FR 2024-31626

The document in question is a proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding revisions to Kansas's State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Operating Permits Program. Submitted by the State of Kansas on February 20, 2023, this proposal seeks to update fee structures and emissions inventory regulations for Class I and Class II operating permits to ensure they align with federal standards and maintain adequate funding for Kansas’s Operating Permits Program. Interested parties are invited to submit comments on this proposal by February 14, 2025.

General Overview

At its core, the proposal addresses modifications to Kansas's environmental regulatory framework, particularly focusing on the financial components related to air emissions permits. Specifically, the document outlines changes to the fee structures for Class I and Class II permits, starting from the calendar year 2025. The Class I permit fee structure will see its base fee structure adjusted to include a new hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission fee. Similarly, Class II permits will incorporate an updated approach for calculating annual fees and ensuring compliance with emissions inventory requirements. The EPA frames these changes as non-impactful to air quality while aligning state rules with federal directives.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the foremost issues with the document is its complex and technical language, which may not be easily digestible for individuals without a background in environmental law or policy. This can pose challenges for those affected by the proposed changes who wish to understand and engage with the commenting process. Additionally, the document does not provide an economic impact analysis, which would be crucial in determining the financial implications of the new fee structures on the entities required to comply with these regulations. This lack of analysis extends to the absence of discussion on how these fees might affect small businesses or low-income populations. While the document states that an evaluation of Environmental Justice (EJ) considerations is not legally required, including such an analysis could demonstrate a commitment to transparency and equitable policy-making.

Public Impact

The public at large might see these changes as part of ongoing measures to regulate air emissions and ensure environmental protections align with national standards. For residents of Kansas, the document may signal efforts toward maintaining a cleaner environment and air quality consistency. However, the financial implications might be less apparent to those not directly involved with businesses affected by the emissions fees.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

The proposed changes could have variable impacts on stakeholders. Businesses that hold Class I and Class II operating permits might experience an increase in operational costs due to the revised fee structures. These changes are designed to bolster state revenues for environmental program administration but could pose financial challenges for smaller entities that may struggle to absorb additional costs. On the other hand, if the fee revisions successfully fund Kansas's regulatory programs, they could lead to better resourced and more effective environmental oversight, ultimately benefiting both the environment and public health.

In conclusion, while the proposed rule change by the EPA concerning Kansas’s SIP and Operating Permits Program represents a step toward regulatory consistency and sustainable environmental funding, careful consideration of its economic implications and engagement with impacted stakeholders will be vital for its successful and equitable implementation.

The document under review proposes changes to the emission fee schedules as part of revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Operating Permits Program in Kansas, submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These revisions impact how fees are structured and collected from facilities emitting pollutants, with a specific focus on criteria and hazardous air pollutants (HAP).

The document outlines a shift in financial allocations through fee adjustments intended to ensure the Kansas Operating Permits Program remains adequately funded. Notably, from calendar year 2025 onward, the existing fee schedule for the Class I Operating Permit, which includes a $1,000 base fee or a $53 per ton fee for criteria emissions, will be revised. These revisions involve new calculations, where the total fee will now encompass a facility fee, a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions fee, and a recalculated criteria emissions fee.

New Financial References and Structures

1. Minimum Facility Fee: The amendments call for maintaining a minimum $1,000 facility fee, which will now be additive to the other specified fees.

2. Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Fee: A new financial implementation is the establishment of an annual HAP fee of $80 per ton beginning in 2025. This new charge reflects a clear linkage between the emissions a facility produces and the financial responsibility it will bear for those emissions.

3. Criteria Emissions Fee Increase: The fee for criteria emissions is set to increase from $53 per ton to $56 per ton for the 2025 calendar year and beyond. This increment suggests a move to account for inflation or additional administrative costs associated with managing emissions.

Alignment with Identified Issues

While the document provides specific monetary changes to the existing fee structures, it lacks a detailed economic analysis to justify these adjustments. One of the identified issues is the absence of an economic impact analysis. This type of analysis could provide insight into whether these fee changes are economically sustainable for businesses and if they could potentially strain operating budgets, especially for small businesses.

Moreover, while the document specifies that Environmental Justice considerations are not mandated, examining the financial burden on vulnerable communities or smaller entities could enhance transparency. Without such considerations, there's a risk that the revised fees might inadvertently disadvantage smaller facilities or low-income populations that could be indirectly affected by possible cost pass-throughs.

In conclusion, while the revisions propose specific fee calculations necessary to support state air quality management efforts, further exploration and communication around the broader fiscal impacts would benefit stakeholders, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the financial and societal implications.