Article V 

Hearing Transcripts 
STATE OF OHIO 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

2045 Morse Road E 

Assembly Center 

Columbus, Ohio 

Thursday, April 21, 2005 

6:30 P.M. 

In the matter of: 

Public Hearing to obtain comments from 

any interested persons on Ohio EPA's proposed 

revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-31-03. 

Appearances: 

Susan Willeke, 

Public Involvement Manager 
Thursday Evening Session 

April 21, 2005 

1 

2 

3 

4 MS. WILLEKE: Thank you for taking the 

5 time to attend tonight's hearing before the Ohio 

6 Environmental Protection Agency. My name is Susan 

7 Willeke. I am the Public Involvement Manager for 

8 the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Public 

9 Interest Center. I will be presiding over today's 

10 public hearing. 

11 The purpose of the hearing today is to 

2 

12 obtain comments from any interested persons on Ohio 

13 EPA's proposed revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-31-03. 

14 The amendments are being proposed to incorporate 

15 six new permit-by-rule provisions and to modify 

16 several permanent exemptions. These amendments 

17 would exempt owners or operators of various types 

18 of low-emitting air pollution sources from the need 

19 to obtain a permit-to-install. 

20 Permit-by-rule allows Ohio EPA to 

21 regulate facilities through rules rather than 

22 permits. The rules are industry-sector specific 

23 and include qualifying criteria and all 

24 requirements that would normally be detailed in a 

25 site-specific permit. If a company qualifies for a 
3 

1 particular permit-by-rule, it must comply with all 

2 the requirements in the rule to eliminate the need 

3 for an individual permit. 

4 Permit-by-rule provisions already exist 

5 in Ohio's rules for five types of operations: 

6 emergency electric generators, plastic molding 

7 facilities, crushing operations, soil vapor 

8 remediation, and soil liquid remediation 

9 activities. 

10 Ohio EPA wants to add six new categories 

11 including: auto body refinishing, two categories 

12 of gasoline dispensing facilities, natural gas13 fired boiler/ heaters, small size printing and mid14 size printing facilities. 

15 Four notable changes to the proposed 

16 rules were made as a result of public comments in 

17 the initial review period. These include: 

18 separating the permit-by-rule package from the 

19 threshold exemption rules, which may be proposed at 

20 a later time; requiring a facility to notify Ohio 

21 EPA when claiming any permit-by-rule exemption; 

22 replacing a requirement for mandatory annual 

23 reporting with a requirement to report deviations 

24 or exceedances of t he permit-by-rule conditions at 

25 the time they occur; and including language 
4 

1 specifying that a facility is still subject to all 

2 additional regulations to ensure national air 

3 quality standards in a metropolitan area are met. 

4 The proposed rules also specify that 

5 existing facilities operating under existing 

6 permit-by-rule exemptions will be allowed one year 

7 to submit a notice to Ohio EPA, which will maintain 

8 a list of these facilities on its Web site for 

9 public review. 

10 These rules have been filed with the 

11 joint committee on agency rule review. Copies of 

12 the rules are available for public review at Ohio 

13 EPA's Columbus office and may be obtained by 

14 contacting Ohio EPA's Division of Air Pollution 

15 Control at (614) 644-2270. 

16 All interested parties are entitled to 

17 attend or be represented and to present oral and/or 

18 written comments concerning the proposed rule 

19 revisions. All written and oral comments received 

20 as part of the official record will be considered 

21 by the Director of Ohio EPA prior to any further 

22 action taken on this issue. When rules are 

23 adopted, Ohio EPA issues another public notice. 

24 To be included in the official record, 

25 written comments must be received by Ohio EPA by 
5 

1 April 22, 2005. These comments may be filed with 

2 me today or mailed to Rick Carleski at Ohio EPA, 

3 P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio, 43216-1049. All 

4 written comments submitted for the record receive 

5 the same consideration as oral testimony given 

6 today. 

7 Written statements submitted after April 

8 22nd may be considered as time and circumstances 

9 permit, but will not be a part of the official 

10 record of this hearing. 

11 If you wish to present oral testimony at 

12 this hearing today and have not already signed the 

13 registration sheet, please do so at this time. I 

14 will call people to testify in the order in which 

15 they have registered. 

16 There is no cross-examination of 

17 speakers or representatives of Ohio EPA in public 

18 hearings such as this. Ohio EPA hearings such as 

19 this afford citizens the opportunity to provide 

20 comments on the official record. Therefore, we 

21 will not be able to answer questions during the 

22 hearing. 

23 However, comments raised during the 

24 public hearing and during the comment period will 

25 be responded to in writing. 
1 The only person who has registered at 

2 this time is Robert Chaffee. Would you like to 

3 testify tonight, sir? 

4 

5 

MR. CHAFFEE: No. 

MS. WILLEKE: Thank you. He did not 

6 

6 wish to testify tonight. Is there anyone else here 

7 tonight who would like to testify on these proposed 

8 rules? 

9 Seeing no request to testify at this 

10 time, we will go off the record until 7 P.M. to 

11 allow anyone else the opportunity to arrive and to 

12 testify. 

13 At 7 P.M., if no one else has arrived to 

14 testify, we will go back on the record and conclude 

15 this hearing. Off the record. 

16 

17 

(Off the record) 

MS. WILLEKE: We will go back on the 

18 record now. Is there anyone who has arrived who 

19 would like to testify at tonight's hearing 

20 regarding these proposed rules? 

21 Seeing no request to testify, we will 

22 adjourn this hearing at 7 P.M. on April 21, 2005, 

23 with the reminder that written comments can be 

24 submit ted through the close o f business tomo rrow, 

25 April 22nd . Thank you and good night. 
7 

1 

2 CERTIFICATE 

3 

4 I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, 

5 correct, and complete transcript of the proceedings 

6 in this matter on April 21, 2005, taken by me and 

7 transcribed from my stenographic notes. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Celeste C. Dawley, RPR 

Assistant Official 

Court Reporter 
Article VI 

-

Response to Comments 
OAC 3745-3 1-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 1 of22 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Responsive Summary To Public Comments 

Received For Proposed Amendments to Add Additional Permit·by-Rule 

Provisions to OAC Rule 3745~31-03 

List of Commentors 

A Kaushal Gupta, U.S. EPA, Region 5 Chicaqo 

B Regional Air Pollution Control Agency 

c Hamilton Coun!y Department of Environmental Services 

D Robert Chaffee, Environmental Permit Specialists, LLC 

E The Ohio Environmental Council 

Environmental Community Organization 

Buckeye Environmental Network 

Ohio Citizen Action 

Sierra Club, Ohio Chapter 

Marie Kocoshis, citizen 

F Ohio Chamber of Commerce 

G The Ohio Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association 

H The Graphic Arts Coalition 

BACKGROUND 

On March 16, 2005, the Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution Control released for public 

comment proposed draft language to amend Ohio Administrative Code 37 45·31·03 to 

modify several permanent exemptions and to add six additional permit-by-rule 

provisions. The thirty-day public comment period ended on April 22, 2005. 

Pursuant to Section 119.03 of the Ohio Revised· Code, a public hearing on these rule 

Amendments was conducted on April 21, 2005 at 6:30p.m., in Building E, Assembly 

·Center, 1st Floor, of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2045 Morse Road, 

Columbus, Ohio. No parties presented written or oral comments at the hearing. 

However, eight parties submitted written comments to the Ohio EPA. 

The Ohio EPA thoroughly reviewed all written comments. The following 

Responsiveness Summary includes the text of the comments and the corresponding 

Ohio EPA response. It is divided into the following sections: 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 2 of22 

Section 1: General comments about the permit-by-rule concept. 

Section 2: Comments to the proposed General Provisions section of the permit-by-rule 

provisions. 

Section 3: Comments to the six proposed permit-by-rule provisions. These detailed 

comments are separated according to the specific permit-by-rule and are focused on 

the rule language. 

Section 4: Comments to the current and proposed rule language changes for the 

existing permanent exemptions. 

SECTION 1 

General Comments About the Permit-By-Rule Concept 

Commentor B: 

Overall, we support the Permit by Rule (PBR) exemption concept. However, we believe there are some 

problems that result from implementation that don't exist with a program built upon permit requirements. 

Specifically, a major shortcoming exists with the local agencies and the district offices having knowledge 

of the facilities opting to exercise the PBR exemption and therefore, having knowledge of the facilities 

required to record-keep and submit deviation reports to us. Additionally, we are concerned that if smaller 

industries, such as gasoline dispensing facilities (GDF), do not have a permit issued to them and they do 

not have easy access to the Internet to view the regulations, they will not be aware of the specific 

requirements they are to meet and subsequently this could lead to compliance issues. 

Ohio EPA Response: Ohio EPA shares the concern that the locations of PBR qualifying sources should 

be known and it was never Ohio EPA's intent to not share information about PBR facilities with the district 

offices and local air agencies. It was felt having one point of contact for sending the PBR notifications, as 

specified in General Provisions section, would simplify the notification procedure. It is DAPC's intent to 

provide these notifications to the appropriate district office or local air agency and to assist in the PBR 

tracking process. In addition, the district office/local air agency input will be needed to properly evaluate 

requests from existing permit holders to switch to a PBR. 

Commentor E: 

We believe that Ohio EPA should not remove these six categories from the permit system. Permits by rule 

have historically been used for truly small sources that subsequently receive no further attention by the 

agency. These six categories have complex rules governing their operations, will require ongoing 

regulatory oversight to ensure compliance, have rather high emissions limits for local sources - 25 tons per 

year of VOCs- , and frequently have a significant impact on local air quality, particularly with respect to 

nuisance. 

The guidance that has been cited in the background to this rule, USEPA Potential To Emit Guidance of 

April1998, states :"This guidance is NOT intended to affect minor new source review (NSR) programs. 

Those programs are necessary for attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality 

standards, and for generally managing and protecting air quality in a given location ... ln making any 

change to a minor NSR program, the State of local agency needs to address air quality impact 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 3 of22 

considerations in addition to those discussed here." (pg 5 of guidance document: 1998-04-18 U.S. EPA 

PTE Guidance Memo.) We believe that the state agency has provided insufficient justification for 

removing the six categories from the permitting system, beyond statements that it consulted with industry 

or referred comments back to industry for their consideration (see attached page). 

That being said, should Ohio EPA choose to move forward with this proposed rule, we are raising the 

following objections, concerns, and questions. 

[Please note that any paragraph and page references are based upon the draft made available on OEPA's 

website as of April 18; we do not know if the page and paragraph numbering modifications referred to on 

OEPA's website are all incorporated into that draft.] 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: We believe the intent of U.S. EPA "Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific 

Source Categories~ Apri/14, 1998 is to provide practical, real-world background information to states for 

limiting potential emissions from certain source categories to ensure they are not major sources subject to 

Title V requirements. We a/so believe the intent of U.S. EPA's statement, as quoted in the comment, is to 

not force a state to modify its existing minor NSR program to accommodate the PTE guidance, but allow 

the state flexibility in adopting all, some, or none of the guidance as appropriate to state permit 

streamlining efforts or provisions of its minor source NSR program. 

The permit-by-rule (PBR) provisions establish a standard set of enforceable terms and conditions for 

regulating a particular source type, just like a traditional permit would contain. Source qualifying for a PBR 

will still be regulated and subjected to emission limits. For this reason, the Ohio EPA believes the new 

PBRs will have no negative affects on air quality. 

Commentor E: 

We reiterate certain comments submitted during the IP process, which we believe have neither received 

adequate response by the agency nor have been reflected in subsequent modifications to the draft rule. 

As per Bruce Buckheit, former director ... : "Key features of successful permits by rule include: (1) a clear 

statement of the applicability of the rule; (2) simple and clear substantive requirements; (3) a public 

submission bv the source demonstrating that the source understands the requirements applicable to it; ffi 

sufficient information provided to the permitting authority to enable it (and the public! to ascertain whether 

the source qualifies for the 'permit bv rule': (5) sufficient monitor/no to enable the source to document 

continuous compliance and (6) recordkeepinq and reporting sufficient to enable the permitting authorfty 

and the public to ascertain the compliance status of the source." 

1. The PBR draft rule should require (a) certification by a responsible official in any applications and 

submitted reports and (b) "a public submission by the source demonstrating that the source understands 

the requirements applicable to it." 

2. The PBR rule should provide for public access to recordkeeping sufficient to enable the public to 

ascertain the compliance status of the source. 

Records should be available to the public either by direct access or through petition to the Director. 

Ohio EPA Response: In response to comments submitted during the Interested Party phase of this 

rulemaking, the Ohio EPA made significant changes to the notification and reporting requirements for all 

PBR categories. The Ohio EPA believes the proposed rule contains all provisions acceptable to the U.S. 

EPA. Records from PBR-qualifying facilities can be made available to the public through petition to the 

director or by contacting the applicable district office or local air agency. 

Commentor ;::: : 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness SUilliilal)' 

Page 4 of22 

Under the proposed rules, if a source exceeds the PBR emissions limits, the worst case response is that 

the Director may at his discretion, ask the source to apply for a permit. This is not adequate. The agency 

should mandate a permit for sources that violate the terms of the PBR, including exceeding emissions 

limitations. 

Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA developed and utilizes an enforcement policy to guide staff 

concerning enforcement. Based on this policy, our enforcement response to violations can range 

anywhere from a simple notice of violation letter to a full enforcement action wffh significant fines and 

penalties. Under the PBR process, the Agency retains the authority to inspect, monffor, request emissions 

information, permit applications, etc. from any facility to ensure compliance with applicable air pollution 

laws and regulations. Facilities which claim permit-by-rule exemptions, but are subsequently found to be 

violating the permit-by-rule condffions, are subject to the same enforcement provisions as facilffies holding 

tradffional permits. 

Commentor E: 

The nuisance rule, 3745-15-07, does not appear to be applicable to facilities exempted from the permit 

system. We feel that the language should be included to affirm that sources operating under Permit By 

Rule are prohibited from creating nuisance. This is the language used in current permitting, and should 

be used in the permit by rule. The current language only states that the Director may take some 

discretionary action if nuisance is caused; this is not enforceable by the public. 

Because OEPA only enforces the nuisance law under extraordinary circumstance, and because the 

exemption from the permit system will reduce even further any incentive tor local air agencies to recognize 

nuisance from PBR sources, the importance of citizen enforcement takes an even greater role than usual. 

This ability for citizens to enforce the SIP must be preserved particularly in the case of nuisance. 

Ohio EPA Response: The nuisance rule does apply to sources qualifying for PBRs. The Ohio EPA 

retains the discretion to not allow a particular facility to operate under the PBR provisions if the facility is 

found to be causing a nuisance, or has a history of on-going compliance problems. 

Com mentor E: 

BAT should establish a minimum control device efficiency, which when multiplied by the capacity of the 

facility seeking to be permitted establishes a facility specific hourly emission rate. For example, auto body 

shops are required to use HVLP or electrostatic spray equipment Presumably the efficiency of these 

devices will vary depending upon whether they are maintained and operated according to manufacturers' 

specifications. An efficiency should be determined based upon proper operating procedures, and the 

facility should be held to this efficiency in its subsequent operations. 

Additionally, we believe that BAT must include specifications for VOC content of coatings. The OEPA 

justifies its lack of such specification on the fact that VOC content has been regulated nationally; this may 

be true for the auto industry but is not equally true tor the printing industry. 

Bruce Buckheit's comments as follows regarding BAT for PBR have not been addressed in response to 

comments by OEPA: 

"The levels of performance set out in the OEPA proposal contain insufficient information to establish that 

they are BAT, or indeed, how OEPA came to those proposals. Simply incorporating existing SIP 

requirements is not the same as establishing BAT. The OEPA proposal seems to fall short of any 

reasoned approach to BAT in many instances. For example, OEPA proposes that Stage I nozzles be 

established as BAT for new gasoline stations in Stage I counties without any discussion of the relative 

benefits of the Stage II nozzles that are in common use in many parts of Ohio and the rest of the country. 

Nor does the proposal consider advanced systems that are available to capture volatile organic 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

PageS of22 

compounds that would otherwise be released when the station's tanks are filled. Similarly, while the lack 

of discussion in the OEPA documents precludes a final evaluation, the emission levels proposed for 

heaters and boilers and the control requirements for paint booths and printers do not appear to be based 

on application of the best currently available technologies . 

Most of the BAT proposals in the 'permit by rule' provisions do not appear to be based on the application 

of any technology since they provide a single emissions limit without regard to the size of the facility. BAT 

should establish a minimum control device efficiency, which when multiplied by the capacity of the facility 

seeking to be permitted establishes a facility specific hourly emission rate." 

We also incorporate by reference page 2 of David Altman's comments, submitted on October 13, 2004, 

regarding BAT. These comments were not addressed in OEPA's response to comments, in particular that 

OEPA has not demonstrated that the proposed modification does not violate the anti-backsliding provision 

of the Clean Air Act. 

Ohio EPA Response: The six proposed permit-by-rule provisions contain combinations of qualification 

criteria to define the size of facility, operating conditions, work practices, emission limitations, etc. that 

col/ectivelv constitute BAT for that particular type and size of source. It should be noted that Ohio EPA 

based some of the permit-by-rule criteria on its review of permits-to-instal/ issued for similar sources over 

the previous three years. In many cases, the permit-by-rule conditions go beyond basic Ohio SIP 

requirements and what is normally defined as BAT in permits to install. Consequently, Ohio EPA 

considers the PBR sources to be regulated on a level comparable to that of permitted sources. ·Therefore, 

this is not in conflict with any anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

When considering potential PBR categories, the Ohio EPA only considered source types that have a wellestablished BAT determination which is unlikely to change significantly in the future. Ohio EPA 

specifically excluded from the PBR sources which require complex add-on emission control equipment of 

the type mentioned by Mr. Buckheit. These types of sources are left to be regulated through traditional 

permits or general permits. With the exception of gasoline dispensing facilities, add-on emissions controls 

are characteristically not cost effective for small emitting sources, such as those covered by the PBR 

provisions. For gasoline dispensing facilities, minimum control equipment efficiency is specified by OAC 

3745-21-09(R) or (DOD) and is included in the PBR conditions . 

. As required by R. C. 119.032, the Agency must review each rule once eve!}' five years. This normal fiveyear review cycle, which includes the opportunity for public comment, will afford the Agency a chance to 

review and revise, if necessal}', the permit-by-rule conditions to reflect any new developments in BAT. 

Commentor F: 

These comments are in regard to Ohio EPA's proposed amendment of OAC 37 45-31-03 (Permit to Install 

exemptions) to incorporate new permit-by-rule (PBR) provisions in the Agency's air permitting program. 

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce supports the effort to remove small air pollution sources from the 

individual permitting system, and appreciates Ohio EPA's effort to finalize six new PBRs. 

Ohio EPA Response: No response necessary. 

Commentor D: 

I have not seen comment as to how these provisions may affect facilities subject to title V permits. In 

particular, a facility may have boilers that are listed in a title V permit and that are consequently subject to 

quarterly reporting . A similar situation may exist for a maintenance, prototype, or touch-up paint booth that 

may be included in a title V permit, and may also fit the definitions in the proposed permit-by-rule for small 

paint shops. 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 6 of22 

Will a boiler or paint booth that is relieved of reporting requirements pursuant to the permit-by-rule also be 

relieved of those requirements within a title V permit? · 

If there are historic permits-to-install for subject boilers or booths, will there be an advantage for a title V 

facility to have those permits rescinded and have the equipment registered under the permit-by-rule? 

Are there any other provisions of the permit-by-rule that may effect emission units that are presently 

included in a title V permit? 

Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA does not anticipate much use of the PBR provisions by Title V 

facilities. However, Title V facilities may opt to claim any of the PBR exemptions or permanent 

exemptions specified by OAC rule 3745-31-03. It should be noted that emissions from all sources. exempt 

or not, must be counted when determining the applicability of Tftle V, PSD, or non-attainment New Source 

Review permitting actions. This is specified in the introductory language to the PBR provisions. 

A Tftle V facility claiming a PBR exemption will need to modify its Title V permit to include the PBR 

provisions. If a conflict in monitoring or reporling frequency between the Title V and PBR conditions 

becomes evident, the more stringent requirement shall apply. A Title V facility should perform its own 

evaluation of whether claiming PBR exemptions is in its best interests. The auto body finishing PBR is for 

that specific industry only, and can not be used for other small industrial painting operations. 

SECTION 2 

Comments Pertaining to the General Provisions Section 

2. 1 Record Keeping Requirements 

Note: Commentor G's comments pertaining to record keeping requirements for gasoline dispensing 

facilities are included under Section 3 for specific PBR provisions. 

2.2 Notification Requirements for New Installations 

Commentor B: 

(A)(4)(a)(ii}-The written notification prior to installation should be sent to both Ohio EPA and the 

appropriate district office or local air agency. Additionally, it should be specified that the written notification 

is to be submitted at least 60 days prior to installation. 

Com mentor C: 

Does Ohio EPA have a system in place to notify the District Offices and Local Air Agencies of all facilities 

which submit permit-by-rule notifications to Ohio EPA-PMU? 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The Ohio EPA intends to share all PBR notifications with the district offices and 

local air agencies in a timely manner and will provide procedural guidance. Also see response to 

Commentor B, Section 1. 

Commentor E: 

The rule as proposed allows companies simply to notify the Director of their intention to take the 

exemption from PTI and use Permit By Rule instead. Under current law, the Director can deny or condition 

permits based on social or economic impacts of the air contaminants ... or other adverse environmental 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Smnmary 

Page 7 of22 

impact that may result from approval of the source. 37 45-31-05(8 ). Under the proposed regulations, such 

impacts could not be considered. 

We believe that new sources should APPLY for exemption and must make an initial demonstration of 

compliance through actual calculations of emissions or direct testing. The director should retain his ability 

to deny or condition exemptions, based upon such considerations as: (1) prior record of a company; (2) 

environmental justice impacts; (3) air quality attainment status. Public notice should also be made for each 

application for exemption. 

In its application, the source should be required to give sufficient detailed information useful to regulators 

and to neighborhoods: ua listing of all pollutants emitted by the facility (in amounts greater than de 

minimis), and a list of all control technology devices. For each such device, the source should be required 

to list the pollutant controlled, the design control efficiency and the operating capture and control 

efficiencies (the percentage of exhaust gases captured by the system, and the percentage of pollutants 

removed by the system, respectively.) 

Ohio EPA Response: The PBR notification procedures contained in the General Provisions section are 

intended to provide the .Agency with the ability to request sufficient information to ascertain whether the 

source qualifies for a specific PBR. Because the PBR qualifying criteria and operating requirements serve 

to define the emission source, the Ohio EPA disagrees that sources should have to list all emissions, 

control devices, capture efficiencies, etc. in a PBR application. Requiring such information would also be 

burdensome to the small business community. The Ohio EPA will continue to request this type of in-depth 

technical information for sources needing traditional permits. 

Ohio EPA district offices and local air agencies will retain the discretion to not allow a facility to claim a 

PBR exemption based on past operating and compliance history, observed violations, and any local 

concerns. 

2.3 Notification Requirements for Existing Permitted Sources 

Commentor B: 

(A)(4)(a)(iii)-The transition from an existing permit to a permit by rule needs to be addressed in the rule, 

such that additional work is not created for the permittee or the permitting authority. 

Ohio EPA Response: As explained above, input from the district offices/local air agencies will be needed 

for facilities applying to switch from a current permit to a PBR. DAPC envisions this process as similar to 

the field office sending a permit recommendation to Central Office to change the permit status. Because 

this process is mostly administrative in nature, only the basic requirements were outlined in the rule. 

Commentor E: 

Similarly, sources already operating under permits must not be allowed simply to opt in to the exemption, 

but rather the Director must consider such issues as (1) prior BAT determinations; (2) prior conditions 

placed upon operations to comply with the terms of findings and orders issued by OEPA ; (3) evidence of 

nuisance; (4) air quality attainment status. These considerations are examples only and do not include all 

the possible conditions which may exist. 

We also feel that the application for revocation of a permit should be put into public notice and maintained 

as a public record. Ordinarily, issuance of a permit, replete with control requirements , reporting and record 

keeping and applicable emissions limits, would be published in the weekly review so that parties 

"adversely affected" would be afforded notice in the event they wished to lodge an appeal with ERAC. As 

written, the draft rule makes opting in to the permit by rule exemptions secret and not public. Some type 

of publication in the weekly review should be made for all exemption requests and all PTI revocation 
OAC 3745-31 ·03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 8 of22 

requests. 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: As explained above, the district offices!Jocal air agencies will initially have the 

opportunity to determine whether a permitted source may convert to a PBR considering past compliance 

history, prior permit conditions, nuisance complaints, etc. Notices of permit revocation constitute a final 

action by the Director and are appealable to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission. 

2.4 Notification Requirements for Existing Permit-by-Rule Sources 

Commentor 8: 

(A)(4)(a)(iv)-Does Ohio EPA have a plan in place to notify the existing PBR sources of this requirement? 

The written notification for the existing PBR sources should be sent to both Ohio EPA and the appropriate 

district office or local air agency. 

Ohio EPA Response: OAC 3745-31-03 never contained any notification requirements for the five existing 

permit-by-rule categories, so no comprehensive list of these sources exists. However, The Ohio EPA will 

investigate as many outreach avenues as practical to inform the regulated communffy about the 

notification requirements for existing PBR categories. Any notifications received at Central Office will be 

forwarded to the district offices and local air agencies. 

2.5 Reporting Requirements 

Commentor 8 : 

(A)(4)(a)(vi)(b)-The last sentence should read A. .. and any corrective actions ef or preventive measures 

that have ... 

Ohio EPA Response: The need for this correction has been noted. 

2. 6 Scheduled Maintenance/Malfunction Reporting 

Note: Commentor G's comments pertaining to the maintenance/malfunction reporting requirements for 

gasoline dispensing facilities are included under Section 3 for specific PBR provisions. 

SECTION 3 

Comments Pertaining to the Six New Permit-by-Rule Exemotions Soecified by OAC Rule 3745-31-

03(A)(4)(g\ throuah (I) 

3.1 Comments Specific to Auto Body Refinishing Permit-by-Rule 

Commentor A: 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 9 of22 

Auto Body Refinishing Facility: Under Testing Requirements, the rule should specify test methods, instead 

of relying only on assumed emission factors. 

Commentor C: 

This Agency still believes a test method for determining VOC contents should be fisted in the testing 

requirements section for the auto body refinishing and printing facility permit-by-rules. This Agency agrees 

that Method 24 is not necessarily needed but the Agency should list the available methods for determining 

the VOC content. Requiring this in the testing requirements section is consistent with permits presently 

being issued by Ohio EPA. Also determining the proper VOC content is important for the printing facilities 

since it is used in determining the emissions from these operations. The following wording could be used 

in the testing section: A Formulation data, material safety data sheets or USEPA Method 24 or 24A shall 

be used to determine the VOC content of the coatings. 

Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA did consider referencing Method 24 in the auto body refinishing and 

printing PBRs. However, we felt that stating a specific test method might confuse facilities into thinking 

that lab analyses of all coatings was required. This would be cost prohibitive for many small facilities. We 

agree that Method 24 can be used in any special case where the VOC content of a coating or coatings is 

of such importance that it affects the applicability of the PBR. In addition, we believe the conservative 

assumptions of material maximum VOC content in the PBRs allow a comfortable margin of error. 

Commentor E: 

We believe the draft rule needs greater clarification so as to follow the EPA guidance for ensuring that 

PBR will not be applied to major sources. 

EPA guidance upon which this rule was based states that "The EPA recommends a more conservative 

approach for these repainting facilities .... For example, Earl Scheib facilities contain one spray booth, and 

are designed for a capacity of 40-50 cars per week. This EPA guidance recommends limiting such 

facilities to "only 1 paint booth". (Technical Support Document for Potential to Emit Guidance Memo. 

Documentation of Emission Calculations. Tim Smith, USEPAfOAQPS. April1998) 

Additionally, we add the following comments: 

p 16: para g(i)(c) coatings should include both "cleanup solvents" and "dilution solvents" should both 

appear, in conformity with EPA guidance. . 

p 17: para f (iii) and (iv) the stack height should be at minimum 1 and ~ times the height of the building, 

and the setback of 60 feet should be increased to at least 100 feet. OEPA states that these limits are the 

minimum required to conform to the Ohio Air Toxics Policy for 23 chemicals, and we do not feel this is 

adequate. In addition, the high potential for nuisance emissions from these facilities, coupled with the fact 

that many auto body facilities are located in close proximity to residential areas, should lead to an 

increased requirement for dispersion of emissions. 

p17: para ii(a) sets an hourly VOC emissions limit of 9 lbs!hr which is based upon EPA guidance for a 

single spray booth. The rule as written allows for two spray booths; this will allow exceedances of the 

hourly emissions limit. 

p17: para iii(a) is not enforceable as written. In order to make BAT meaningful, the vague phrase "in order 

to minimize air contaminant emissions" should be deleted and the wording " shall keep spray equipment 

operating at the specified control and transfer efficiency, by maintaining it in accordance with ... " should be 

added. 

p 18: para (iv) some method should be included for determining the portion of VOC content contributed by 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 10 of22 

oxygenated or chlorinated solvents. We believe that Method 24 should be required to accurately 

determine this . 

p19: para (v) (b) is erroneous in stating that the hourly emissions compliance is determined by the 9 

lbsVOC/hr emission factor. As stated earlier, this is a factor for one job in one spray booth, and will too low 

by half if both spray booths are operating simultaneously. 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The permit-by-rule strategy is not meant to cover major sources and the qualifying 

criteria ensure that a PBR source, by itself, is not a major source. 

U.S. EPA 's PTE Guidance document, as referenced in the comments, does recommend using criteria of 

two spray booths for a collision repair facility, and one spray booth for a "paint-only" facility such as Earl 

Scheib facilities which do not also repair vehicle bodies. It also contains recommendations for number of 

jobs per week. After explaining that the two types of facilities do not differ much in emissions on a per job 

basis, the guidance document conservatively recommends no more than 50 jobs per week from either 

1YJ2fE. of facility. This is the criteria Ohio EPA chose to simplify the PBR so it would cover both types of 

facilities, and is in fact, the most stringent recommendation (no more than 50 jobs/week) in the PTE 

guidance document. 

U.S. t=PA guidance recommended a conservative emission factor of91bs VOC per job, not per booth. 

The guidance did not recommend or specify hourly emission rates from spray booths. It is Ohio EPA's 

assumption to use one job per hour as the maximum production rate of the whole facility, based on actual 

industry studies as referenced in the PTE guidance document, in order to estimate hourly emissions. This 

was done to agree with normal state permit writing protocol for establishing hourly emission limits. The 

PBR criteria specifies use of not more than 3000 gallons of all VOC-containing materials which 

encompasses a larger universe of materials than the ucoatings, dilution solvent and cleaning solvent" 

mentioned U.S. EPA's guidance. 

The Ohio EPA performed an analysis which showed that the proposed hourly emissions rates, coupled 

with the stack design specifications, comformed with the Air Taxies Policy and Engineering Guide 69 for 

approximately 21 common air toxic substances. This follows current protocols used when processing 

permit-to-install applications for these types of sources. 

3.2 Comments Specific to Gasoline Dispensing Facility Permit-by-Rules 

Commentor A: 

Gasoline Dispensing Facility with Stage I Controls AND with Stage I and Stage II Controls: 

a. Periodic leak checks should be required 

b. Under Testing Requirements, the rule should specify test methods instead of relying only on assumed 

emission factors 

c. Under Testing Requirements, it is unnecessary and possibly anti-credible evidence to state, "The OC 

emissions from all diesel, kerosene, and used oil tank filling and dispensing operations, if present at the 

facility, are assumed to be negligible" 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The PBR requires leak checks in a manner consistent with OAC rule 3745-21-09(R) 

and current permits for gasoline dispensing facilities. Testing is not required for Stage I control systems in 

Ohio. The test methods to be used by faci/fties with Stage II controls are specified by OAC rule 3745-21-

10 and the applicable GARB certification and are stated in the PBR. The statement about emissions from 
OAC 3 745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 11 of22 

diesel, kerosene, and used oil tank filling/dispensing was included for clarification and is meant to reflect 

that these emissions, although not zero, are typically very small and do not add significantly to the 

emissions generated from gasoline operations. This statement is often included in current pennits for 

gasoline dispensing facilities. 

Commentor E: 

Ohio EPA cites 1998 EPA guidance as its basis for the threshold established in this rule; however the 

throughput amount recommended by EPA to comply with a 25 ton per year OC limit is half the throughput 

allowed by OEPA in this rule. EPA states in its guidance that it has built in a 50% margin to account for 

error in emissions factors. This rule allows double the amount of throughput recommended by EPA for 

both Stage I and Stage II facilities. OEPA has apparently eliminated any error margin in its throughput 

allowances. Please explain why OEPA is not following EPA guidance. 

Ohio EPA Response: Ohio EPA is following U.S. EPA's guidance. U.S. EPA's 1998 PTE guidance can 

be somewhat confusing as their recommended gasoline throughput levels equate to 50 percent, or half, of 

Title V major source thresholds. States have different Title V major source thresholds, depending on the 

severity of nonattainment. For example, the PTE guidance states that if a state has a Title V threshold of 

25 tons per year, EPA recommends a monthly throughput of 160,000 gallons per month. This throughput 

equates to 12.5 tons/year of actual emissions, or 50% of a 25 tons per year major source threshold. 

However, Ohio's Title V threshold is 100 tons per year of VOC, not 25 tons per year. We could have 

based the PBR on U.S. EPA 's recommendations for a 100 tonslyr Title V threshold, which would have 

allowed twice the throughput and 50 tonslyr of actual emissions. The PBR is more stringent in this case 

and is consistent with EPA's recommended throughput values for a 50 tons per year major source 

threshold classification. This explains why the PBR throughputs equate to 50% of a 50 tons per year 

threshold, or 25 tons per year of actual emissions. 

Commentor E: 

Two out of five local air agencies commented in 2003 that the PBR is not an appropriate regulatory choice 

for GDF, and instead suggested the use of General Permits for this type of facility. The Ohio EPA 

responded that the PPEC which wrote the rule "did not consider compliance rates or tracking difficulties in 

its recommendations." (Summary and Response to Comments, September 23, 2003) 

We agree with the local agencies that it is inappropriate to remove GDFs from the permit system, as local 

air agencies are still under contract to perform recurring inspections on 100% of facilities. We feel that use 

of the general permit is more appropriate in this case, as the permit system provides a greater certainty 

that the agency can ensure compliance. Furthermore, allowing GDFs to be exempt from the permitting 

system will eliminate permit fees which the local air agencies rely upon to provide such services as 

inspection of these facilities. 

Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA anticipated a drop in pennit fees due to the new PBR provisions and 

increased pennit-to-install fees in 2004 and will be increasing emission fees for synthetic minor and nonTitle V facilities to offset the difference. District offices and local air agencies will continue to perform 

annual inspections of gasoline dispensing facilities, as required by performance contracts with Ohio EPA 

and SIP commitments made to U.S. EPA. We feel gasoline dispensing facilities are best suited for a 

pennU-by-rule, rather than general permits, because of the vast number of facilities and similarity of 

operetion and emissions. 

Commentor G: 

The OPMCA has concerns with the proposed record keeping and record retention requirements in Section · 

3745-31-03 of the Ohio Administrative Code . Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) Record Keeping 

Requirements states: 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 12 of22 

The owner or operator shall collect and maintain the records described for each air contaminant 

source exempted under this rule and these records shall be retained in the owner or operator's 

files for a period of not less than five years, unless otherwise specified in each exemption. These 

records shall be made available to the director or any authorized representative of the director for 

review during normal business hours. 

The general "record keeping requirements" in Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) mandate that an owner or 

operator electing to take advantage of the permit-by-rule exemption to collect and maintain records for the 

exempted source for five years unless the specific permit exemption states otherwise. However, a 

separate records-related section in the General Provisions for a permit-by-rule exemption seems to 

suggest a distinction between the records described in the aforementioned paragraph and records 

associated with monitoring or testing data. Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(v) Records Retention 

Requirements states: 

Each record of any monitoring data, testing data, and support information required pursuant to this 

permit-by-rule shall be retained for a period of five years from the date the record was created. 

Support information shall include, but not be limited to, all calibration and maintenance records 

and all original strip-chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, and copies for all 

reports required by this permit. Such records may be maintained in computerized form. 

The "records retention requirement" in Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(v) does not allow the specific permit 

exemption to dictate how long an owner or operator should retain records containing monitoring and 

testing data for a particular exempted source. 

For an owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing facility with Stage I and Stage II controls these general 

records-related provisions cause substantial confusion. On the one hand the general "recordkeeping" 

requirements in Section 37 45-31-03(A)( 4 )(a)(i) require record be maintained for five years, but defer to the 

specific permit exemption. The specific permit exemption for gasoline dispensing facilities with Stage I and 

Stage II controls requires records to be maintained in accordance with Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3) of the 

Ohio Administrative Code. Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3) specifically states:: 

(a) Any owner or operator of a gasoline dispensing facility which is subject to the requirements of 

paragraph (ODD)( 1) of this rule shall maintain the following records: 

(i) The quantity of gasoline delivered to the facility during each calendar month. 

(ii) The results of any tests performed pursuant to paragraph (000)(2) of this rule (Emphasis added). 

(iii) A log of the date and description of all repair and maintenance work performed (including, but not 

limited to, work performed to meet manufacturer's specifications or CARS certification requirements), or 

any other modifications made to the vapor control system. 

(iv) A copy of the most recent permit to operate application (including emissions activity category form or 

appendix form.) submitted to the Ohio EPA. 

(v) A copy of the most recent permit to operate issued by the Ohio EPA. 

(vi) Proof of attendance and completion of the training required by the Ohio EPA for the operator or local 

manager of the gasoline dispensing facility. 

(vii) Copies of all completed post test Inspection forms. 

(b) All records shall be retained by the owner or operator for a period of not less than three years and shall 

be made available to the director or any authorized representative of the director for review during norma[ 

business hours (Emphasis added). 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 13 of22 

Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3) of the Ohio Administrative Code requires all records, including results of any 

tests, to be maintained for three years. The confusion arises because the "record retention" requirement in 

the General Provisions section that addresses monitoring and testing data does not allow for the specific 

permit exemption to supersede the requirement to retain monitoring and testing data "for a period of five 

years from the date the record was created." Therefore, while the current Ohio Administrative Code 

requires gasoline dispensing facilities with Stage I and Stage II controls to retain results from testing for 

three years, the proposed amendment to 37 45-31-03 extends the length of time monitoring and testing 

data for these facilities must be retained to five years. 

The OPMCA questions the need to treat "records described for each air contaminant source exempted" 

and "each record of any monitoring data, testing data, and support information required pursuant to this 

permit-by-rule differently. The OPMCA recommends that the general "record retention" requirements in 

Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(v) of the proposed amendment be eliminated and incorporated into the 

general "record keeping" requirements under Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) of the proposal. This 

recommended change not only eliminates the need to more clearly distinguish between "record retention" 

and "record keeping• requirements in the current proposal, but also allows for the specific permit 

exemption language to clearly state precisely what record keeping requirements should apply to a 

particular exempted source. The OPMCA further recommends that the "recordkeeping requirements" for 

gasoline dispensing facilities with Stage I and Stage II controls remain consistent with current law and all 

records associated with the exempted source be retained for only three years. 

The OPMCA is also concerned with the requirement in the proposed amendment that a gasoline 

dispensing facility must retain post inspection information on site. Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(i)(vi)(a) states 

in pertinent part "[a)fter competition of any tests, the facility shall complete and retain on site a copy of the 

post test inspection form contained in Appendix C of rule 3745-21-10 of the Administrative Code." The 

record keeping requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities with Stage II controls pursuant to Section 

3745-21-09 (DDD)(3) mandate an owner or operator to keep the results of any tests and those results are 

required to be made available to the to the director or any representative of the director for review during 

normal business hours. 

The OPMCA supports the current language of Section 3745-21-09 (DDD)(3). The OPMCA recognizes 

the potential for these types of important documents to get misplaced or even discarded in a high-volume 

gasoline dispensing facility. The risk associated with the loss of these documents increases greatly due to 

the fact the facility is by its very nature a fast-paced, high traffic location. The OPMCA contends that the 

most appropriate location for documents associated with an air pollution controls system at a gasoline 

dispensing facility to be housed is the owner or operator's main office whereby the documents can be 

easily located and made readily available to the director or any representative of the director for review 

during normal business hours. The Agency obviously recognizes that the most appropriate manner in 

which to examine specific facility documentation is to require that certain documentation "be made 

available to the director or any representative of the director for review during normal business hours• 

since this exact language appears in Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(i) of the current proposal. Therefore, the 

OPMCA recommends that the relevant provision of Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(i)(vi)(a) be revised to state: 

After competition of any tests, the facility shall complete a copy of the post test inspection form 

contained in Appendix C of rule 37 45-21-1 0 of the Administrative Code. A copy of the post 

inspection form shall be retained by the owner or operator of the facility and shall be made 

available to the director or any representative of the director for review during normal business 

hours. 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The 5-year record retention language contained in the PBR General Provisions is 

not a new requirement and is identical to the standard record retention language contained in the Part /-

General Terms and Conditions section of all permits-to-instal! issued by Ohio EPA. The Ohio EPA will 

consider developing guidance to clarify the record retention requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities 

and to allow for post test inspection forms to be kept in a centralized location. 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 14 of22 

Commentor G: 

Lastly, the OPMCA is concerned about the inclusion of a Scheduled Maintenance/Malfunction Reporting 

section in the General Provisions for the new permit-by-rule exemptions. Section 3745-31- 03(A)(4)(a){vii) 

states: 

Any scheduled maintenance of air pollution control equipment shall be performed in accordance 

with paragraph (A) of rule 3745-15-06 of the Administrative Code. The malfunction of any 

emissions units or associated air pollution control system(s) shall be reported to the appropriate 

Ohio EPA district office or local air agency in accordance with paragraph (B) of the rule 3745-15-

06 of the Administrative Code. Except as provided in that rule, any scheduled maintenance or 

malfunction necessitating the shutdown or bypassing of any air pollution control system(s) shall be 

accompanied by the shutdown of the emissions ·units that is (are) served by such control 

system(s). 

The reference to Section 37 45-15-06 of the Ohio Administrative Code in the afrementioned paragraph 

contemplates that regularly scheduled maintenance takes place on all air pollution control systems. While 

this may be the case with respect to large-scale industrial air pollution control systems, this is clearly not 

the case for air pollution control systems at gasoline dispensing facilities. In fact, the air pollution control 

systems at gasoline dispensing facilities with State I controls and with both Stage I and Stage II controls 

are specifically designed so that routine, scheduled maintenance is unnecessary. In the event of a 

malfunction associated with a Stage I or Stage II air pollution control system, the equipment is specifically 

designed so that replacements parts are easily available on service equipment vehicles and can be 

installed in a short period of time with minimal disruption to the gasoline dispensing facility. 

Under the current air permitting system a permit-to-install issued for a gasoline dispensing facility does not 

make reference to Section 3745-15-06 of the Ohio Administrative Code. The OPMCA is concerned that 

the specific reference to 37 45-15-06 in the General Provisions for the permit-by-rule exemptions creates 

additional requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities under the proposed "streamlined" permit process 

that do not exist under the current air permitting system. Creating additional requirements for gasoline 

dispensing facilities by virtue of the reference to 3745-15-06 in the General Provisions for a permit-by-rule 

exemption greatly reduces the incentive for gasoline dispensing facilities to participate in this process, 

which was purposely designed to reduce the Agency's wori<load. In addition, gasoline dispensing facilities 

, are already subject to distinct reporting requirements pursuant to Sections 3745-31-03 (A)(4)(h) and (i) of 

the Ohio Administrative Code in the event the air pollution control system should malfunction. Section 

3745-31-03(A)(4)(h)(v)(a) and Section 3745-31-03(A)(4){i)(v)(b) both require that: 

Any leak from the vapor balance system or vapor control system that is not repaired within fifteen 

days after identification shall be reported to the appropriate Ohio EPA district office or local air 

agency within thirty days after the repair is completed. 

The OPMCA recommends the Agency consider eliminating the reference to Ohio Administrative Code 

Section 37 45-15-06 in the General Provisions section of the permit-to-install exemptions or consider 

amending Section 3745-31-03(A)(4)(a)(vii) as currently drafted to indicate that the provisions of 3745-15-

06 as incorporated by reference do not apply to gasoline dispensing facilities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. The OPMCA acknowledges the hard wori< and 

dedication exhibited by the Agency as well as by industry over the past four years. The OPMCA looks 

forward to continuing our dialogue as the expanded, streamlined permit-by-rule process comes to fruition. 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The Scheduled Maintenance/Malfunction Reporting requirements language 

contained in the PBR General Provisions is not a new requirement and is identical to the standard 

maintenance and malfunction language contained in the Part I -General Terms and Conditions section of 

all permits-to-instal! issued by Ohio EPA. The Ohio EPA will consider working with OPMCA to develop 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 15 of22 

guidance to clarify how gasoline dispensing facilities should define and report scheduled maintenance 

and malfunctions. 

3.3 Comments Specific to Boiler/Heater Permit-by-Rule 

Commentor A: 

Boiler and Heater 

a. As monitoring for visible emissions, the rule must require periodic Method 9 testing. 

b. In (v)(a), the rule should specify test methods for the individual pollutants instead of only relying on 

emission factors. 

c. The language in (v)(b) is unnecessary and possibly anti-credible evidence. 

Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA believes that mandating periodic Method 9 testing for visible 

emissions is unnecessary and burdensome for natural gas fired boilers. However, the PBR does specify 

that the Ohio EPA can require Method 9 evaluations for cause. Method 9 readings can a/so be performed 

by Ohio EPA staff during routine inspections. The Ohio EPA does not wish to mandate emission testing 

for these types of sources. We felt that specifying each test method for each pollutant would make the 

PBR language confusing to the reader and instead included the simplified phrase, "If required by the Ohio 

EPA, the owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance with ........ the hourly emission limitations ...... in 

accordance with the appropriate test methods specified in Appendix A. 40 CFR Part 60. n The referenced 

Appendix A includes all of the appropriate test methods. 

The language in paragraph lj)(v)(b) is intended to clarify the annual tons per year emission limitations 

reflect the potential-to-emit of the unit, as calculated at 8, 760 hours per year. This mirrors language in 

permits issued for similar sources. 

Commentor E: 

We believe that this rule can and will be used by petrochemical plants and petroleum refineries to avoid 

major modification determinations. We believe that the rule allows these facilities to disaggregate boilers 

from processes which would otherwise trigger PSD determinations. Therefore the wording of this rule be 

modified to prevent the avoidance of major modification determination; for example the rule should 

indicate that if a boiler could potentially be a part of any process or project which would later be eligible for 

PSD review, then that boiler should not be eligible for this PBR. 

Ohio EPA Response: As previously stated in the response to Commentor D, Section I, facilities must total 

emissions from all air pollution sources, exempt or not, when determining the applicability of Title V, PSD, 

or non-attainment New Source Review permitting actions. This is clarified in the introductory language to 

both the permanent exemption and the PBR sections of OAC 3745-31-03. 

Commentor E: 

pg27: para (i) comments are not rules; this comment should be rewritten in rule language 

p28: para (b) and (c) the rule should explicitly state that boilers which are used as emissions control 

devices are not eligible for exemption under this rule 

p28: para (d) for purposes of BAT: all boilers claiming exemption under this rule should have low NOx 

burners 

There should be an initial NOx and CO compliance demonstration (actual emissions). 

All units under this rule should at the minimum demonstrate through actual emissions calculations or 

testing that they meet the qualification requirements of this rule. 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 16 of22 

Records should be kept to enable updated calculations of PSD increment. 

Ohio EPA Response: The comment was added to clarify the PBR does not include "process heaters" as 

defined in the federal NSPS standards. Ohio EPA has employed such clarifying comments before in 

rules. Boilers used as emissions control devices are not eleigible for the PBR, since these units would not 

meet the qualifying criteria which specifies the units must only fire natural gas and that the emissions 

consist entirely of the products of fuel combustion. 

We believe the qualifying criteria, emission limitations, and low-NOx burner requirements constitute 

adequate BAT for these types of sources. In developing the emission limitations of the PBR, the Ohio 

EPA calculated actual and potential emissions from these types of sources. We do not agree that industry 

should be required to repeat these calculations for a compliance demonstration. Emission testing of 

natural gas fired boilers is not normally required by the Ohio EPA unless it is a component of a more 

comprehensive and complex facility-wide permitting situation, such as a LAER demonstration, netting 

calculation, etc. 

3.4 Comments Specific to Small/Midsize Printing Facility Permit-by-Rule 

Commentor A: 

Small Printing Facility AND Mid-size printing facility: Under Testing Requirements, the rule should specify 

test methods, instead of relying only on assumed emission factors. 

Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA does not intend to require emission testing for these types of 

sources. The conservative assumptions used for calculating emissions based on material usage are 

taken from U.S. EPA's own guidance. They reflect a pure material balance approach as opposed to a true 

emission factor method. Also see the response to Commentor C, Section 3. 1. 

Commentor C: 

In response to this Agency's comments on the small and mid-size printing facilities permit-by-rule, Ohio 

EPA stated that these rules will be submitted as a SIP revision so they are federally enforceable. If this is 

the case, then would 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KK need to be listed as an applicable rule if the potential 

HAP emissions are greater than 10/25 TPY? It is our understanding that if your actuals are less than 50 

% of the major source threshold, this does not necessarily exempt you from the MACT requirements 

unlike Title V. 

Ohio EPA Response: The Ohio EPA agrees that the small and midsize printing facilities would be 

considered area sources under the MACT standard ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KK) and would need to 

maintain material usage records as specified in the MACT. However, because the rest of the MACT 

regulation does not apply, we felt that listing the MACT in the PBR as an applicable regulation would 

confuse both the printing facilfties and regulatory staff and lead to many additional questions about MACT 

applicability and potential to emit. The Ohio EPA can issue supplemental guidance on this issue as this 

relates only to the printing PBRs. 

Commentor I=: 

OEPA has not demonstrated any application of the air toxics policy for printing facilities to establish 

conditions for adequate dispersion of toxic emissions. No offset or minimum stack height has been 

specified for the printing facilities categories. At a minimum, a stack height of 1 and Yz times the building 

height should be required, and a setback from property boundary of at least 100 feet. 

p32: table the applicable rule cited for the emissions limit on VOC and HAPs, 3745-31-05, A3, appears to 

be incorrect 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 17 of22 

p33: para iii (a) (iv) test methods must be used that allow the source to quantify and report the contribution 

from oxygenates (e.g. glycol ethers, alcohols) to total VOCs and HAPs 

Ohio EPA Response: For the printing PBRs, the Ohio EPA evaluated potential air toxics impacts by 

reviewing the toxic modeling results (which were done in conformance with the air toxics policy) contained 

in 100 permits-to-install issued to printing facilities over a three year period. It should be noted that this 

approach was used for several reasons: 1) printing presses of the type described in the PBR rarely have 

stacks and emissions are almost always entirely fugitive in nature; 2) different printing processes often 

emit different HAPs, · 3) estimating a reasonable maximum hourly emission scenario from all presses at 

the facility is difficult, due to the intermittent nature of press operation and emissions; and 4) a standard 

building size, exhaust scenario, location, etc. does not exist for printing facilities. The PTI review yielded 

modeling results for many sources which had much larger emissions than those allowed by the PBRs. 

These findings led Ohio EPA to conclude that emissions from the types of smaller printing operations 

defined by the PBR criteria would likely be in conformance with the air toxics policy. 

The emissions limits in the PBRs were established as BAT per OAC 3745-31-05(A)(3). The Ohio EPA did 

consider referencing Method 24 as a test method in the printing PBRs. However, we felt that including a 

specific test method might confuse facilities into thinking that lab analyses of all materials was required. 

This would be cost prohibitive for many small facilities. We agree that Method 24 can be used in any 

special case where the exact VOC content of a material or materials is of such importance that it affects 

the applicability of the PBR. In addition, we believe the conservative assumptions for maximum material 

VOC content listed in the PBRs allow a comfortable margin of error. 

Commentor E: 

OEPA states that it has relied upon EPA guidance for establishing limits on use of printing coatings: inks, 

dilution solvents, cleanup solvents, etc. Yet in all of the categories of printing operation this draft rule 

doubles those allowances. The EPA document indicates that its guidance was developed by reference to 

AP 42, and because of uncertainties with those emissions factors, the guidance left a large margin. The 

OEPA has in this rule done exact calculations using the EPA data which seems to have eliminated any 

margin of error built in by EPA. We question whether eliminating any uncertainty factor will ensure 

compliance with the emissions limits established by this rulE!. 

In all of the printing categories, the draft rule allows for 1 ,333 gallons of all HAP-containing materials; the 

EPA guidance sets this as a cutoff for remaining below the 10tpy single HAP/25 tpy total HAP, yet the 

state rule is using this threshold for a 5 tpy/1 Otpy HAP threshold 

p31: para c(iii) EPA guidance suggests 10,000 lbs of ink, cleaning solvent, and fountain solution additives 

to remain below a 1 Otpy VOC and 1 Otpy/25tpy HAP threshold. 

p31: para c(iv) EPA guidance suggests a screening limit of 1425 gallons 

p31 : para c(v) EPA guidance suggests a limit of 1425 gallons 

p31-32: para c(vi) EPA guidance suggests a limit of 1425 gallons 

pg32: para c(vii) EPA guidance suggests a limit of 40,000 lbs 

p32: para c(viii) EPA guidance suggests a limit of 10,000 lbs 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: Ohio EPA is following U.S. EPA 's guidance. This response is simiiar to that 

provided earlier for gasoline dispensing facilities. U.S. EPA's 1998 PTE guidance can be somewhat 

confusing as their recommended material usage limits equate to 50 percent, or half, of Title \1 major 

source thresholds. States have different Trtle V major source thresholds, depending on the severity of 

nonattainment. For example, the PTE guidance states that if a state has a Title V threshold of 10 tons per 

year for \IOC, EPA recommends that total material usage not exceed 10,000 pounds per year (for heatset 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 18 of22 

lithography). This usage rate conservatively equates to 5 tons/year of actual emissions, or 50% of a 10 

tons per year major source threshold. However, Ohio's Title V threshold is 100 tons per year of VOC, not 

10 tons per year. We could have based the PBR on U.S. EPA's recommendations for a 100 tonslyr Title 

V threshold, which would have allowed much greater material usages and 50 tonslyr of actual emissions. 

The PBRs are more stringent and are consistent with EPA's recommended material usage cutoffs for a 50 

tons per year major source threshold (for midsize printing PBR) and a 25 tons per year major source 

threshold (for small printing PBR). This explains why the material usage limits equate to 25 tons per year 

(50% of a 50 tons per year threshold for midsize PBR) and 10 tons per year (actually less than 50% of a 

25 tons per year threshold for small PBR) of actual emissions. 

Commentor E: 

p32: para c(ix) This paragraph is meaningless in terms of imposing limits on use of materials. It states that 

if a mix of printing types is in use at a facility, then the most stringent limit will apply. Since the limits for the 

various printing methods are listed in different units (gals and lbs), and vary by almost two orders of 

magnitude, it makes no sense to apply one most stringent limit to all types of printing. The facility should 

quantify the proportion of operations from each type of printing process, and the rule should 

proportionately apply coatings usage limits for each type of process. 

Ohio EPA Response: This condition was proposed by the printing industry and actually is much more 

restrictive and allows Jess actual emissions than the strategy proposed in the comment. To avoid 

confusion about which material usage limit applies at a facility using different printing methods, the facility 

has the option to calculate emissions instead. 

Commentor H: 

The GAC continues to support this rulemaking effort, and agrees with the changes proposed by the OH 

EPA (referred to as the Agency). Specifically, GAC agrees with the Agency's decision to streamline the 

rule by creating a section of "General Provisions." In reviewing the March 2005 proposal and interested 

party comment response document, there remain a few conditions that need to be addressed. The issues 

discussed below pertain to 3745-31-03(A)(4)(k), Small Printing Facility permit-by-rule, and 3745-31-

03(A)( 4 )(1), Mid-size printing facility permit~by-rule. 

1. The Qualifications section in both the small and mid-size printer still contains a threshold for 

combined HAP emissions of 10 TPY. In our original comments submitted on April18, 2004, GAC 

recommended a revision to 12.5 TPY. An emission threshold of 12.5 TPY rep~esents 50% of the 

major source threshold for the combined HAP limit and is consistent with U.S. EPA guidance. 

This comment was not addressed by the Agency in its comment response document, so it 

remains unclear as to the rationale for the 10 TPY proposed limit for combined HAP emissions. 

GAC maintains that by not establishing the combined HAP threshold at less than 50% of the major 

source threshold, there will be confusion and misinterpretation within the printing community. 

Maintaining the applicability threshold for emissions of both individual HAPs or combined HAPs at 

50% of the major source threshold will provide for uniformity and consistency within the rule and 

with U.S. EPA guidance, which will allow for a more complete understanding of the rule. 

Therefore, Conditions 3745-31-03(A)(4)(k) (i)(b) and (i)(c) and 3745-31-03(A)(4)(1) (i){b) and (i)(c) 

should be revised from 10 to 12.5 tons of combined HAPs in any calendar year and the threshold 

for combined HAPs be changed from 2,667 gallons to 3,333 gallons, respectively. 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The small printing PBR limfts combined HAP emissions to 10 tonslyr to avoid 

conflict and confusion with the concurrent limit of 10 tons!yr for VOC, since almost all HAPs from printing 

are also VOCs. The midsize printing PBR does limit combined HAP emissions to 12. 5 tonslyr and limits 

the use of HAP-containing materials to 3,333 galions per year. 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Smnmary 

Page 19 of22 

Commentor H: 

2. GAC appreciates the need to develop daily emission estimates to demonstrate compliance with 

the requirements for the use of photochemically reactive materials contained in OAC 3745-21-07 

and understands that this rule may be significantly revised at some point in the future. However, 

the development of a daily emission tracking system imposes a tremendous economic and 

administrative burden on printers, especially the small printers covered by this rule. Daily 

recordkeeping provides no meaningful environmental benefit. An alternative approach based on a 

monthly collection of materials used will provide sufficient assurance that the daily limit contained 

in OAC 3745-21-07 is not being exceeded. 

From a regulatory perspective, OAC 3745-21-07 does not contain a provision that requires daily 

recordkeeping. In addition, U.S. EPA's latest guidance for the printing industry regarding this issue 

also supports monthly recordkeeping. The guidance document "Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for Title V Permitting of Printing Facilities" can be viewed at 

htto://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarog/t5/memoranda/tsd.odf. 

Accurate daily recordkeeping in the printing industry is dependent on numerous factors including 

material consumption and the number of jobs produced. Each print run may last from 30 minutes 

to over several days. Many jobs started on one shift may end on the next shift or next day. 

Consequently, in order to make an accurate determination of process emissions, extremely 

detailed records will have to be developed and maintained. The variety, combinations and 

consumption rate of inks alone would make this a costly and burdensome task. For example, a 

typical facility can easily use 20 different inks during a day. However, a particular container of ink 

opened may take several days, weeks, or months to be completely consumed. Also, separate 

records for material consumption will have to be developed for each material used on each press. 

In the situations where a production run may involve two days, the press would have to be 

stopped. at the end of the first day and consumption of all input materials, such as but not limited 

to ink, fountain solution, cleaning solution, and coating consumption, would need to be measured. 

This is not uncommon and is the type of situation that presents itself when attempting to make 

accurate daily measurements. When considering the measurement parameters such as ink 

usage over a small period of time, the printer is faced with an increase in potential measurement 

errors (i.e., measurement of remaining ink) and measurement of small increments of waste ink. 

As an example, in measuring the flow rate of a pump, a more accurate gauge of the flow is 

measuring the volume over a minute rather than measuring over a two-second interval. 

Further, the cost of developing a daily recordkeeping system to meet the requests of this 

proposed requirement is financially impracticable for printing operations. Daily recordkeeping 

requirements could increase the monitoring cost to the printing facility by ten-fold when 

compared to monthly recordkeeping. Below are some of the estimated average costs to a small 

to mid-size printing operation associated with daily recordkeeping: 

Average of 1 hour of lost production time per day for each press: 

Press 001 - $150.00/hour 

Press 002- $150.00/hour 

Press 003- $200.00/hour 

Total $500.00 I hour 

Press Operator time to log information onto sheets: 

Press 001- $18,00/hour 

Press 002- $18.00/hour 

Press 003- $21.00/hour 

Total $57.00 I hour 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 20 of22 

$557 

X20 

$11,140.00 

(Total Per Day Lost Production and Press Operator Costs) 

(Average Work Days Per Month) 

(Average Total Monthly Cost Associated with Daily Recordkeeping) 

A monthly recordkeeping and emission determination for use of photochemically reactive 

materials would provide consistency and operational flexibility. Monthly records are also in sync 

with other records and business reports kept by individual printing facilities. A commenter 

suggested that the use of purchase records or usage records be allowed and GAC concurs with 

that comment. Records of sales, inventory, production, and waste are maintained on a monthly 

basis. This is an established recordkeeping system that can produce accurate information 

regarding emission rates and compliance without additional cost to the printer. 

The use of monthly recordkeeping is considered acceptable to U.S. EPA for those sources taking 

federally enforceable limits on their Potential Emissions. According to guidance issued by U.S. 

EPA on January 25, 1995 by Kathie A. Stein, Director Air Enforcement Division entitled "Guidance 

On Enforceability Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit Through SIP and Section 112 Rules 

and General Permits"; monthly recordkeeping is deemed acceptable. Section E of the memo 

states in part "The averaging time for all limits must be practicably enforceable. In addition, 

monthly recordkeeping has also been recommended by U.S. EPA in its new Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for Title V Permitting of Printing Facilities 

(htto://www.epa.gov/ttn/oaroq/t5/memoranda/tsd.pdf). 

On Page 43, in Table 4-1, U.S. EPA states under Data Collection Frequency: 

At least monthly accounting of material usage. 

On Page 44, in Table 4-1, U.S. EPA states under Recordkeeping: 

All monthly emissions determinations and 12-month.rofling summations for compliance 

with any NSR emissions limit on PTE. 

On page 82, under the discussion of Averaging Periods in Section 6.3.2, U.S. EPA states: 

The second type of short-term tracking problem involves limits that by their design neither 

constrain PTE nor assure compliance with an applicable requirement with a defined 

averaging time (e.g., MACT standard, certain SIP limits). Rather these limits implement 

technology requirements without preestablished averaging times (e.g., BACT) or 

safeguard ambient levels from exceedance. 

In many instances, the averaging times for such limits have been set in existing 

permits on a daily or shorter basis. However, in some cases, such as for sources with 

highly variable operations, it may not be reasonable or accurate to track emissions 

this frequently. For example, many printing, other coating, and batch chemical 

processes often conduct jobs or batches that extend across multiple days, making 

daily tracking a problem. Our June 1989 guidance for PTE limits aUthorizes the period 

for such tracking materials usage to extend up to a month in length. We believe, therefore. 

where a VOC source can demonstrate to you that it is impractical to conduct short-term 

tracking, you may consider modifying an existing permit, or issuing a permit, that allows 

the source to determine emissions over a longer period that is more conducive to 

emissions tracking (up to 1 month), provided that you can and first opt to modify any 

underlying permit condition. 

Even though the inclusion of daily recordkeeping for photochemically reactive materials is 

common with individual permits, this new approach to permitting allows an alternative approach 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 21 of22 

that will accomplish the same goal. Therefore, the following revision (in bold) to Conditions 3745-

31-03(A)(4)(k) (iii) and 3745-31-03(A}(4)(1}(iii) needs to be made: 

(iii) Monitoring and/or Record Keeping Requirements. 

(a) If photochemically reactive materials are employed in non-flexographic presses at the 

facility, the owner or operator of the printing facility shall maintain the annual records 

described in paragraph (A)(4}(k}(iii)(c) for nonphotochemically reactive materials as 

well as daily records for each photochemically reactive material based on the 

monthly records required in paragraph (iii)( c) and assignment of usage production 

records {e.g., hours of operation, impressions, etc) which list the following information 

for each graphic arts material (ink, fountain solution additives, clean-up solvents, etc.) 

employed in each printing line: 

In conclusion, GAC believes that with these two changes, the regulatory package meets two very 

important criteria. First, it provides streamlined permitting requirements that will provide guidance and 

environmental benefit. Second, the requirements afford operational flexibility to the printing industry. 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The Ohio EPA appreciates the analysis provided by the printing industry. We agree 

that a monthly record keeping schedule, as explained by U.S. EPA, is adequate to enforce monthly short 

tenn and 12-month rolling average emission limitations needed to establish federally enforceable 

conditions. The permit-by-rule conditions concerning OAC rule 3745-21-07(G)(2) emission limitations and 

daily record keeping requirements were included in order to enforce the daily emission limit in the rule, as 

it presenty exists. The Ohio EPA recognizes this portion of the permit-by-rule could need revision based 

on future revisions of OAC 3745-21-07. Two distinct record keeping requirements were included and will 

be retained since the use of photochemically reactive materials (PRM) necessitates daily record keeping. 

This is consistent with current permits issued by Ohio EPA. 

Commentor F: 

We would like to comment on a specific concern regarding the proposed PBR for Mid-Size Printing 

Facilities. As drafted, existing facilities with flexographic printing operations that have actual emissions of 

less than 25 tons per year of VOCs, 5 TPY of an individual HAP and 12.5 TPY of aggregated HAPs would 

be eligible to fall under the PBR, thereby substantially reducing and simplifying their record keeping 

provisions. It is also our understanding that a facility under the PBR rule would be not be subject to 

additional air taxies review. These outcomes are extremely important for eligible Ohio businesses because 

they ease a company's administrative burden and provide increased flexibility in the manufacturing 

process. 

Unfortunately, there appears to be one provision in the rule that would disqualify certain Ohio facilities 

from the Mid-Size Printing PBR. The provision is found in OAC 3745-31-03(A)(4)(1)(ii)(a), on page 38 of 

the proposed rule. It essentially precludes printing facilities that use more than 148 tons per year (296,000 

pounds) of coatings and inks from eligibility for the PBR. The usage limit is 148 tons, regardless of 

whether the flexographic inks are solvent based or water based. 

Inks used in the corrugating shipping container industry today are almost all water based (containing very 

low VOCs). As we discussed, one case in point is an Ohio facility that uses only water based inks, 

adhesives and coatings. Total VOC emissions during CY 2004 were less than 8.5 tons (well below the 25 

TPY limit set forth in the rule). This was based upon the use of 526,000 pounds of inks, adhesives and 

coatings combined. Therefore, due to the usage restriction above, the company would be ineligible ior the 

PBR. 

The Ohio Chamber is concerned that the proposed 148 TPY usage limit would preclude many of the 

corrugated box plants located in Ohio from the potential benefits of the PBR. We ask that you consider 
OAC 3745-31-03 Public Comment Party Responsiveness Summary 

Page 22 of22 

either removing the usage restriction outright, or modifying it to allow a much larger usage threshold for 

facilities that essentially employ water based inks, adhesives and coatings on an annual basis. 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The Ohio EPA recognizes that some printing facilties with low actual emissions may 

not qualify for the PBR as the commentor describes. The PBR was developed by a workgroup which 

included representatives of major printing industry trade groups, including the flexographic printing sector. 

The facility described in the comment will not be able to utilize the PBR provisions, and the following 

explanation is being provided. 

The 148 tons per year material usage level refers to specific Ohio RACT regulation exemption criteria 

specified by OAC rule 3745-21-09(Y)(2)(b). This criteria exempts flexographic printing operations from 

VOC content restrictions on inks and coatings or add-on emission control equipment if total usage of inks 

and coatings at the facilfty is 148 tons per year or less. The Ohio EPA specifically wrote the PBR to avoid 

triggering these RACT requirements for flexographic printing operations. This is why the material usage 

limits for flexographic printing are well below 148 tons per year. Triggering the RACT requirements also 

necessitates monthly record keeping and quarlerly usage reporling per OAC rule 3745-21-09(8). Thus, 

the Ohio EPA would need to rewrite substantial portions of the PBR requirements to account for this one 

scenario. The Ohio EPA believes this would unduly lengthen the PBR and cause considerable confusion 

among non-flexographic printing facilities in understanding the PBR requirements. 

SECTION4 

Comments Pertaining to the Proposed Changes of the Existing Permanent Exemptions Specified 

by OAC Rule 3745-31-03(A)(1) 

Commentor B: 

(A)( 1 }-Should be changed to read A. .. subject to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPs) with the exception of 40 CFR Parl61, subparl M, asbestos removal activfties, or 

emissions units #laf sub;ect to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards ... 

Ohio EPA Resoonse: The need for this correction has been noted. 

End of Responsiveness Summary