Abate Technologies International, Inc.

3rd QUARTER 2005




Who is required to file?

  • Facilities in the Annual Operating Permit Emission Fee Program; those are companies who pay annual emissions for permitted equipment. Such facilities are subject to AQMD Rule 301(e) and are required to file when exceeding the corresponding reporting thresholds;
  • Facilities whose permitted plus all non-permitted emissions equal 4 tons or more per year of criteria pollutants (VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM, Specific Organics);
  • Facilities, which had emissions [thresholds specified in Rule 301(e)] of specific Toxic Air Contaminants or ozone depleting compounds, listed in form TAC;
  • Facilities that receive a 2004-2005 Annual Emissions Report Package.

What if I miss the deadline?
The SCAQMD 2004-2005 Annual Emissions Report is due on September 30, 2005. If a facility misses the deadline and owes an emission fee, late payment penalties in the form of a percentage of the emission fees will apply. The penalties are set forth in AQMD Rule 301(e)(10)(B) and are as follows:

Payment received
Less than 30 days after 9/30/05 5% of fees due
30 to 90 days after 9/30/05 15% of fees due
91 days to 1 year after 9/30/05 25% of fees due
More than 1 year after 9/30/05 50% of fees due

After submitting my report I found out I estimated emissions incorrectly
Companies who pay their emissions fees on time but underestimated their emissions, which resulted in underpayment to SCAQMD, can re-submit the report subject to underpayment penalties. If the underpayment is corrected within one year from the filing deadline and more than 90% of the amount due was paid, there are no penalties. However, if payment was less than 90% of the amount due, the penalty is 15% of the underpayment amount. When the underpayment is determined more than one year and sixty days from the official due date, fee rates and penalties will be assessed based on 301(e)(10)(D). Fees are determined based on rates in effect for the year when the emissions are actually reported, and not the year wherein the emissions occurred.

A facility can file a refund request when overestimating of the emissions resulted in overpayment to AQMD. The refund request must be submitted in writing as set forth in Rule 301. Form A can also be used to request refunds associated with the current reporting period.

Special circumstances
The AQMD has a Fee Review Committee to handle issues regarding fees and penalties.

Recent changes

  • All facilities with emissions greater than or equal to 4 tons per year (100 tons per year for Carbon Monoxide) will pay fees for all non-permitted emissions, in addition to the permitted emissions fees.

Total Facility Emissions for Emissions Fee Calculation:
Permitted + non-permitted

The reporting for this program is administered in conjunction with the Annual Emissions Program. The affected facilities would report toxics emissions once every 4 years, as they prepare and submit the AER. Previous forms for reporting toxics such as DEV, STK and PRO will no longer be used. The reporting cycle is now based on fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) rather than calendar year, just like the AER.



The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is in the process of developing a control measure to reduce volatile organic compound emissions from automotive refinish coating operations. The ARB recommends the same VOC limits for passenger vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles and mobile equipment. Specific VOC limits for clear and color coatings would replace the current composite VOC limit for multistage systems. The measure would combine coating categories as outlined in Table 1.

In addition, a limit of 25 grams per liter will be established for solvents used in cleaning operations, including surface preparation and spray gun cleaning. This requirement is consistent with the adopted VOC limit for solvents in the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Table 1. Coating categories under ARB measure for automotive refinish

Existing Coating Category
Proposed Coating Category
VOC limit as Applied after 1/1/08 (grams/liter)
Pretreatment Wash Primer Pretreatment Coating
Primer Surfacer
Primer Sealer
Adhesion Promoter
Plastic/Flexible Primer
Metallic/Iridescent Topcoat
Multi-stage Topcoat System
Camouflage Color
Multi-Colored Multi-stage
Multi-color Coating
Temporary Protective Coating Temporary Protective Coating
Bed liner Coating Truck Bed Liner Coating
Elastomeric Clears Clear Coat
Uniform Finish Coating Uniform Finish Coating
Rubberized Asphaltic Underbody Underbody Coating
Antiglare Safety Coatings
Impact Resistant Coatings
Water Holdout Coatings
Weld Thru Coatings
Bright Metal Trim Repairs
Any other Coating Type


  • The SCAQMD board adopted an across-the-board 6% fee increase for fiscal year 2005-2006.
  • RECLAIM facilities will be subject to annual renewal fees of $500 (per major unit), $100 (per large unit) and $ 100 (per process unit).
  • Title V facilities will be subject to a $300 annual renewal fee.
  • The reinstatement term for expired permits will be extended from the current 6 month time frame to one year.
  • Plan cancellation fees will be refunded if the filing was based on an erroneous District request.



The South Coast Air Quality Management District board approved a recommendation by staff to proceed with rulemaking that would establish more stringent risk requirements for new or relocated facilities near schools. The board directive emerged from a 2003 White Paper, Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. The White Paper included recommendations for strategies to reduce cumulative air pollution impacts such as amending Rule 1401—New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants. The staff proposes a new rule (Rule 1401.1) to limit toxic levels near existing schools and possibly other sensitive receptors.

Industry representatives objected to the rule development since AQMD data shows that there have been few new facilities with toxic emissions sited near schools. Industry organizations further commented that other sources, such as neighboring freeways, school buses, and idling cars, posed a greater risk than new stationary sources. They indicated that resources could be better used reducing exposure at the school rather than through implementation of Rule 1401.1. Additionally, they expressed concern that the rulemaking could be the first step in targeting existing sources for reductions. Environmental and community organizations were supportive of the District’s proposal.

District staff maintained that “Although recent permit data indicates that new facilities are electing to site away from schools, the opportunity still exists for a toxic emitting facility to site near a school since there is currently no regulatory mechanism to prevent such an action. Proposed Rule 1401.1 could provide the added assurance and health protection for school children that toxic emitting facilities are located away from school grounds.”

District staff reported various comments received regarding the appropriate distance from the toxic emitting source to the school as well as the variety of distances in existing regulations. The staff pointed to a recent study by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the California Department of Health Services to support their recommendation to proceed with rulemaking.

Some of the requirements under Rule 1401.1 include:

  • One in one million facility-wide Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR). MICR is defined as the estimated probability of a potential maximally exposed individual contracting cancer as a result of exposure to toxic air contaminants over a period of 70 years for residential and 40 years for worker receptors.
  • A Chronic Hazard Index (HI) less than 1.0. The facility-wide chronic HI is defined as the sum of the calculated individual substance chronic hazard indices for the target organ due to all toxic air contaminants emitted from all equipment requiring a written permit to operate at the facility.
  • An Acute Hazard Index (HI) less than 1.0. The facility wide acute HI is defined as the sum of the calculated individual substance acute hazard indices for the target organ due to all toxic air contaminants emitted from all equipment requiring a written permit to operate at the facility.

Staff proposes to exempt engines subject to Rule 1470, soil decontamination equipment subject to Rule 1166 and portable equipment, from Rule 1401.1. The specific distance to the receptor is to be determined through discussions with stakeholder groups.



Senate Bill 700, approved by the California Legislature in 2003, requires Best Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for agricultural sources. The South Coast Air Quality Management District recently adopted measures, which would implement SB 700. The rule amendments will require all agricultural sources to control fugitive dust emissions by January 2006 via the installation of particulate matter controls. Engines used for agricultural operations will be subject to the same emission standards as stationary source engines.

The SCAQMD estimates the changes will result in a reduction of 142 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, 54 tons per year of particulate matter, 10.5 tons per year of volatile organic compounds and 99 tons per year of carbon monoxide. The board has allocated $4 million from the state’s Carl Moyer program to provide incentives for purchasing cleaner burning engines. The allocation will lessen the financial burden of compliance on agricultural sources.



The South Coast Air Quality Management District will no longer require the non-atomization of gel coats used in the composites industry. The agency deleted language in their Rule 1162 (Polyester Resin Operations), that required the use of non-atomizing technologies. The changes emerged in response to industry comments that implementing the rule requirements to apply gel coats with non-atomizing technologies was difficult.

The District conducted testing, which concluded that the pressure at the tip of the spray gun is a critical parameter affecting the emission rates and quality of the gel coat finish. Testing also demonstrated that the emission reductions from the use of non-atomizing spray equipment at levels suggested by the Unified Emission Factors (the current SCAQMD approved factors, developed by the composites industry) were not technically feasible. The District had previously estimated that the use of non-atomizing application equipment would reduce emissions from gel coats by 0.43 tons per day. District staff presently reports that when “operated at pressures necessary to obtain UEF in the rule, the product was inferior.” Staff concluded that when operating at pressures under which the product specifications could be met, the emission reductions obtained were not statistically significant.

The proposed changes could impact facilities manufacturing the following:

  • Bathtub, shower and vanity installations;
  • Hulls for recreational and commercial watercraft;
  • Bodies for recreational vehicles;
  • Building panels and appliances;
  • Sporting equipment and power tools;
  • Automotive, aerospace and aircraft components; and
  • Structural components for chemical process equipment and storage tanks.


Home ] Up ]

Send mail to info@abatetech.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1998 - 2019 Abate Technologies International, Inc.