# Identify Issues In Draft Permit Application > Guides preparation of a Title V permit application issues memorandum by identifying legal, technical, and data deficiencies in a draft application that could result in agency rejection, permit conditions adverse to the facility, or compliance risk. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-draft-permit-application` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-draft-permit-application` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-draft-permit-application/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-draft-permit-application --- # Skill: Identify Issues in Draft Title V Permit Application for Specialty Plastics Manufacturing Facility ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat the draft application as a regulated filing package, not a standalone form. - Separate what is required by the permit application rules from what is only helpful background. - Identify whether the package involves one source, multiple emission units, or multiple regulatory pathways; if only one pathway is actually in scope, say so expressly before analyzing. - Prioritize issues that could drive rejection, incomplete-submission findings, adverse permit conditions, or incorrect source-status classification. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Baseline reviews the application form without cross-checking against the supporting technical record and regulatory summary to identify inconsistencies and technical deficiencies. - Baseline does not assess whether the corporate organization chart has been used to identify the correct responsible corporate entity for certification and compliance purposes. - Baseline treats the application as a standalone document rather than measuring it against the governing air permitting requirements that define what must be disclosed. - Baseline omits the compliance monitoring and testing plan as a source of inconsistency with the application’s emission-limit representations. - Baseline describes a defect but does not tie it to the governing rule, the interacting document, and the practical consequence. - Baseline fails to distinguish defects that are purely clerical from defects that may change source status, applicable requirements, or permit limits. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Title V operating permit requirements under Clean Air Act Title V and implementing state permitting rules govern completeness, disclosure, and certification. - The application must identify each applicable requirement for each relevant emission unit, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting obligations. - Responsible Official certification must satisfy the applicable air permitting definition; corporate structure and authority documents control who may certify. - Emissions calculations must be documented with clear methodology, input assumptions, and control assumptions; errors may affect potential-to-emit, major source status, and fee or applicability determinations. - Compliance certification must disclose compliance status for each applicable requirement and identify any deviations or unresolved noncompliance where required by law. - RACT analysis, where applicable, must be supported by source-category-specific technical analysis and reflected consistently across the application package. - State-specific air permitting rules may add more stringent or more detailed requirements than the federal Title V minimum. - The controlling authority for each issue should be named at the point of analysis; do not state a rule-based conclusion without citing the rule, statute, or regulation supporting it. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Review the application form against the regulatory requirements summary: identify every required element that is missing, internally inconsistent, or insufficiently supported. - Cross-reference emission calculations against the technical support materials: test throughput, emission factor, control efficiency, and operating-hour assumptions for consistency. - Review the compliance monitoring and testing plan against the application’s limits and representations: flag mismatches in parameter selection, frequency, or method. - Review the RACT discussion against the emission-unit inventory: determine whether each potentially applicable unit was analyzed and whether the conclusion follows from the technical record. - Review the corporate organization chart and certification pages together: verify that the named certifier fits the responsible-official definition and has authority to sign for the facility. - Review the cover letter and narrative summaries against the application form and technical attachments: flag any characterization that narrows, expands, or redefines the source beyond the operative forms. - Review the package as a set of interacting documents: if one document corrects or contradicts another, identify the conflict and state which document should be conformed. - For each issue, state: the application section, the governing authority, the deficiency, the document interaction, the downstream consequence, and the recommended correction. - Where an issue involves a quantity, limit, or threshold in the source documents, anchor the analysis to that figure rather than using abstract language. - If multiple emission units, pollutants, periods, or regulated programs are implicated, analyze each separately rather than collapsing them into one generalized point. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Emission calculation → potential-to-emit → major source status: calculation errors can change whether Title V applies and can alter the scope of required disclosures. - Applicability determination → monitoring and testing obligations: an incomplete applicability analysis can omit required monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting terms. - RACT analysis → applicable requirements list: a weak RACT conclusion can leave required limits or controls out of the application. - Corporate authority → certification validity → filing completeness: a defective certifying officer designation can make the application vulnerable to rejection or resubmission. - Federal baseline → state-specific overlay: the more stringent rule controls for the affected aspect of the application. - Technical attachment → form entry → narrative summary: inconsistencies among these layers are often the fastest route to an incomplete or misleading filing. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Draft the deliverable as an issue memorandum with a short executive summary, a grouped issue analysis, a compact issues table, and a final recommended actions section. - Define one ordinal severity scale at the top and apply it uniformly to every issue entry; use the same labels throughout. - For each issue entry, include: severity, application section, governing authority, deficiency, linked document or schedule, consequence if not corrected, and recommended fix. - Make the consequence concrete: identify whether the risk is rejection, permit condition tightening, compliance exposure, delayed issuance, or inaccurate source classification. - Do not rely on conclusory labels alone; every legal conclusion must be tied to the cited authority. - End with an explicit Recommended Actions section that assigns the action to the relevant role and gives a timing anchor tied to the filing or resubmission milestone. - Use industry-conventional memorandum headings rather than mirroring any hidden checklist language. - Keep the memo focused on operative defects and revision priorities; avoid background exposition that does not advance the correction plan.