BOARD MEETING DATE: April 10, 1998 AGENDA NO. 2

BOARD MEETING DATE: April 10, 1998 AGENDA NO. 2

PROPOSAL:

Set Public Hearing May 8, 1998, to Amend Regulation III - Fees

SYNOPSIS:

Proposed amendments adjust fees equivalent to the change in the California Consumer Price Index for 1997. Other potential amendments include cost-of-service adjustments, and include reducing some discounts; providing a time-and-materials fee for Title V permit issuance; voluntary fees for expedited permit processing; fees for amendments to Regulation XVI Plans; notification fees for asbestos and lead demolition/renovation projects; adjusting Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) fees for perchloroethylene, and TAC fees for benzene and VOC emission fees for transfer, storage, and dispensing of gasoline at retail and bulk loading facilities; reduction of certain protocol evaluation fees; return to higher processing fee for applications for permit to operate without first obtaining a permit to construct; and other administrative corrections.

COMMITTEE:

Finance, Scheduled for Review April 3, 1998; Administrative, Scheduled for Review April 17, 1998.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Set Public Hearing May 8, 1998, to amend Regulation III - Fees.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Acting Executive Officer

Background

California Health and Safety Code §§40500, et seq, established AQMD’s authority to adopt rules and regulations, including fee schedules intended to cover AQMD’s actual costs in cleaning the air. The following eight rules, which set fees for the issuance of variances and permits to stationary sources, compliance monitoring and testing, review of emission control plans, and regulation of indirect and area sources, are potentially proposed for amendment:

Rule 301 - Permit Fees

Rule 303 - Hearing Board Fees

Rule 304 - Equipment, Materials and Ambient Air Analysis

Rule 304.1 - Analysis Fees

Rule 306 - Plan Fees

Rule 307 - Fees for Air Toxic Emissions Inventory

Rule 308 - Transportation Plan Fees

Rule 309 - Fees for Regulation XVI Plans

California Health & Safety Code §§40510, 40510.5, and 40523 authorize AQMD to increase fees consistent with annual increases in the California Consumer Price Index (CPI). [ Larger increases are allowed for individual fees only if the Board finds that the increase is necessary and will result in an equitable apportionment of fees, and if the increase is spread over two years.] The change in the California CPI applicable to the year 1997 is 2.2%. To maintain revenues required to support AQMD’s legally-mandated functions of achieving and maintaining health-based state and federal air quality standards, a broad-based fee increase for applicable Regulation III rules equal to the change in the California CPI is necessary. Because AQMD revenues are decreasing, the aggregate effect of this proposed increase will not exceed the statutory fee cap on revenue generated.

Other proposed changes more equitably align fees with the levels of effort required to perform the tasks with which they are associated, consistent with requirements of Health & Safety Code §§40510 and 40510.5 as amended pursuant to 1995’s SB 962 (Russell).

Proposed Amendments

Proposed amendments include an across-the-board 2.2% fee increase for most rules, consistent with the California CPI applicable to the year 1997, proposed increases to more nearly recover AQMD costs, as well as general administrative language clarifications.

Rule 301 - Permit Fees

Rule 301 continues to tie permit processing fees, annual operating permit fees, and annual emission-based fees to the complexity of compliance review required and the emission potential of the equipment/process to be permitted. Possible changes to Rule 301 include:

(1)

Increase fees 2.2%, equivalent to the change in the California CPI for 1997.

(2)

Replace the definition of "Similar Equipment" with that of "Identical Equipment", and reduce the discount for Identical Equipment from 75% to 50%. Only those permit applications for identical equipment which are submitted at the same time in the same submittal package are eligible for this discount. Based on previous submittals, an estimated 1,300 of 11,000 applications received annually (12%) would be eligible for the identical equipment discount, while some 700 similar equipment applications would receive no discount as a result of the change in definition. In practice, similar equipment proved not to result in lower processing costs than different equipment. Analysis has shown that a substantial portion of costs incurred in processing permits for similar equipment was not recovered. This proposal will enable AQMD to recover costs associated with concurrent and subsequent processing of identical permit units. Even though the workload for identical subsequent permits is reduced, it is still significant and a fee of 25% of the regular fee is too low to cover the level of effort required.

(3)

Eliminate the use of multiple discounts. Some permit applicants claim both the 50% small business discount and the 75% discount for similar equipment. This means the second application fee is only one-eighth the regular fee schedule which is not enough to cover costs. This proposal would allow qualifying applicants to claim any one, but only one, discount per transaction. Although few permit applications were processed with multiple discounts last year, the resulting simplified process will improve application process flow as well as adjust fees to more nearly recover costs.

(4)

Assess full fees for each device installed and operated in series. Two equipment devices are sometimes installed and operated in series to avoid installing a more costly single device. Some operators may install air pollution control devices in series to improve collection efficiency. For example, many soil vapor extraction installations use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer followed in series by the installation of a carbon adsorption unit. Other carbon absorbers may have a second adsorber in line to protect against breakthrough. For several years, there has been a discount allowed for such multiple devices. However, this has not resulted in full cost recovery. Multiple control devices operating in a system are more complex than those same devices operating separately. Permit application processing time and supervisory review and approval procedures are also more complex. There is no labor savings in evaluating these permit application types, since the emission reduction contributions of each device must be evaluated separately.

(5)

Restore the higher processing fee from 15% to 50% for failing to obtain a Permit to Construct prior to installing and operating permittable equipment. Sources that construct and begin operation without an AQMD permit receive an unfair tactical benefit. Not only do they avoid the initial payment of permit application processing fees, but they are excluded from subsequent assessment and payment of annual renewal fees because they are not represented in AQMD’s permitting database. Processing of an application for a Permit to Operate for a source operating without a Permit to Construct can be much more involved if the equipment has not been optimally designed to achieve regulatory compliance; thus, a higher fee is necessary. This fee was assessed at 50% until 1993 when it was reduced to 15%. A 15% higher fee for failing to obtain a permit does not begin to offset the benefits that sources gain by purposely failing to apply for a permit "up front". Restoring the fee assessed to 50% will provide a needed incentive for compliance, and recover costs for this more difficult type of permit processing.

(6)

Include a special handling fee of $25 for short notice notification of asbestos and lead renovation/demolition projects. This fee would apply to notifications of asbestos and lead renovation/demolition projects submitted in less than the required 14-day advance notification time, or when emergency activities are involved.
• Notifications received by mail or fax with less than 14 calendar days from a project start date require prompt screening, database input, and inspection because of the short term nature of temporary roving projects. Often, such notifications are received immediately prior to, if not after, the project start date and require immediate attention. As a result, other previously scheduled activities must be reprioritized and rescheduled to accommodate these activities.
• In addition, emergency projects require expedited handling of fax transmissions, review of an emergency justification letter, collection of fees, and matching all documentation to the original notification when received by mail, and the reprioritization and acceleration of inspection schedules.
• Notifications subject to the proposed special handling fee generate a high volume of questions and telephone calls that must be handled on an expedited basis. In addition, these projects require an accelerated inspection schedule , resulting in the last-minute reprioritization of assignments and rescheduling of AQMD staff.
Because current fees do not cover the added costs associated with the tracking and inspection of these projects on a priority basis, a special handling fee of $25 per notification is proposed to help recover at least a portion of these costs.

(7)

Revise the fee schedule for notification of asbestos and lead renovation/demolition activities based on the size and complexity of the project. Current fees are the same for all projects. This proposed revision reflects current notification processing times and associated tracking and inspection costs, and consolidates notification fees for asbestos and lead renovation/demolition projects in one table (Table VI).
• Renovation notification fee: The current fee of $10.40 does not cover the cost of tracking and inspecting renovation projects < 1000 sq. ft. These projects often require multiple follow-up, generate a high frequency of complaints and require resolution of a number of health and safety issues. The original minimal notification fee adopted in July 1993 was intended to avoid creating a fee burden on single family residence notifications. Tracking and inspection costs were not included in this original assessment. The proposed fee increase will affect only renovation projects of < 1000 sq. ft, and will increase overall renovation notification fees by 12%. Three of the four proposed fees are lower than the average renovation notification fee of $196.70 assessed by other APCDs throughout the state. The highest fee of $288.30 is reserved for projects greater than 10,000 sq. ft.
• Demolition notification fee: The current fixed demolition notification fee of $26.20 was intended to avoid creating a fee burden on homeowners. Currently, other renovation fees subsidize the cost of determining compliance on these projects. Small residential renovations were not included in the original evaluation and assessment of notification fees. Likewise, the impact of large demolition projects was not taken into account in the original evaluation and assessment of demolition notification fees; thus, the cost for notification of a small garage was equal to that for notification of a large chemical plant, refinery, or aerospace facility. Large demolitions and associated environmental clean-up requiring multiple inspections often take months to complete. Such projects (e.g., military base closures, city redevelopment projects, aerospace facilities with multiple buildings) typically trigger a high frequency of complaints, raise environmental issues that must be resolved, and are often subject to multiple regulations.
A fee of $26.20 minimally covers the administrative burden of tracking and receiving notifications. However, it does not cover the level of effort and time and materials required to determine compliance. The proposed fees are for demolition, asbestos, and lead notifications, and are expected to cover:
• Inspection time and material costs.
• Level of effort required to determine compliance.
• Tracking and receiving of these notifications.
Proposed fees are based on:
• AQMD experience.
• Other APCD fees.
• An effort to maintain our fees lower than other APCDs.
• Simplifying fees by applying the same fee schedule to various project type notifications.
The projected average large demolition fee of $81 is 2.5 times less than the average demolition notification fee of $209 assessed by other APCDs throughout the state.

(8)

Increase fee for perchloroethylene from 21 to 25 cents per pound. When other TAC fees listed in Table IV were aligned with their relative potencies in 1996, fees for perchloroethylene were deliberately not modified due to the uncertainty that EPA would delist it as a VOC. Consumption of perchloroethylene has increased substantially in this region with its subsequent reclassification by EPA and AQMD as a non-VOC, and because it was not listed as a TAC in AQMD Rule 1401. The TAC fee for perchloroethylene supports several programs, including:
• Increased compliance activities (field inspections and records audits)
• Enhancement of the emission inventory for rulemaking and public nuisance abatement
• Development of an AB 2588 screening program for facility permitting
The use of perchloroethylene is subject to regulation as a toxic in dry cleaning and degreasing operations under Federal NESHAPs; however, the requirements of amended AQMD Rule 1421 (which incorporates the Air Toxic Control Measure [ATCM] and the NESHAP for dry cleaning operations) substantially decreased the use of this compound to an average level below the 4 tons per year threshold that would trigger submittal of EFB reports. Dry cleaners using perchloroethylene are currently exempt from fees if their emissions fall below 2 tons per year. In addition to degreasing, permitted operations that use perchloroethylene include film cleaning and masking operations. Applications such as hand-wiping and brake shoe cleaning are not permitted and thus are exempt from payment of fees for perchloroethylene use.
The proposed fee increase from $0.21/lb to $0.25/lb over a two-year period was based on the unit risk factor and fee rate ($0.05/lb) assessed in Table IV for methylene chloride. Perchloroethylene has a unit risk factor five times higher than that of methylene chloride; multiplying the relatively higher risk factor (5) for perchloroethylene and the fee for methylene chloride ($0.05/lb) yields the proposed perchloroethylene fee of $0.25/lb.

(9)

Assess VOC emission fees and Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) fees for the benzene present in gasoline via fuel throughput at retail gasoline dispensing facilities, bulk loading facilities, and transfer operations. Projected revenue will cover costs associated with increased inspection frequency resulting from recent AQMD Rule 461 audit findings as well as support these facilities’ share of indirect costs. Fees will also cover increased costs for tracking of emissions and compliance-related activities associated with AQMD Rule 462. Affected sources include retail gasoline service stations (VOC emissions) and bulk loading facilities (TAC fee for benzene). Projected revenue is based upon the following data:
• There are 4,100 retail service stations, 3,000 consumer accounts, and 12 bulk loading facilities located in the basin.
• Of the 6.15 billion gallons of gasoline dispensed annually in the basin, approximately 5.53 billion gallons (90%) are dispensed by retail service stations. Potential revenue generated from VOC emissions @ 5,525 tons per year x $281/ton = $1,552,806 per year. Facilities producing less than 1 ton per year of VOC will be assessed a prorated fee based on the one ton rate.
• Potential revenue generated from benzene emissions is based on 1% of the determined VOC emissions, and is calculated @ 47 tons per year x $1.00/lb = $94,000 per year
• Proposed fees to be assessed per facility include:
- $485 per year for retail service stations (benzene and VOC)
- $7,800 per year for bulk loading facilities (benzene)
• Total projected revenue from retail service stations and bulk loading facilities = $1,600,000. The potential effects on individually owned service stations need further evaluation prior to issuance of the final Board package and will be conducted by staff.
Revenues generated from these fees will support the following compliance activities:
• Annual inspections
• Random testing (leak decay tests, A/L [air-to-liquid ratio] tests, back pressure tests) of control equipment efficiency
• Auditing and review of required testing of facilities pursuant to new requirements in AQMD Rule 461
• Evaluating reports of throughput provided by sources.

(10)

Create a tiered Title V fee structure to assess:
• An initial Title V filing fee, based upon the number of devices covered by the permit. This fee is lower than the average processing time for facilities of that size and represents an uncomplicated permit of that size.
• "Time and materials" charges for time spent beyond the expected processing time, based upon a typical uncomplicated permit, for the applicable tier.
Existing Title V fees do not recover the costs of processing Title V permits. The Federal Clean Air Act § 502 (b)(3)(A) requires full recovery of Title V costs from permit fees. This program addresses this issue. This modified fee structure will enable AQMD to recover the substantial costs incurred during the processing of Title V permits. Additional costs will be recovered by increasing fees for processing smaller (one to five devices) Title V permits which, for Group A Title V permit applications processed to date, have cost AQMD on average $1,400 more per permit than the $786.50 application fee charged for the simpler permits and even more for larger facilities. Proposed fees increase dependent on the number of devices per facility to approximate actual permit processing costs. Fee increases would be phased in over a two-year period. This item will also be further evaluated for possible impacts on small businesses.

(11)

Change Digester Gas-Fired Boilers from Schedule D to Schedule B. The existing Schedule D fee for digester-gas fired boilers overcharges the source for the required permitting work. The change to Schedule B is more in line with the permit processing time required.

(12)

Establish fees for review and issuance of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) analysis, notices and public hearing. Assessment of the following fees is intended to offset the cost of additional processing time and effort required for Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate evaluations when Prevention of Significant Deterioration analysis is required.

PSD Analysis $80.30 per hour for time spent
PSD Notification Cost to be passed on directly to applicant
PSD Public Hearing $1606 plus $535.30 per hour or any portion thereof (equivalent to the Title V fee for public hearings, based on the projected staff costs of conducting the hearings)

(13)

Establish a fee category (Schedule A) for open-air resin operations. Although Rule 301 currently allows the processing of equipment types not listed in the fee scheduled to be charged at Schedule C, staff has determined Schedule A (i.e., fee decrease) to be the appropriate fee level for this type of operation.

(14)

Create a new category of equipment that will be assessed registration and annual renewal fees in lieu of permit fees. [ This category will be removed from Proposed Amended Rule 301 and placed in Proposed Rule 312 prior to May 8, 1998.] This new equipment category initially is proposed to include negative air machines and charbroilers and their associated air pollution control equipment at commercial eating establishments, but may potentially include other equipment exempt from permits under Rule 219. Registration and annual renewal fees assessed for equipment within this proposed new category will be lower than permit fees which would otherwise be assessed.

(15)

Assess Schedule A fees for permit applications submitted for previously exempt equipment under Rule 219 (clean-up only).

(16)

Provide voluntary express application processing for permit applicants who elect to pay AQMD overtime rates for expedited service. The work will be done by staff during straight overtime hours.

Rule 303 - Hearing Board Fees

Rule 304 - Equipment, Materials, and Ambient Air Analyses

Rule 304.1 - Analysis Fees

Rule 306 - Plan Fees

Proposed amendments will:

(1)

Increase fees 2.2%, equivalent to the change in the California CPI for 1997.

(2)

Remove references to FY 97-98 and FY 98-99 designations in Table I since the second year of required two-year phase-in has occurred.

(3)

More equitably capture fees for source test protocols and report evaluations as a function of their relative complexity.

Rule 307 - Fees for Air Toxics Emissions Inventory

Proposed amendments will add a new paragraph to the rule to establish a fee for the AB 2588 Health Risk Assessment performed by AQMD contractors as part of a voluntary pilot program. These fees will not be increased by the CPI. This fee was formerly found in Rule 307.1.

Rule 308 - On-Road Motor Vehicles Mitigation Options Fees

Proposed amendments will increase fees 2.2%, equivalent to the change in the California CPI for 1997.

Regulation 309 - Fees for Regulation XVI Plans

Proposed amendments will:

(1)

Increase fees 2.2%, equivalent to the change in the California CPI for 1997.

(2)

Expand applicability to include project plans and Rule 1613 Truck Stop Electrification applications and expand fee assessment routines to include expanded applicability.

(3)

Assess a fee for amendments to Regulation XVI Plans ($80.33/hr).

(4)

Include fees for amendments to plans and applications.

(5)

Provide for cancellation of projects initiated under the expanded applicability of this rule.

CEQA & Socioeconomic Analysis

Proposed rule amendments seek to increase AQMD fees for various services by 2.2%, consistent with the California CPI applicable for the year 1997. These amendments are categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines. For this reason, proposed rule amendments have been determined to be exempt from CEQA requirements.

A preliminary draft socioeconomic assessment is attached. However, further impact analysis will be included in the Final Staff Report.

A Notice of Exemption is being prepared for the project pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15273 - Rates, Tolls, Fares and Charges, and will be included in the Final Staff Report. The Notice of Exemption shall be filed with the county clerks immediately following the adoption of the proposed amendments.

Public and Board Review of Budget/Fee Options

The budget and fee options are available for public review and comment during the month of April and will be discussed at two Board committee meetings (Finance and Administrative) and two workshops, one for the public and one for the Governing Board scheduled for March 31, and April 23, respectively. A final staff proposal, which may include significant changes based on comments from the public and Board, will be presented for adoption at a public hearing scheduled for May 8, 1998.

Attachments

Summary of Proposed Regulation III Amendments

Rule Development Flowchart

Summary of Key Contacts

Proposed Amended Rules 301, 303, 304, 304.1, 306, 307, 308, and 309

Draft Staff Report

/ / /

This page updated: July 22, 2010
URL: http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/1998/98042a.html

(1)	Increase fees 2.2%, equivalent to the change in the California CPI for 1997.
(2)	Replace the definition of "Similar Equipment" with that of "Identical Equipment", and reduce the discount for Identical Equipment from 75% to 50%. Only those permit applications for identical equipment which are submitted at the same time in the same submittal package are eligible for this discount. Based on previous submittals, an estimated 1,300 of 11,000 applications received annually (12%) would be eligible for the identical equipment discount, while some 700 similar equipment applications would receive no discount as a result of the change in definition. In practice, similar equipment proved not to result in lower processing costs than different equipment. Analysis has shown that a substantial portion of costs incurred in processing permits for similar equipment was not recovered. This proposal will enable AQMD to recover costs associated with concurrent and subsequent processing of identical permit units. Even though the workload for identical subsequent permits is reduced, it is still significant and a fee of 25% of the regular fee is too low to cover the level of effort required.
(3)	Eliminate the use of multiple discounts. Some permit applicants claim both the 50% small business discount and the 75% discount for similar equipment. This means the second application fee is only one-eighth the regular fee schedule which is not enough to cover costs. This proposal would allow qualifying applicants to claim any one, but only one, discount per transaction. Although few permit applications were processed with multiple discounts last year, the resulting simplified process will improve application process flow as well as adjust fees to more nearly recover costs.
(4)	Assess full fees for each device installed and operated in series. Two equipment devices are sometimes installed and operated in series to avoid installing a more costly single device. Some operators may install air pollution control devices in series to improve collection efficiency. For example, many soil vapor extraction installations use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer followed in series by the installation of a carbon adsorption unit. Other carbon absorbers may have a second adsorber in line to protect against breakthrough. For several years, there has been a discount allowed for such multiple devices. However, this has not resulted in full cost recovery. Multiple control devices operating in a system are more complex than those same devices operating separately. Permit application processing time and supervisory review and approval procedures are also more complex. There is no labor savings in evaluating these permit application types, since the emission reduction contributions of each device must be evaluated separately.
(5)	Restore the higher processing fee from 15% to 50% for failing to obtain a Permit to Construct prior to installing and operating permittable equipment. Sources that construct and begin operation without an AQMD permit receive an unfair tactical benefit. Not only do they avoid the initial payment of permit application processing fees, but they are excluded from subsequent assessment and payment of annual renewal fees because they are not represented in AQMD’s permitting database. Processing of an application for a Permit to Operate for a source operating without a Permit to Construct can be much more involved if the equipment has not been optimally designed to achieve regulatory compliance; thus, a higher fee is necessary. This fee was assessed at 50% until 1993 when it was reduced to 15%. A 15% higher fee for failing to obtain a permit does not begin to offset the benefits that sources gain by purposely failing to apply for a permit "up front". Restoring the fee assessed to 50% will provide a needed incentive for compliance, and recover costs for this more difficult type of permit processing.
(6)	Include a special handling fee of $25 for short notice notification of asbestos and lead renovation/demolition projects. This fee would apply to notifications of asbestos and lead renovation/demolition projects submitted in less than the required 14-day advance notification time, or when emergency activities are involved. • Notifications received by mail or fax with less than 14 calendar days from a project start date require prompt screening, database input, and inspection because of the short term nature of temporary roving projects. Often, such notifications are received immediately prior to, if not after, the project start date and require immediate attention. As a result, other previously scheduled activities must be reprioritized and rescheduled to accommodate these activities. • In addition, emergency projects require expedited handling of fax transmissions, review of an emergency justification letter, collection of fees, and matching all documentation to the original notification when received by mail, and the reprioritization and acceleration of inspection schedules. • Notifications subject to the proposed special handling fee generate a high volume of questions and telephone calls that must be handled on an expedited basis. In addition, these projects require an accelerated inspection schedule , resulting in the last-minute reprioritization of assignments and rescheduling of AQMD staff. Because current fees do not cover the added costs associated with the tracking and inspection of these projects on a priority basis, a special handling fee of $25 per notification is proposed to help recover at least a portion of these costs.
(7)	Revise the fee schedule for notification of asbestos and lead renovation/demolition activities based on the size and complexity of the project. Current fees are the same for all projects. This proposed revision reflects current notification processing times and associated tracking and inspection costs, and consolidates notification fees for asbestos and lead renovation/demolition projects in one table (Table VI). • Renovation notification fee: The current fee of $10.40 does not cover the cost of tracking and inspecting renovation projects < 1000 sq. ft. These projects often require multiple follow-up, generate a high frequency of complaints and require resolution of a number of health and safety issues. The original minimal notification fee adopted in July 1993 was intended to avoid creating a fee burden on single family residence notifications. Tracking and inspection costs were not included in this original assessment. The proposed fee increase will affect only renovation projects of < 1000 sq. ft, and will increase overall renovation notification fees by 12%. Three of the four proposed fees are lower than the average renovation notification fee of $196.70 assessed by other APCDs throughout the state. The highest fee of $288.30 is reserved for projects greater than 10,000 sq. ft. • Demolition notification fee: The current fixed demolition notification fee of $26.20 was intended to avoid creating a fee burden on homeowners. Currently, other renovation fees subsidize the cost of determining compliance on these projects. Small residential renovations were not included in the original evaluation and assessment of notification fees. Likewise, the impact of large demolition projects was not taken into account in the original evaluation and assessment of demolition notification fees; thus, the cost for notification of a small garage was equal to that for notification of a large chemical plant, refinery, or aerospace facility. Large demolitions and associated environmental clean-up requiring multiple inspections often take months to complete. Such projects (e.g., military base closures, city redevelopment projects, aerospace facilities with multiple buildings) typically trigger a high frequency of complaints, raise environmental issues that must be resolved, and are often subject to multiple regulations. A fee of $26.20 minimally covers the administrative burden of tracking and receiving notifications. However, it does not cover the level of effort and time and materials required to determine compliance. The proposed fees are for demolition, asbestos, and lead notifications, and are expected to cover: • Inspection time and material costs. • Level of effort required to determine compliance. • Tracking and receiving of these notifications. Proposed fees are based on: • AQMD experience. • Other APCD fees. • An effort to maintain our fees lower than other APCDs. • Simplifying fees by applying the same fee schedule to various project type notifications. The projected average large demolition fee of $81 is 2.5 times less than the average demolition notification fee of $209 assessed by other APCDs throughout the state.
(8)	Increase fee for perchloroethylene from 21 to 25 cents per pound. When other TAC fees listed in Table IV were aligned with their relative potencies in 1996, fees for perchloroethylene were deliberately not modified due to the uncertainty that EPA would delist it as a VOC. Consumption of perchloroethylene has increased substantially in this region with its subsequent reclassification by EPA and AQMD as a non-VOC, and because it was not listed as a TAC in AQMD Rule 1401. The TAC fee for perchloroethylene supports several programs, including: • Increased compliance activities (field inspections and records audits) • Enhancement of the emission inventory for rulemaking and public nuisance abatement • Development of an AB 2588 screening program for facility permitting The use of perchloroethylene is subject to regulation as a toxic in dry cleaning and degreasing operations under Federal NESHAPs; however, the requirements of amended AQMD Rule 1421 (which incorporates the Air Toxic Control Measure [ATCM] and the NESHAP for dry cleaning operations) substantially decreased the use of this compound to an average level below the 4 tons per year threshold that would trigger submittal of EFB reports. Dry cleaners using perchloroethylene are currently exempt from fees if their emissions fall below 2 tons per year. In addition to degreasing, permitted operations that use perchloroethylene include film cleaning and masking operations. Applications such as hand-wiping and brake shoe cleaning are not permitted and thus are exempt from payment of fees for perchloroethylene use. The proposed fee increase from $0.21/lb to $0.25/lb over a two-year period was based on the unit risk factor and fee rate ($0.05/lb) assessed in Table IV for methylene chloride. Perchloroethylene has a unit risk factor five times higher than that of methylene chloride; multiplying the relatively higher risk factor (5) for perchloroethylene and the fee for methylene chloride ($0.05/lb) yields the proposed perchloroethylene fee of $0.25/lb.
(9)	Assess VOC emission fees and Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) fees for the benzene present in gasoline via fuel throughput at retail gasoline dispensing facilities, bulk loading facilities, and transfer operations. Projected revenue will cover costs associated with increased inspection frequency resulting from recent AQMD Rule 461 audit findings as well as support these facilities’ share of indirect costs. Fees will also cover increased costs for tracking of emissions and compliance-related activities associated with AQMD Rule 462. Affected sources include retail gasoline service stations (VOC emissions) and bulk loading facilities (TAC fee for benzene). Projected revenue is based upon the following data: • There are 4,100 retail service stations, 3,000 consumer accounts, and 12 bulk loading facilities located in the basin. • Of the 6.15 billion gallons of gasoline dispensed annually in the basin, approximately 5.53 billion gallons (90%) are dispensed by retail service stations. Potential revenue generated from VOC emissions @ 5,525 tons per year x $281/ton = $1,552,806 per year. Facilities producing less than 1 ton per year of VOC will be assessed a prorated fee based on the one ton rate. • Potential revenue generated from benzene emissions is based on 1% of the determined VOC emissions, and is calculated @ 47 tons per year x $1.00/lb = $94,000 per year • Proposed fees to be assessed per facility include: - $485 per year for retail service stations (benzene and VOC) - $7,800 per year for bulk loading facilities (benzene) • Total projected revenue from retail service stations and bulk loading facilities = $1,600,000. The potential effects on individually owned service stations need further evaluation prior to issuance of the final Board package and will be conducted by staff. Revenues generated from these fees will support the following compliance activities: • Annual inspections • Random testing (leak decay tests, A/L [air-to-liquid ratio] tests, back pressure tests) of control equipment efficiency • Auditing and review of required testing of facilities pursuant to new requirements in AQMD Rule 461 • Evaluating reports of throughput provided by sources.
(10)	Create a tiered Title V fee structure to assess: • An initial Title V filing fee, based upon the number of devices covered by the permit. This fee is lower than the average processing time for facilities of that size and represents an uncomplicated permit of that size. • "Time and materials" charges for time spent beyond the expected processing time, based upon a typical uncomplicated permit, for the applicable tier. Existing Title V fees do not recover the costs of processing Title V permits. The Federal Clean Air Act § 502 (b)(3)(A) requires full recovery of Title V costs from permit fees. This program addresses this issue. This modified fee structure will enable AQMD to recover the substantial costs incurred during the processing of Title V permits. Additional costs will be recovered by increasing fees for processing smaller (one to five devices) Title V permits which, for Group A Title V permit applications processed to date, have cost AQMD on average $1,400 more per permit than the $786.50 application fee charged for the simpler permits and even more for larger facilities. Proposed fees increase dependent on the number of devices per facility to approximate actual permit processing costs. Fee increases would be phased in over a two-year period. This item will also be further evaluated for possible impacts on small businesses.
(11)	Change Digester Gas-Fired Boilers from Schedule D to Schedule B. The existing Schedule D fee for digester-gas fired boilers overcharges the source for the required permitting work. The change to Schedule B is more in line with the permit processing time required.
(12)	Establish fees for review and issuance of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) analysis, notices and public hearing. Assessment of the following fees is intended to offset the cost of additional processing time and effort required for Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate evaluations when Prevention of Significant Deterioration analysis is required. PSD Analysis $80.30 per hour for time spent PSD Notification Cost to be passed on directly to applicant PSD Public Hearing $1606 plus $535.30 per hour or any portion thereof (equivalent to the Title V fee for public hearings, based on the projected staff costs of conducting the hearings)
(13)	Establish a fee category (Schedule A) for open-air resin operations. Although Rule 301 currently allows the processing of equipment types not listed in the fee scheduled to be charged at Schedule C, staff has determined Schedule A (i.e., fee decrease) to be the appropriate fee level for this type of operation.
(14)	Create a new category of equipment that will be assessed registration and annual renewal fees in lieu of permit fees. [ This category will be removed from Proposed Amended Rule 301 and placed in Proposed Rule 312 prior to May 8, 1998.] This new equipment category initially is proposed to include negative air machines and charbroilers and their associated air pollution control equipment at commercial eating establishments, but may potentially include other equipment exempt from permits under Rule 219. Registration and annual renewal fees assessed for equipment within this proposed new category will be lower than permit fees which would otherwise be assessed.
(15)	Assess Schedule A fees for permit applications submitted for previously exempt equipment under Rule 219 (clean-up only).
(16)	Provide voluntary express application processing for permit applicants who elect to pay AQMD overtime rates for expedited service. The work will be done by staff during straight overtime hours.

(1)	Increase fees 2.2%, equivalent to the change in the California CPI for 1997.
(2)	Remove references to FY 97-98 and FY 98-99 designations in Table I since the second year of required two-year phase-in has occurred.

(1)	Increase fees 2.2%, equivalent to the change in the California CPI for 1997.
(2)	Remove references to FY 97-98 and FY 98-99 designations in Table I since the second year of required two-year phase-in has occurred.
(3)	More equitably capture fees for source test protocols and report evaluations as a function of their relative complexity.

(1)	Increase fees 2.2%, equivalent to the change in the California CPI for 1997.
(2)	Expand applicability to include project plans and Rule 1613 Truck Stop Electrification applications and expand fee assessment routines to include expanded applicability.
(3)	Assess a fee for amendments to Regulation XVI Plans ($80.33/hr).
(4)	Include fees for amendments to plans and applications.
(5)	Provide for cancellation of projects initiated under the expanded applicability of this rule.