Case Title: Amoco Oil Co. v. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. Bd.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-224

Docket Number: 19991481 and 19991780

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Amoco Oil Co. v. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. 
Bd., 89 Ohio St.3d. 477, 2000-Ohio-224.] 
 
 
AMOCO OIL COMPANY, APPELLEE, v. PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK 
RELEASE COMPENSATION BOARD, APPELLANT. 
R&R SERVICE, APPELLANT, v. PETROLEUM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK 
RELEASE COMPENSATION BOARD, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Amoco Oil Co. v. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. 
Bd. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d. 477.] 
Petroleum underground storage tanks — Petroleum Underground Storage Tank 
Financial Assurance Fund — Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) is a 
necessary and appropriate rule for the administration of the Fund. 
(Nos. 99-1481 and 99-1780 — Submitted April 11, 2000 — Decided August 30, 
2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 17672. 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County, No. S-99-003. 
 
Accidental releases (leakage) of hazardous products from underground 
storage tanks (“USTs”) have created environmental concerns. See R.C. 3737.94.  
In 1986, the General Assembly amended R.C. 3737.87 (now R.C. 3737.881) to 
charge the State Fire Marshal (“Fire Marshal”) with the responsibility of 
implementing an underground storage tank program.2 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 552, 141 
Ohio Laws, Part III, 4905.  Effective July 1, 1987, the Fire Marshal was also 
charged with the responsibility of implementing corrective action3 programs, 
which obligate owners or operators4 of USTs to clean up any releases. 
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 171, 142 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2270-2271.  In 1992, the Fire 
Marshal adopted rules that addressed corrective actions.  See Ohio Adm.Code 
Chapter 1301:7-9. 
 
Subject to limited exceptions, the owner or operator of a UST is strictly 
liable for the cost of any corrective action ordered by the Fire Marshal.  R.C. 
 
2 
3737.89.  In order to assist owners or operators of USTs to defray the cleanup 
costs and damages caused by releases, effective July 11, 1989, the General 
Assembly enacted R.C. 3737.91, which created the Petroleum Underground 
Storage Tank Financial Assurance Fund (“Fund”).  Sub.H.B. No. 421, 143 Ohio 
Laws, Part III, 5049, 5068.  The Fund is administered by the Petroleum 
Underground Storage Tank Release Compensation Board (“Board”).  R.C. 
3737.90.  The Board administers the Fund primarily for the purpose of 
reimbursing qualified UST owners or operators for the cost of corrective actions 
to clean up a release.  R.C. 3737.92(A)(3).  The Fund is analogous to an insurance 
policy; UST owners and operators pay an “assurance fee” to the Board in return 
for financial assistance in implementing a corrective action should a release occur.  
See State ex rel. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. Bd. v. 
Withrow (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 111, 579 N.E.2d 705. 
 
This opinion addresses two individual cases—R&R Service v. Ohio 
Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. Bd., No. 99-1780, and 
Amoco Oil Co. v. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. Bd., No. 
99-1481.  Both cases address the validity of Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1), 
which requires owners and operators of USTs to submit an eligibility application 
to the Board for compensation from the Fund within one year of the date that an 
accidental release of petroleum was to be reported to the Fire Marshal. 
Amoco Case, No. 99-1481 
 
On September 28, 1995, Amoco discovered a release from its UST located 
on Sunbury Road in Westerville, Ohio.  On October 2, 1995, Amoco discovered a 
release from its UST located on Miamisburg-Centerville Road in Dayton, Ohio.  
Amoco submitted an eligibility application to the Board for the Dayton site on 
August 16, 1997 and for the Westerville site on August 18, 1997, both for the 
purpose of recovering clean up costs from the Fund for the releases from the 
USTs. The Executive Director (“Director”) of the Board determined that neither 
 
3 
of Amoco’s eligibility applications was filed within one year of the date the 
release was required to be reported to the Fire Marshal pursuant to Ohio 
Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1).  Thus, the Director denied the eligibility 
applications. 
 
Amoco objected to the determination.  A referee recommended that the 
Director’s order denying eligibility be affirmed.  The Board adopted the 
recommendation of the referee. 
 
Amoco appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County.  
The trial court affirmed the decision of the Board. 
 
Amoco appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for Montgomery 
County.  The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and held that the 
Board went beyond its authority in adopting Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07.  
Specifically, the court found that the one-year limitation was not necessary or 
appropriate to maintain the Fund’s financial integrity because the General 
Assembly had authorized the Board to makes rules establishing priorities for 
payment and allowing payment by installment.  The appellate court also held that 
the one-year time limitation for filing an eligibility claim “as a prerequisite for 
reimbursement of claims, unpermissibly [sic] adds to the legislative enactment 
which authorizes the Board to adopt, amend, and rescind such rules.”  Thus, the 
appellate court held that Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 is void. 
R&R Service, No. 99-1780 
 
On August 18, 1993, appellant, R&R Service, discovered a release from 
its UST located at East McPherson Street in Clyde, Ohio.  R&R Service 
submitted an eligibility application to the Board for the site on December 15, 
1997.  The Director determined that R&R Service’s eligibility application was not 
filed within one year of the date the release was required to be reported to the Fire 
Marshal pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1). Thus, the Director denied 
R&R Service’s eligibility application. 
 
4 
 
R&R Service objected to the determination.  A referee recommended that 
the Director’s decision be affirmed.  The Board adopted the referee’s 
recommendation. 
 
R&R Service appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Sandusky 
County.  The trial court reversed, finding that the Board exceeded its authority in 
adopting Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1). 
 
The Board appealed to the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County.  The 
appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and found that Ohio Adm.Code 
3737-1-07(A)(1) was a valid rule.  The appellate court also determined that its 
judgment was in conflict with the Amoco case and entered an order certifying a 
conflict. 
 
This cause is before this court upon our determination that a conflict exists 
between case No. 99-1481 (Amoco) and case No. 99-1780 (R&R Service) and 
upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.  We have consolidated these cases 
for purposes of this appeal. 
__________________ 
 
McHanon, DeGulis, Hoffmann & Blumenthal, L.L.P., David S. Hoffmann, 
Michael R. Blumenthal and Suzanne M. Fisher, for the applicants. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and James Leo, Assistant 
Attorney General, for the board. 
 
Pepple & Waggoner and Glenn D. Waggoner, urging validity of the rule 
for amicus curiae, Ohio Petroleum Retailers and Repair Association. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.  The Court of Appeals for Sandusky County 
journalized an entry in R&R Service v. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank 
Release Comp. Bd. that certified: “[T]his court finds that our judgment in the 
instant appeal [which upheld the validity of Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1)] is 
in conflict with Amoco Oil Co. v. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release 
 
5 
Comp. Bd. (June 30, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17672, unreported [1999 WL 
961243],  on the issue of whether Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) is an invalid 
rule.”  For the following reasons, we find that Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) 
is a valid rule and affirm the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Appeals. 
 
Appellee Amoco makes three arguments as to why Ohio Adm.Code 3737-
1-07(A)(1) is invalid.5 First, Amoco argues that the one-year time limit is not 
necessary or appropriate for the administration of the Fund.  Second, Amoco 
argues that the time limitation conflicts with the criteria for the UST fund 
eligibility set out in the Revised Code.  Third, Amoco argues that the one-year 
deadline for filing an eligibility application violates public policy because it 
denies eligibility to persons who otherwise meet the statutory criteria for 
eligibility.  We will address each of these arguments in order. 
Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) Is Necessary and Appropriate 
 
It is well settled that the General Assembly cannot delegate legislative 
authority, but it can delegate rule-making authority to agencies.  Belden v. Union 
Cent. Life Ins. Co. (1944), 143 Ohio St. 329, 342, 28 O.O. 295, 300-301, 55 
N.E.2d 629, 635.  In delegating this authority, ordinarily the General Assembly 
must provide standards to guide the agency in its rulemaking.  Id. at paragraph 
three of the syllabus.  The administrative agency must adopt rules within the 
standards provided by the General Assembly in order for the rules to be valid.  
Burger Brewing Co. v. Thomas (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 377, 379, 71 O.O.2d 366, 
367, 329 N.E.2d 693, 695. 
 
The General Assembly’s grant of authority to the Board to adopt rules to 
administer the Fund is found in R.C. 3737.90(B).  It states: 
 
“The board may: 
 
“ * * * 
 
“(2)  In accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, adopt, amend, 
and rescind such other rules as are necessary or appropriate to implement and 
 
6 
administer sections 3737.90 to 3737.98 of the Revised Code, including, without 
limitation, rules for the administration of the petroleum underground storage tank 
linked deposit program established under sections 3737.95 to 3737.98 of the 
Revised Code; rules establishing priorities for the payment of claims under 
section 3737.92 of the Revised Code * * *.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
Pursuant to this broad grant of authority, the Board adopted Ohio 
Adm.Code 3737-1-07, which states: 
 
“(A) As a prerequisite to determining fund payment of or reimbursement 
for corrective action costs for an accidental release of petroleum, the director * * 
* shall issue a determination of eligibility for payment * * * where all of the 
following conditions are established: 
 
“(1) * * * for releases which are or were reported to the fire marshal * * * 
on or after January 1, 1996, receipt [of a completed eligibility application] within 
one year from the date the release is or was required to be reported to the fire 
marshal * * * which has been made by a responsible person.” 
 
Ohio Adm.Code 1301:7-9-13(C) requires “[o]wners and operators [of 
USTs] [to] report a release or suspected release to the fire marshal * * *  within 
twenty-four hours of discovery by the owner or operator.”  Thus, Ohio Adm.Code 
3737-1-07 requires the owner or operator of a UST to file an eligibility 
application within one year and one day of the date of the discovery of a release. 
 
Amoco argues that the one-year time limit for submitting an eligibility 
application is neither necessary nor appropriate because the eligibility criteria set 
out in R.C. 3737.92(D) and Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 are not time sensitive.  
Amoco is incorrect. 
 
It is the Director who determines whether a UST owner is eligible.  See 
R.C. 3737.92(B)(1), incorporating R.C. 3737.92(D) by reference.  One of the 
criteria required under the eligibility claim is that “[a]t the time that the release 
was first suspected or confirmed, a responsible person possessed a valid 
 
7 
certificate of coverage * * * for the petroleum underground storage tank system 
from which the release occurred.”    This language “for the petroleum 
underground storage system tank from which the release occurred” 
unambiguously places an obligation on the Director to determine the origin of the 
release.  Thus, the Director is responsible for tracing a release to the leaking tank 
in order to make sure the release occurred from a tank with a valid certificate of 
coverage.  R.C. 3737.92(D)(1).  Tracing petroleum is a time-sensitive task that 
becomes more difficult with the passage of time because the petroleum diffuses, 
making it more difficult to trace. 
 
Amoco argues that tracing the release to the UST is the Fire Marshal’s 
obligation, and therefore requiring the one-year deadline in Ohio Adm.Code 
3737-1-07 to allow the Director to trace a release is unnecessary.  However, an 
examination of the Fire Marshal’s rule governing USTs fails to reveal that the 
Fire Marshal has the explicit duty of actually tracing a release to the leaking tank.  
A UST site is defined as “the parcel of property where an UST system is or had 
been located.”  Ohio Adm.Code 1301:7-9-03(B)(3).  Ohio Adm.Code 1301:7-9-
13(B)(2)(c) defines a “release,” inter alia, as a contamination of subsurface soil or 
ground water on a UST site.  If contamination of a UST site reaches a threshold 
level, then a site assessment must be undertaken by the owner/operator of the 
UST.  Ohio Adm.Code 1301:7-9-13(E)(1).  In doing a site assessment, a UST 
owner must determine the “full extent” of the release, as well as the “vertical and 
horizontal extent of the release.”  Ohio Adm.Code 1301:7-9-13(I)(1) and (3)(e).  
This language requires an assessment of how far the released petroleum has 
spread in the soil or ground water; however, it does not explicitly require anyone 
to trace the release to the leaking UST.  The rules consistently refer to a “UST 
site.”  There is nothing in the rules adopted by the Fire Marshal that indicates 
responsibility for a cleanup will be allocated beyond the owner of the UST site.  
Thus, it would appear that neither the Revised Code nor the rules adopted by the 
 
8 
Fire Marshal explicitly require the Fire Marshal or the UST owner to trace a 
release to a specific leaking tank. 
 
Further, the Fire Marshal has no obligation to determine if a UST owner 
has a valid certificate of coverage from the Fund and may not obtain all the 
information the Director requires to determine eligibility. 
 
Finally, even if the Fire Marshal has traced the release to the leaking tank, 
it does not absolve the Director of his independent responsibility to trace the 
release.  The Director of the Board has an independent duty to trace the release to 
the tank from which it emanated pursuant to R.C. 3737.92(D)(1) for the purpose 
of determining whether the release emanated from a tank with a valid certificate 
of coverage.  Therefore, regardless of the Fire Marshal’s responsibilities, tracing a 
release to the leaking tank is a responsibility to be determined by the Director of 
the Board.  Thus, the one-year time limit for submitting an eligibility application 
set out in Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 has a temporal connection to the Director’s 
obligation to trace the release. 
 
The one-year time limit for submitting an eligibility application also 
assists the Board in budgeting for the Fund.  The rule addressing eligibility 
applications requires that owners or operators of USTs submit cost estimates of 
the required corrective actions.  Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(4).  Absent this 
one-year time limit on submission of interim cost estimates, the Board would not 
become aware of a UST owner’s or operator’s costs for corrective actions until 
submission of a cost claim by the UST owner or operator.  See R.C. 3737.92(B); 
Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-12.  A cost claim is not required to be submitted until 
one year after the completion of all the corrective actions.  Ohio Adm.Code 3737-
1-12.  Thus, without the one-year limitation on submission of these interim cost 
estimates, the Board would potentially not be aware of the costs of cleaning up a 
release until years after it occurred.  The one-year time limit on submission of 
cost estimates allows the Board to better budget for the Fund and plan future tank 
 
9 
assessments.  For example, if the Board knows early on that claims will be 
increasing within the next year, it can distribute the increase more gradually to 
lessen the impact of increased fees on all UST owners and operators.  Thus, the 
one-year time limit for submitting an eligibility application set out in Ohio 
Adm.Code 3737-1-07 has a temporal connection to budgeting for the Fund. 
 
The Court of Appeals for Montgomery County in the Amoco case held, 
and Amoco argues, that because the General Assembly has provided the Board 
authority to raise the fee assessment to tank owners and to pay claims in 
installments, the one-year time limit in Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 is not 
necessary or appropriate because the Board can address any shortfalls in the Fund 
by using these tools to raise revenue.  While the Board does have these tools at its 
disposal, it does not alleviate the need for early submission of cost estimates to 
assist in forecasting the budget for the Fund. 
 
Similar to a substantial fee increase, the cost of financing a shortfall in the 
Fund by issuing a substantial amount of bonds in a short period could result in 
dramatically increased interest costs.  This too could result in a steep increase in 
costs to the UST owners and operators because the Board can pass on interest 
costs to the UST owners/operators.  The mere fact that the Board has the authority 
to issue bonds does not supplant the Board’s obligation to manage the Fund in an 
optimum manner.  Budgeting is one of the tools that facilitates proper 
management of the Fund. 
 
Finally, implementation of installment payments to reimburse costs for 
corrective action could be detrimental to the environment.  Where UST owners 
are unable to afford to finance cleanup costs up front, they will be unable to pay 
cleanup contractors until they receive payments from the Fund.  Where cleanup 
contractors require immediate payment for their services, cleanup will only occur 
as the money is dispensed over the installment period.  Depending on the length 
of the cleanup, installment payments by the Board could cause cleanup to be 
 
10 
stretched out over years.  Delayed cleanup can only be detrimental to the 
environment. 
 
The purpose of administrative rulemaking is to facilitate an administrative 
agency’s placing into effect the public policy embodied in legislation to be 
administered by the agency.  Chambers v. St. Mary’s School (1998), 82 Ohio 
St.3d 563, 697 N.E.2d 198.  “Appropriate” is defined as “specially suitable.”  
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993) 106.  “Necessary” is 
defined as “whatever is essential for some purpose.”  Id. at 1510.  Among the 
purposes of R.C. Chapter 3737.90 et seq. are controlling pollution, protecting the 
public, and preserving the economic welfare of the people of the state.  See R.C. 
3737.94(A).  Because the one-year time limit in Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) 
is especially suitable and essential for the Board to administer the Fund because it 
allows the Board to better forecast its budget and because information sought is 
time sensitive, we find that the Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 is necessary and 
appropriate. 
Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 Does Not Conflict with the Revised Code 
 
Rules adopted by administrative agencies are valid and enforceable unless 
unreasonable or in conflict with the statutory enactment covering the same subject 
matter.  State ex rel. DeBoe v. Indus. Comm. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 67, 53 O.O. 5, 
117 N.E.2d 925. 
 
Amoco argues that Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) impermissibly adds 
an unauthorized one-year time limitation to the statutory eligibility criteria.  
Amoco is correct that an administrative rule cannot add or subtract from the 
legislative enactment.  See Cent. Ohio Joint Vocational School Dist. Bd. of Edn. 
v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 5, 10, 21 OBR 269, 273, 487 
N.E.2d 288, 292.  However, this court has distinguished between substantive and 
procedural rights.  Viers v. Dunlap (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 173, 175, 1 OBR 203, 
205, 438 N.E.2d 881, 883, overruled on other grounds, Wilfong v. Batdorf (1983), 
 
11 
6 Ohio St.3d 100, 6 OBR 162, 451 N.E.2d 1185.  In recognizing this distinction, 
this court has held that an administrative rule placing a time limit within which a 
party must act is procedural and within the agency’s rule-making authority.  See, 
generally, State ex rel. Curry v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 268, 12 
O.O.3d 271, 389 N.E.2d 1126; Hartzell Propeller, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. 
(1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 575, 584 N.E.2d 1263; Martin v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff’s 
Dept. (June 25, 1991), Franklin App. Nos. 90AP-1342 and 90AP-1343, 
unreported, 1991 WL 123981. 
 
Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) requires that eligibility applications be 
submitted within one year of the date on which a discovered release is to be 
reported to the Fire Marshal.  There are no other statutorily set time limitations in 
R.C. Chapter 3737 that pertain to the eligibility application.  Thus, Ohio 
Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) does not impermissibly add to, or conflict with, the 
General Assembly’s legislative enactment addressing USTs, it merely provides a 
time limitation that is within the Board’s rule making authority.  DeBoe and 
Curry, supra. 
Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 Does Not Violate Public Policy 
 
Amoco argues that the one-year limitation for submitting eligibility claims 
violates the Board’s public policy mandate because it denies eligibility to owners 
or operators of USTs who otherwise meet the statutory criteria for eligibility. 
 
The public policy of the Board is “to contribute toward one or more of the 
following: to preserve and protect the water resources of the state and to prevent, 
abate, or control the pollution of water resources, particularly ground water, for 
the protection and preservation of the public health, safety, convenience, and 
welfare, to assist in the financing of repair and replacement of petroleum 
underground storage tanks and to improve property damaged by any petroleum 
releases from those tanks, and to preserve jobs and employment opportunities or 
improve the economic welfare of the people of the state.” R.C. 3737.94(A). 
 
12 
 
The Board administers the Fund primarily for the purpose of reimbursing 
qualified UST owners and operators for the cost of corrective actions.  R.C. 
3737.92(A)(3).  While upholding the one-year limitation in Ohio Adm.Code 
3737-1-07(A)(1) could preclude some otherwise qualified owners or operators of 
USTs from becoming eligible for compensation, we have determined in our 
discussion above that the deadline is necessary and appropriate for the Board to 
administer the Fund.  For example, the one-year time limit assists the Board in 
budgeting for the Fund, and allows the Board to more gradually increases tank 
fees.  This “improve[s] the economic welfare of the people of the state,” one of 
the enumerated public policy goals of the Board, by easing the impact of tank fees 
on tank owners. 
The One-Year Time Limit in Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 Is Reasonable 
 
Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 provides the responsible person one year to 
present the Board with the eligibility application from the time the release was 
required to be reported to the Fire Marshal.  Amoco argues that the one-year time 
period is unreasonable.  Amoco correctly states that a site assessment requires 
approval by the Fire Marshal.  Amoco argues that because the Fire Marshal is not 
subject to any deadline for approving a site assessment, the time for filing the 
eligibility application may expire before the site assessment is approved.  Implicit 
in Amoco’s argument is that the information contained in the site assessment must 
be included in the eligibility application.  There is nothing in the rules that 
indicates that all this information must be included in an eligibility application.  
The eligibility criteria only require that a UST owner or operator be in compliance 
with the Fire Marshal’s orders at the time the eligibility application was filed.  See 
R.C. 3737.92(D)(3); Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(6). 
 
Further, it appears that the eligibility application consists of only two 
pages and asks for easily accessible information such as the owner’s or operator’s 
address and phone number, dates of release, reporting of release, projected costs 
 
13 
and other similar information.  The Board claims that there is no cost to file the 
application, an assertion that Amoco never refuted.  We find that these 
circumstances do not present an unreasonable time limitation. 
 
Thus, we hold that Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 is a necessary and 
appropriate rule for the administration of the Fund.  It does not conflict with or 
add to other provisions of the legislative enactment pertaining to regulation of 
USTs, and the time limit is not unreasonable.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
judgment of the Court of Appeals for Sandusky County in the R&R Service case, 
but reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County in the 
Amoco case. 
Judgment affirmed in case No. 99- 
1780. 
Judgment reversed in case No. 99- 
1481. 
 
MOYER, C.J., AND F.E. Sweeney, J., concur. 
 
PATTON and COOK, JJ., concur in judgment only. 
 
DOUGLAS and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent. 
 
JOHN T. PATTON, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, 
J. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., concurring in judgment only.  I agree with the majority that 
Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1) is valid, that the judgment of the court of 
appeals in Amoco should be reversed, and that the judgment of the court of 
appeals in R&R should be affirmed.  My reasons for concurring, however, revolve 
around the following points, emphasized by the court of appeals in R&R to 
illustrate why the rule is a permissible exercise of the Board’s authority to adopt 
rules that are “necessary and appropriate” for the administration of the Fund. 
 
14 
 
First, R.C. 3737.92 places procedural conditions on a responsible person’s 
eligibility for payment from the Fund.  Eligibility and entitlement to payment, 
therefore, are not synonymous under the statute.  Furthermore, R.C. 3737.90(B) 
expressly authorizes the Board to adopt rules that are necessary and appropriate 
for the administration of the Fund, and sets out a nonexhaustive list of ways it 
might do that.  Procedural rules adopted by the Board, then, are not rendered 
invalid merely because they impose conditions on entitlement to payment that are 
not found in the statute. 
 
Second, the one-year limitation aids the Board in preventing the 
submission of stale and fraudulent claims and ensuring fiscally sound 
management of the Fund. 
 
Finally, the fact that the deadline may preclude some otherwise eligible 
persons from obtaining payment from the Fund does not render it violative of 
public policy, as “the [Fund’s] goal of financial responsibility for corrective 
action necessitated by a petroleum leak is [as] important” as the “overall purpose 
of * * * promot[ing] environmental health and safety by encouraging owners and 
operators to comply with environmental standards.”  R&R appellate opinion. 
 
PATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting.  The one-year limitations period at issue in this 
case, Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07(A)(1), exceeds the Board’s rule-making 
authority because it is neither necessary nor appropriate.  R.C. 3737.90(B).  It is 
not necessary because there are many lesser sanctions that would serve a similar 
purpose; it is not appropriate because it is as likely to thwart the purposes of the 
Board as to advance them.  See R.C. 3737.94(A) (charging the Board “to preserve 
and protect the water resources of the state and to prevent, abate, or control the 
pollution of water resources, * * * to assist in the financing of repair and 
 
15 
replacement of petroleum underground storage tanks and to improve property 
damaged by any petroleum releases from those tanks”). 
 
Preventing stale claims and ensuring fiscally sound management are solid 
goals.  They can be readily accomplished through lesser sanctions, such as 
providing a lesser percentage of total cost or placing stale claims at the end of the 
payment line.  The total cutoff for eligibility claims effected by the one-year 
limitations period is the province of the General Assembly.  Accordingly, I would 
affirm the judgment in the Amoco case and reverse it in the R&R Service case, and 
hold that the one-year limitations period exceeds the Board’s rule-making 
authority.  I dissent. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
FOOTNOTES: 
 
1. 
Effective July 11, 1989, R.C. 3737.87 was renumbered R.C. 
3737.88.  Am.Sub.H.B. No. 421, 143 Ohio Laws, Part III, 5055. 
 
2. 
By 1990, the Fire Marshal adopted rules addressing, inter alia, 
applicability, definitions, reporting requirements, registration, financial 
responsibility, design specifications and operating requirements. 
 
3. 
A “ ‘[c]orrective action’ means any action necessary to protect 
human health and the environment in the event of a release of petroleum into the 
environment” including “remedial action to clean up contaminated ground water, 
surface water, soils, and subsurface material and to address residual effects of a 
release after the initial corrective action is taken.”  R.C. 3737.87(B). 
 
4. 
A person who is the owner or operator of a UST is also referred to 
as a “responsible person.” R.C. 3737.87(N).  Thus, it would appear that the terms 
are interchangeable.  For purpose of simplicity we will use “owner” or “operator” 
in the remainder of the opinion. 
 
16 
 
5. 
Amoco and R&R Service submitted a joint brief asserting that 
Ohio Adm.Code 3737-1-07 is invalid.  For purposes of simplicity, we will refer to 
these joint arguments as being made by Amoco.