One of the primary goals of the Clean Air Act (CAA) is to "encourage or otherwise promote reasonable Federal, State, and local governmental actions . . . for pollution prevention." In designing its air operating permit program pursuant to the CAA, the State of Washington acted reasonably when it decided not to require monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping of air emissions deemed to be insignificant Washington's decision was in harmony with the regulations, policy guidelines, and prior and subsequent approvals of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). When the EPA failed to approve Washington's permit program, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that EPA abused its discretion in Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. EPA.( Charles H. Knauss (1993)) In Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress created a comprehensive air operating permit program for all major stationary sources of air pollution. Title V requires EPA to promulgate regulations implementing the permit program. These regulations, passed in July 1992, establish the minimum requirements of a state's air operating permit program, addressing permits, monitoring and reporting requirements, and fees to cover the cost of the programs. States failing to implement the required permit program by the statutory deadlines are subject to mandatory sanctions, including the loss of federal highway funds.( Charles H. Knauss (1993))
While Title V does not add any substantive new requirements, it requires all new and existing major sources to obtain permits from state air pollution control agencies. EPA regulations require that the permit application for a facility list all emission units, except for emission units deemed insignificant as defined by the state permitting authority. The current EPA guidelines for insignificant emission units (IEUs) make it clear that a state has broad discretion in determining permit application and permit requirements for small equipment and activities............
