United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/2-81-003
September 1981
Air
Permit Fee Guideline
-------
EPA-450/2-81-003
Permit Fee Guideline
Joseph Sableski, Dan deRoeck, Kevin Hannon,
and Ray Freeman
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Control Programs Development Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1981
-------
OAQPS GUIDELINE
The guideline is being issued by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide information to state and
local air pollution control agencies. Reports published in this
series will be available — as supplies permit -- from the Library
Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a nominal
fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-81-003
-------
PERMIT FEE GUIDELINE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................ -. ............... ]
2.0 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PERMIT FEES .................... 2
2.1 Requirement for Permit Fees ........................ 2
2.2 Legislative History ................................ 6
2.3 Relevant Court Cases ............................... 4
3.0 COSTS COVERED BY PERMIT FEES ............................ 6
3.1 Costs of Issuing and Implementing Permits .......... 6
3.2 Costs of Determining Compliance .................... /
3.3 Costs of Court Action Excluded ..................... /
IMPLEMENTATION OF A FEE SYSTEM .......................... 8
4.1 Types of Fees ...................................... 8
4.1.1 Filing Fee .................................. 8
4.1.2 Construction Permit Fee ..................... 9
4.1.3 Annual Operating Fee ........................ 9
4.0
4.2 Assessment of Fees
4.3 Periodic Review and Adjustment of Fees
4.4 Fee Collection
4.5 Source Exemptions
APPENDIX I - NATIONAL STATUS OF PERMIT FEES .................. 14
APPENDIX II - EXAMPLES OF PERMIT FEE SYSTEMS ................. 18
1 . Michigan ........................................... Jjj
2 . Oregon ............................................. ^
3. Bay Area ........................................... ^'
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District ........ 22
5. Allegheny County ................................... 26
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
With the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments on August 7, 1977,
Congress set forth a requirement for States to collect fees for permits
granted to major stationary sources. Under a separate provision of the
Act, States have one year from the date of enactment of new or amended
Act requirements to revise their implementation plans accordingly. Many
States have not yet submitted the required revisions, in fact, approximately
half of the States do not have a permit fee system.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed this guideline
to assist States with the preparation of revisions to their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) which address the permit fee requirement.
The guideline is especially designed for agencies that have no functioning
fee system. However, agencies currently implementing fee systems may
find the document useful for evaluating and upgrading their existing
systems.
This guideline includes a review of the Clean Air Act requirement
for permit fees; legislative history and relevant court cases; costs to
be considered; basic program implementation considerations; and examples
of fee systems currently in effect around the country.
-------
2.0 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter reviews the Act requirement for permit fees as well as
the legislative history which identifies the Congressional intent for
the requirement. Also, relevant court cases which provide legal precedent
for certain fee-related issues are presented. For more detailed information,
particularly for past court decisions on fees, the reader should refer
to the actual document which is referenced in each instance.
2.1 REQUIREMENT FOR PERMIT FEES
Under S110(a)(2)(K) of the Act States are required to include a
permit fee system in their SIPs. To approve the SIPs with such provisions,
the Administrator of EPA must determine that
it [the SIP] requires the owner or operator of each major stationary
source to pay the permitting authority as a condition of any permit
required under this Act a fee sufficient to cover—
(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any
application for such a permit, and
Hi) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such
source whether before or after the date of enactment of this
subparagraph, the reasonable costs (incurred after such date
of enactment) of implementing and enforcing the terms and
conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs
or other costs associated with any enforcement action).
Permits are required under Part C (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality and Visibility Protection) and Part D (Plan
-------
Requirements for Nonattainment Areas) of the Act. Also, a permit or
equivalent program is required under Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act,
pertaining to attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality
standards and for the location of new sources to which a standard of
performance will apply. At a minimum, fees should be collected, for
permits required under the Act, from major stationary sources as defined
in Section 302(j) of the Act, and as further defined under Section
169(1) for prevention of significant deterioration, and Section 169A(g)(7)
for visibility protection.
2.2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Congress promulgated the provision for a permit fee system in
response to a 1976 EPA report2 which projected staff and funding as
being inadequate to establish and enforce revised SIPs. The House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce felt permit fees would
assist States in carrying out the new programs detailed in the Act
relating to new source review, prevention of significant deterioration,
and visibility protection. Moreover, the Committee believed fees would
assure that the costs of the permit program would be appropriately
internalized in the operating costs of emitting sources. By assuring
that all States implement permit fee requirements, the Committee intended
to prevent new industry from playing one State off against another in
siting decisions, and to create a marketplace incentive for industry to
3
use non-polluting processes and production methods. Although the
Senate had no such measure in its version of the bill, the conference
committee adopted the permit fee requirement.
-------
2.3 RELEVANT COURT CASES
The Supreme Court ruled in Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) for the
constitutionality of agency fee collection and upheld the rights of
local governments to adjust fees to reflect variations in the costs
incurred. The Court found
no constitutional ground for denying to local governments that
flexibility o£ adjustment of fees...in the light of varying
conditions...
EPA interprets this decision to allow agencies to collect permit
fees, and further allows permit fees to vary, based on different costs
incurred in permitting different sources or the same type of source
under different conditions.
A landmark decision concerning agency fee systems was handed down
in National Cabl£ TV Assru,,. Inc^ y^ Unvted States (1974).6 The Court
ruled that the correct fee-determining criterion under the intent of the
Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 is not the value of
"public policy or interest served...," but rather the "value to the
recipient" of a benefit received.7 The former, the Supreme Court said,
would take an agency out of its normal role and put it "in search of
o
revenue in the manner of an Appropriations Committee of the House."
The FCC should not charge CATV (Cable TV) operators the full cost of
regulatory programs, which would include "protective services rendered
to the public," but only the cost of services which "bestow a benefit on
the applicant not shared by other members of society."9 A sum in excess
of this would be a tax, which only Congress may levy. The Court did not
-------
strike down the fee, but remanded it to the FCC for recalculation. EPA
interprets this to apply to permit fees required under the Act. Costs
incurred by the agency which do not result in a benefit to the permit
applicant, or which accrue more benefit to society as a whole (such as
general air quality monitoring costs), cannot be assessed to the source.
The House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee took National
Cable into consideration and added the court cost exclusion clause
presumably to bring the section in line with the Court's ruling. The
House Committee also pointed out that setting a national fee requirement
is a proper exercise of Congressional Commerce power to guarantee that a
State with a fee system will not be penalized by industry locating
preferentially in a non-fee State.
-------
3.0 COSTS COVERED BY PERMIT FEES
The Act directs permitting authorities to charge fees sufficient to
cover costs of (1) reviewing and acting upon permit applications and (2)
implementing the terms and conditions of a permit once it is granted.
Considering the Act, its court cost exclusion clause, and the case of
National Cable v. United States, EPA feels that any cost which can be
linked to a "benefit bestowed on the applicant," (such as the privilege
of constructing or operating a source which emits air pollutants) may be
charged to the permittee within the structure of a fee system. Thus,
EPA believes that States may pass on to sources the following costs
associated with evaluating permit applications and verifying compliance
with the terms of approved permits.
3.1 COSTS OF ISSUING AND IMPLEMENTING PERMITS
The costs to the permitting authority related to issuing permits,
implementing their terms, and regularly renewing them may be charged to
the permittee. These costs should include attributable percentages of--
0 equipment (capital and operating costs)
0 supplies
0 overhead
0 clerical and bookkeeping services
0 administrative services
0 engineering evaluations
0 special purpose air quality monitoring and modeling
(pertaining to the permittee's application)
-------
3.2 COSTS OF DETERMINING COMPLIANCE
The costs associated with determining compliance with permit conditions
should include the costs of an emissions testing program, including
costs of --
0 stack sampling
0 laboratory analysis
0 site inspections
0 surveillance activities
3.3 COSTS OF COURT ACTION EXCLUDED
The Act specifically excludes "court costs or other costs associated
with any enforcement action" from the scope of the permit fee. "Court
costs" are normally understood to mean the fixed fees or charges required
to be paid to the courts or some of their officers. In addition, other
costs associated with litigating an enforcement action via the courts or
by administrative hearing, such as the cost for presenting witnesses,
cannot be assessed against the permittee except to the extent these
costs are recoverable under court order or other provision of law.
-------
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF A FEE SYSTEM
This chapter describes elements relating to the actual implementation
of a fee system. Where appropriate, recommendations are made as to how
States may design and implement their fee system. Appendix II reviews
some of the permit fee systems currently in effect.
4.1 TYPES OF FEES
States may exercise considerable flexibility in selecting the types
of fees they will use to recover permit-related expenses. Existing fee
systems demonstrate a number of possibilities whose merits should be
examined by agencies planning to initiate a new system. For example,
the South Coast Air Quality Management District in California administers
a six-part fee system, including a filing fee, construction fee, annual
renewal fee, annual emissions fee, hearing board fee, and an analysis
fee (for changes in a source's operating conditions). In contrast, the
fee system for the Allegheny County Health Department in Pennsylvania
includes only an installation (construction) permit fee and an operating
permit fee.
EPA recommends that States consider at least the following types of
fees to comply with the requirements of the Act:
4.1.1. Filing Fee
The filing fee should be a uniform, non-refundable fee designed to
cover the clerical and administrative costs for receiving and processing
the permit application. Typically, an application is logged in, checked
for completeness, assigned an identification number, and placed in a
folder to be accompanied by memoranda, correspondence and other information
-------
pertaining to the application. All the costs associated with these
activities should be taken into account when setting the filing fee.
4.1.2. Construction Permit Fee
The construction permit fee should cover the costs of administration
as well as any technical evaluation which must be performed before a
permit can be issued. This type of fee would apply to applications for
new source construction or for major modification of an existing source.
The technical evaluation must ensure that the applicant will comply with
regulations for control equipment, emission limitations, and ambient air
quality. The fee may also cover the cost of any impact analysis the
agency may have to perform. This type of fee should also include the
costs of issuing public notices or holding public hearings as well as
any other administrative and clerical costs of issuing the permit.
4.1.3. Annual Operating Fee
The annual operating fee should cover the costs of ongoing permit-
related activities occurring after the issuance of a construction permit.
This type of fee should include the cost of verifying that the source
complies with operating conditions in conjunction with the issuance of
the initial permit to operate. Also, since States must determine that
each source remains in compliance with applicable rules and regulations
throughout its operating life, expenses for periodic source surveillance,
onsite inspections, and emissions compliance tests should be recovered
by the annual operating fee.
It should also be noted that this fee is to be imposed on any major
stationary source subject to permits under the Act, even if the source
received a construction permit before the enactment of subparagraph
S110(a)(2)(1i) of the Act.
-------
4.2 ASSESSMENT OF FEES
It is possible to assess fees either before or after the actual
costs have been incurred. However, EPA recommends that agencies predetermine
their fees and publish them so that the applicants may be advised of
their permit costs in advance. This approach does have the disadvantage
of being less accurate than a case-by-case fee assessment since fees are
set on the basis of anticipated costs; however, setting fees in advance
should minimize the administrative burden of the permit program. Also
case-by-case assessments could lend themselves to the possibility of
litigation concerning an agency's exercise of discretion in setting a
unique fee for each permit.
The use of fee schedules is quite common. (Examples are included
in Appendix II.) The fee schedule generally includes a graduated scale
of fees based on the size and capacity of combustion equipment and
industrial processes. The graduated fees published in fee schedules
should be designed to reflect the agency's best estimates, of the costs
to process, review and issue permits, as well as the costs to implement
and enforce the conditions of the permits. In light of the new permit
requirements established under the Act, including PSD, visibility protection,
and new source construction in nonattainment areas, the differing costs
associated with carrying out the appropriate responsibilities under each
set of requirements should also be considered in establishing a graduated
scale of fees. However, many agencies having little or no experience
with such reviews at the present time may choose to wait until adequate
experience has been acquired before attempting such additional types of
fee assessments.
10
-------
4.3 PERIODIC REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT OF FEES
There is a well established precedent for adjusting fees to reflect
12
changing or differing costs. In Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing local governments the flexibility
of adjusting fees to reflect the varying costs of regulating differing
activities. Because of the complexities in assessing fees and the
rising costs associated with the operation of permit programs, EPA
recommends that each implementation plan include a procedure for the
periodic review of fees, as well as a mechanism for adjusting fees on an
annual basis. Adjustments should take into account the changes in costs
that occur due to inflation and other factors that cause program expenditures
to change. The Bay Area program, for instance, has the legal authority
to make adjustments based on changes in the cost-of-living index without
seeking additional authorization from the legislature. Such adjustments,
carried out annually, would allow agencies to keep their income in step
with inflation and would not necessitate such large changes as adjustments
made over a longer period.
4.4 FEE COLLECTION
The Act states that fees are to be paid "as a condition of any
permit required..." (emphasis added.) Thus, fees should be collected
before a permit is issued or renewed. Failure to remit an annual fee in
a timely manner may be considered a violation of the terms of the
permit.
One benefit of the system which includes both a filing fee and a
construction fee is that the filing fee can be required with the subrnittal
of the application and can be made nonrefundable, while the construction
11
-------
permit fee may be collected before the construction permit is issued,
but only if such a permit is approved. Such a policy may ease any
collection problems otherwise encountered.
Some agencies, such as the New York City agency, adjust renewal
dates on operating certificates (permits) within a given facility so
that all certificates expire on the same date. This allows the agency
to make only one inspection per year whereas several inspections might
have been otherwise required.
As permit fee systems are instituted, revenues of the State agencies
may increase significantly. It is not EPA's intent to decrease grants
to balance rising fee income. The Code of Federal Regulations in 40 CFR
30.620(c) defines fee revenue to be unrelated to grants. It states--
(c) Revenue generated under the governing powers of a State
or local government which may have been generated without grant
support is not considered grant related income. Such revenues
shall include fines or penalties levied under judicial or penal
power and used as means to enforce laws; license or permit fees for
the purpose of regulation, special assessment to abate nuisances
and public irritations, inspection fees, and taxes.
4.5 SOURCE EXEMPTIONS
It is not unusual for existing fee systems to provide exemptions
for governmental or other non-profit sources of air pollution. States
should recognize, however, that the Act requires a permit fee to be
assessed for each permit issued under the requirements of the Act. The
only provision for exemption is contained in the PSD requirements of
Part C, where nonprofit health or educational institutions are exempt
from permit requirements if they are exempted by the State.
Sources which are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government
should be subject to the same permit fee regulations and assessments as
non-governmental sources. This follows from Section 118 of the Act,
which provides that:
-------
Each department, agency, and instrumentality...of the Federal
government (1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility,
or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in
the discharge of air pollutants...shall be subject to, and comply
with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements,
administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting the
control and abatement of air pollution in the same manner, and to
the same extent as any non-governmental entity. The preceding
sentence shall apply (A) to...any requirement respecting permits...
13
-------
APPENDIX I
NATIONAL STATUS OF PERMIT FEES
Contacts with EPA Regional Offices, States and local agencies in
February, 1981, provided the following information on the national
status of permit fees. A summary is presented in Figure 1.
1. Region I. Maine has a permit fees system in operation.
New Hampshire has the authority to collect permit fees, but has no
system. Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island do not
have legislative authority to collect permit fees.
2. Region II. New York, New Jersey and Puerto Rico have operating
permit fees systems. The Virgin Islands have no authority to collect
permit fees. New Jersey collected approximately $85,000 in FY 1976,
$183,000 in FY 1977, $220,000 in FY 1978, and $168,000 in FY 1979.
Funds go directly to the agency. Fees may be adjusted administratively
after a public hearing. Ninety percent of all sources are required to
pay fees which have been 100% collectable.
3. Region III. The District of Columbia is in the process of
developing a permit fees system. Virginia has the authority to collect
permit fees, but has not developed a system. Neither West Virginia nor
Maryland, have legal authority to collect permit fees. Pennsylvania has
authority to collect fees, but a limit on the amount of fees does not
permit the agency to recover its full permit program costs. Both the
city of Philadelphia and Allegheny County operate permit fees systems.
4. Region IV. Florida collects a $20.00 filing fee. Alabama has
authority to collect fees on permits to construct, but have not used
this authority. Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina have
14
-------
legislative authority to collect fees, but have not developed systems.
Jefferson County in Kentucky, however, has a system operating under
State authority. Mississippi and South Carolina have no authority to
collect permit fees.
5- Region V. Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio have operating permit
fee systems. Wisconsin, and Illinois are currently developing systems.
The Illinois program was presented to the State's Budget Bureau in 1980.
Wisconsin has only recently received legislative authority to collect
permit fees and is studying fee systems now.
6. Region VI. Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana have the authority
to collect fees and are now developing systems. Louisiana has submitted
a proposed system to EPA which is now being reviewed. Oklahoma will
hold a public hearing in early 1981 regarding a request for authority to
collect fees. Arkansas does not have the authority to collect fees;
however, it has requested that authority from the legislature.
7. Region VII. Missouri has a new source filing fee and levies
additional amounts for each emission point. Nebraska charges a minimal
filing fee. Iowa and Kansas do not have authority to collect permit
fees.
8. Region VIII. Colorado has an operating permit fee system;
funds go to the State Health Department. North Dakota and Utah have
permit fee systems; funds go directly to the North Dakota agency.
Montana has legislative authority to collect fees, but has not developed
a system. Wyoming does not have authority to collect permit fees. Utah
and South Dakota both lack legislative authority; however, both plan to
request authority in the future.
15
-------
9. Region IX. Hawaii, California, Nevada, and Arizona operate
permit fee systems. Arizona collects $70,000 annually which returns to
the general fund. Counties also collect permit fees and many county
programs operate exclusively on permit fee revenue.
10. Region X. Alaska and Idaho do not have operating permit fee
systems. Washington is considering a permit fee system. Oregon collected
$560,000 on 2000 permits during FY 1979-81, which was 50% of the State's
compliance assurance budget. Printed invoices and computerization
facilitate collection.
16
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
APPENDIX II
EXAMPLES OF PERMIT FEE SYSTEMS
EPA has compiled the following summaries of permit fee systems
currently in use in two State and three local programs to illustrate the
different systems being used to collect revenue. Each of the systems
described has features which are worthy of consideration by those agencies
in the process of establishing or modifying a permit fee system of their
own.
1. Michigan
Under State law, the Air Pollution Control Commission (hereafter
the Commission) under the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
administers a Statewide surveillance fee system. Funds generated by
this system provide financial support for, among other activities, the
permit program. To avoid duplication, the State law provides that local
agencies may not assess any type of fee for their air pollution control
activities.
The fee assessed by the Commission is composed of a uniform administrative
fee of $25.00 plus an additional graduated fee set by a formula developed
by the Commission. The formula can include factors related to: the
nature and quantity of emissions, the number of emission sources, laboratory
tests required, area surveillance, difficulty of survey setup, and other
factors. The formula and related tables are presented in Figure 2. As
shown, certain factors influencing the fee can be set by the Commission
on a regional or a county basis, compensating for cost variations around
the State.
18
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
A maximum fee of $8,000.00 per manufacturing location is set by
statute. In 1979, the Commission collected 2.6 million dollars and
processed 5,590 permits. The money collected from the surveillance fee
program is deposited in the State's general fund. Legislative appropriations
to the Commission have been growing by about $500,000.00 per year.
Surveillance fees contribute an estimated 50% of the Commission's total
program budget.
2. Oregon15
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality administers a permit
fee system composed of three parts. The first, a uniform, non-refundable
filing fee of $50.00, is a clerical charge for both initial applications
and renewals. An application processing fee is charged to cover the
engineering and administrative evaluations required for initial permits
over and above costs of compliance determination, dicussed below. The
application processing fee is listed for major sources by four digit
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code and varies from $25.00-
$1000.00.
An annual compliance determination fee, charged for both initial
applications and renewals, defrays the cost of annually inspecting the
source to determine its compliance with the terms and conditions of a
permit. These fees are also listed by SIC Code and range from $85.00-
$2520.00.
Using this system, Oregon collected $560,000 on 2000 permits during
fiscal years 1979-81. This covered 50% of the State's compliance assurance
budget. Fees go directly to the permitting agency but the legislature
biennually sets budget requirements for the total fees assessed.
20
-------
3. Bay Area16
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board is authorized by
the California Legislature to administer the permit fee system for nine
counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. Permits issued fall into two
categories: (1) initial authorities to construct, and (2) renewable
permits to operate.
A uniform, nonrefundable filing fee of $50.00 and a graduated
initial permit fee are assessed to applicants for an authority to construct.
The fees required for an authority to construct also cover the cost of
issuing an initial permit to operate. Authority to construct fees range
from $20.00 for a gasoline fueling nozzle up to $6000.00 for fuel burning
equipment of 300 million BTU/hr or more. The initial permit fee scales
divide sources into three groups: (1) fuel burning sources (any source,
except flares, in which fuel is burned) based on fuel consumption in
1000 BTU's per hour; (2) stationary containers based on capacity in
gallons; and (3) gasoline fueling nozzles based on a per nozzle fee.
Permits to operate are renewed each year and require an annual
permit renewal fee. This fee, like the initial permit fee, is graduated
and the fee schedules are similarly grouped. Annual permit renewal fees
range from $10.00-$3500.00. To encourage prompt remittance, the Board
has incorporated into the fee system a late fee surcharge. If fees are
not received within sixty days of the scheduled date for permit renewal,
a 50% surcharge is added to the annual permit renewal fee and the delinquent
source is so informed. Thirty days later, if the proper fee has still
not been received, the permit is voided and source operation is no
21
-------
longer authorized. The permit is reissued only after a new application
is presented and all late fees and penalties are paid.
The Board is empowered by statute to adjust the fee schedules to
reflect changing costs of the permit program. It is authorized to make
annual adjustments up to the change in the California Consumer Price
Index without applying to the legislature for permission. This provision
assures that current fees reflect current costs and conserves the effort
needed to renegotiate fee schedules with the State legislature.
The District assesses fees for approximately 4000 permits, and that
number is growing by about 400 new sources each year. The District
plans soon to permit small sources emitting 2 1/2 tons per year or more
of any controlled pollutant, thus broadening the source base for the
system. Fees contribute to the costs of reviewing and acting on permits
and to the costs of surveillance and enforcement. Revenue generated by
permit fees totaled $870,000 in FY 1978 and $1,500,000 in FY 1979. The
District estimates fee revenue will reach $2,800,000 this year.
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District in California
includes principally Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernadino
Counties. The Executive Officer administers a six part fee system
outlining schedules for:
0 a filing fee;
0 initial permit fees;
0 annual renewal permit fees;
0 annual permit fees based on emissions;
22
-------
0 hearing board fees for petitions for variance;
0 analysis fees for changes in operating conditions.
Every applicant filing for a permit pays a non-refundable filing
fee of $50.00. In addition to the filing fee, initial permit fees are
assessed on all applications for permits. Each year after the initial
permit is granted, permits must be renewed and renewal fees paid. Both
initial permit fees and renewal fees are similarly set forth in six
graduated fee schedules. Schedules are outlined for:
0 incinerators by cross sectional area of combustion chamber;
0 stationary containers by capacity in gallons;
0 motors by horsepower;
0 fuel burning equipment (except incinerators) by 1000 BTU's/hr.;
0 electrical equipment (except motors) by kilovolt amperes.
Initial fees range from $20.00 for a gasoline fueling nozzle to $4000.00
for fuel burning equipment of 200 million BTU's per hour or more.
Renewals range from $10.00 to $2000.00.
In addition to these fees, sources are charged annual fees based on
emissions of five classes of air contaminants. For each ton in excess
of 24 tons per year for any one of the contaminants listed, a fee is
assessed as presented in Figure 3.
Hearing board fees are assessed on petitions for variance and
include excess emissions fees.
Analysis fees are assessed for source tests required because of
changes in operating conditions other than specified in the data for the
authority to construct or permit to operate. A separate fee is charged
for each contaminant and for each sampling station as shown in Figure 4.
23
-------
Air Contaminant DpJ1_ars Per Ton*
Total organic gases, except those compounds
containing sulfur $31.
Carbon monoxide $ °-26
Oxides of nitrogen (expressed as nitrogen
dioxide) $18.
Gaseous sulfur compounds (expressed as
sulfur dioxide)
Particulate matter $23.
* Dollars per ton in excess of 24 tons/year emitted.
Figure 3. South Coast Air Quality Manageijpgnt
District Permit Fees Based on Emissions
24
-------
Contaminant Basic Fee
Organics $350.00
Particulates 395.00b
Oxides of Sulfur 320.00
Carbon Monoxide 195.00
Oxides of Nitrogen 325.00
Special (such as
Hydrogen Chloride,
Hydrogen Sulfide, etc.) 320.00
Surcharge for Each
Additional Station
$175.00
200.00
175.00
115.00
190.00
175.00
^Includes one sampling station. "Sampling station" means a
designated place or location from which a sample is
extracted for measurement or analysis.
bAdd $100.00 for incinerator test.
Figure 4. South Coast Air Quality Management
District Analysis Fees
25
-------
All fees assessed by the Executive Officer are subject to late fee
surcharges if not remitted promptly. Fees 30 days late are charged an
additional fifty percent. Permits for sources still delinquent after 30
additional days are voided and are not reissued until all accrued fees
and penalties are paid and a new application is submitted.
Using this program, the district collected over 4 million dollars
on 41,000 permits last year. Fees were doubled in 1978 with little
reaction from sources.
20
5. Allegheny County
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, authorizes the County Health Department
to administer a permit fee system. Installation permits and operating
permits are assessed fees. Sources are classified in one of three
categories:
0 fuel burning equipment by BTU's per hour;
0 process equipment by tons processed per hour;
0 incinerators by horizontal cross sectional area.
Fees range from $12.00 for combustion equipment of 500,001 to 1
million BTU's per hour to $750.00 for 4 billion BTU's per hour or more
for installation permits and from $12.00 to $1,750.00 for operating
permits. Fees for process equipment range from $60.00 to $750.00 for
installation and operating permit fees range from $50.00 to $1000.00
annually. Operating permits are annually renewed at the time fees are
paid.
In 1979, the County collected $500,000 on 2500 renewed permits. In
the same year, fees were raised 25% with few complaints from sources.
Permit revenue represents 35 to 50 percent of the annual county budget.
26
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Congress, Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C., 7401 et seq., August,
1979.
2. EPA. §tat<5 Air Pollution Implementation Plan Progress Report,
January 1 - June 30, 1976 (October 1976), p. 3.
3. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce. Clean Air Act Amendments - Report Together with Additional.
Separate, and Supplemental Views. Report No. 95-254, 95th Congress,
1st Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash., D.C., May 12, 1977,
p. 15.
4. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 567 (1941).
5. Ibid.
6. National Cable TV Association, Inc. v. United States, 414 U.S. 336
{1974).
7. ibid.. quoted from Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 195J?,
31 U.S.C. Section 483(a).
8. Op cit., National Cable.
9. Ibid.
10. Op cit., U.S. House of Representatives, p. 219.
11- OP cit., National Cable.
12. Op cit.. Cox v. New Hampshire.
13. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Act 250 of 1965. as^
Amended, Act 348 of 1965, a_s Amended. and Administrative Rules for
Air Pollution Control, Allied Printing, Lansing, Mich., January 1976.
14. Ibid., pp. 34, 35.
15. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Administrative
Rules Chapter 340, January 1, 1976.
16. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Proposed Amendments to
Permit Fee Regulation 2, San Francisco, February 1979.
27
-------
17. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations.
"Regulation III," El Monte, California, March 1980, pp. 1-12.
18. Ibid., p. 2.
19. Ibid., p. 11.
20. Allegheny County Health Department, Proposed Amendments to Allegheny
County Ordinance 18 and Article XVIII Rules and Regulations of. the
Allegheny County Health Department, Pittsburgh, March 1980.
28
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
ppj\ d.c;n/9_R"
QQ3
3. RECIPIEN1
TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Permit Fee Guideline
5. REPORT DATE
April, 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S) ... j
Joseph Sableski, Dan deRoeck, Kevin Hannon, and
Ray Freeman
8. PERFORV
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Control Programs Development Division (MD 15)
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
10. PROGR
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
See the above
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
The guideline was developed to assist States in making revisions to their
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to address the permit fee requirements of the
Clean Air Act. The guideline is designed for both agencies that have no
functioning fee systems, and for those agencies currently revising and
upgrading existing fee systems. The guideline includes a review of the Clean
Air Act requirement for permit fees, legislative history and relevant court
cases, costs to be considered, basic program implementation considerations, and
examples of fee systems currently in effect around the country.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFlEHS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I field/Group
Air Pollution
Licenses
Expenses
Income
Air Pollution Control
Equipment
Permit Fees
13B
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Keporn
21. NO. OF PAGES
31
20 SECURITY CLASS /This page/
I Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION
------- |