Title V permits and permitting. For Title V, this means including GHG control requirements in Title V permits. EPA's suite of regulatory actions regarding GHG emissions has been highly controversial. However, the Court upheld EPA's authority to require sources that already need Title V and PSD permits for conventional, non-GHG pollutants to comply with BACT requirements for GHGs. Most of the congressional criticism has focused on impacts of the PSD provisions of EPA's rules—not Title V—because the largest costs resulting from the GHG rules will be for compliance with BACT requirements, not the procedural requirements of Title V.

	Title V Issues

Most stakeholders agree that at least some of the objectives and benefits identified by Congress when it enacted the Title V program in 1990 have been achieved:
Incorporating applicable requirements in one document that consolidates duplicative and redundant requirements is beneficial to regulatory agencies, the public, and regulated sources. At the same time, there also has been widespread dissatisfaction with the program as it exists, due to program complexity; confusion and uncertainty about some of its requirements; and criticism of costs to regulated entities, permit agencies, and even the general public. Rules to implement these aspects of the statute were promulgated in the 1992 Part 70 regulations. Clean Air Act issues have been of considerable interest during the 114 th Congress, especially scrutiny of EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Although EPA's actions concerning GHGs involve multiple provisions of the act, this congressional attention has not included Title V.
The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments required major industrial sources of air pollutants to obtain operating permits. These permits, authorized in Title V of the act, are intended to enhance environmental compliance by detailing for each covered facility all of the emission control requirements to which it is subject. Title V also was intended to generate permit fees that would be used by state and local permitting authorities for administering the program. Implementation of these requirements affects more than 15,000 industrial sources of air emissions, as well as state and local air pollution control agencies. Adding these provisions to the act was controversial, and implementation, too, has generated controversies.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations to implement Title V in 1992. Aspects of those rules (particularly concerning procedures to modify permits) have been contentious since then. EPA has considered a number of regulatory revisions but has not finalized any modifications. However, EPA has issued white papers and a number of formal and informal guidance documents that, together with the 1992 rules, comprise the agency's current interpretation of statutory and regulatory requirements.
Because of regulatory and program approval delays, state and local agencies were slow to begin issuing Title V permits, falling far short of statutory deadlines and EPA's goals. According to an EPA Inspector General report, key factors that delayed issuance of permits included insufficient state resources, complex EPA rules and limited guidance, and conflicting state priorities. Now, however, most initial permits have been issued, and permit reissuance (required after five years) and modification have replaced issuance of initial permits as the major ongoing task of permitting agencies.
Attention to the Title V program increased in 2010 when EPA initiated several controversial regulatory actions to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) under existing CAA authority with implications for Title V permits. For Title V, these actions mean including GHG control requirements in Title V permits issued for non-GHG. To minimize the costs and administrative burden of its GHG regulations, EPA issued a "Tailoring Rule" to impose requirements only on the largest sources of GHG emissions. In June 2014, the Supreme Court found that EPA exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the Tailoring Rule but upheld the agency's authority to require sources that already need permits for conventional pollutant emissions to comply with CAA requirements for GHGs.
Most stakeholders agree that at least some of the benefits of Title V identified by Congress in the 1990 CAA amendments have been achieved, such as incorporation of applicable air pollution control requirements in a single document that is accessible to regulators, the public, and industrial sources. At the same time, there also has been widespread dissatisfaction with the program's complexity, costs, and confusing requirements. Many believe that a lack of EPA guidance and oversight has contributed greatly to implementation problems. Congressional examination of Title V has been limited to a few oversight hearings, but none recently. Clean Air Act issues have been of considerable interest during the 114th Congress, especially scrutiny of EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Although EPA's actions concerning GHGs involve multiple provisions of the act, this congressional attention has not included Title V.