GOVER."! OR 

CHAIRMAN 

G. Tanner Girard, Ph.D. 

SPRU~GFIELO CFFtCE 

1021 Norih Grand Ave. East 

P.O. Box \9274 

Sptingiield, IL 

fi2794-9274 

2l7-524-S500 

FAX 217-524~:"<:508 

. CHiCAGO OFFICE 

fam~~:::~.· Thompson Cenlei 

\00 West Rahdolph · '• 

· Suini"xi~500 ·' ·· 

Chic;\~o; IL 6060\ ,, .••. 312'814-3620 :• . 

FAx 3'f2:.S 14-3669 

,;,~~~~~?" ; :;····!.:·:~~;~:\:•· <'!'' 

-~.'~i ' ..._, ... :-.:. 

2 POLLUTION CONTROL Bd"-'fmMENTNO._ 

August 4, 2011 

Warren Ribley, Director 

, Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity 

620 East Adams Street, S-6 

Springfield, Illinois 62704 

· Re: Request for Economic Impact Study for: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. 

· Code Part 223 Standards and Limitations for Organic Material Emissions for 

Area Sources, (R12-8) 

Dear Director Rib ley: 

On August 4, 2011, the Board accepted for hearing a proposal filed by the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and docketed as Amendments to 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code Part 223 Standards and LimiUitions for Organic Material Emissions for 

Area Sources, (Rl2-8). The Agency stated that its proposal seeks to amend Part 223 

of the Board's air pollution regulations and reduce volatile organic material (YOM) 

• emissions from various consumer products and aerosol coatings. I write to request 

, that your Department conduct an economic impact study concerning this proposal. 

Section 27(b) of the Environmental Protection Act requires that the Board: 

(1) request that the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity 

conduct a study of the economic impact of the proposed rules. The 

Department may within 30 to 45 days of such request produce a study 

of the economic impact of the proposed rules. At a minimum, the 

economic impact study shall address 

(2) 

(A) economic, environmental, and public health benefits that may 

be achieved through compliance with the proposed rules, 

(B) the effects of the proposed rules on employment levels, 

commercial productivity, the economic growth of small 

businesses with 100 or Jess employees, and the State's overall 

economy, and 

(C) the cost per unit of pollution reduced and the variability in cost 

based on the size of the facility and the percentage of company 

revenues expected to be used to implement the proposed rules; 

and 

conduct at least one public hearing on the economic impact of those 

new rules. At least 20 days before the hearing, the Board shall notify 
- .. 

the public of the hearing and make the economic impact study, or the 

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity's explanation 

for not producing an economic impact study, available to the public. 

Such public hearing may be held simultaneously or as a part of any 

Board hearing considering such new rules. 415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2010). 

The Board intends to proceed promptly with this rulemaking and asks that 

you determine whether DCEO will conduct an economic impact study on the 

proposal and respond no later than Thursday, September 15, 2011. If I, or my staff, 

can provide you with any additional information, please Jet me know_ 

Thank you in advance for your prompt response. 

Sincerely, 

G. Tanner Girard 

Acting Chairman 

Pollution Control Board 

cc: John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Board 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

August 4, 20 II 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PART 223: STANDARDS AND ) 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL ) 

EMISSIONS FOR AREA SOURCES ) 

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by A.S. Moore): 

Rl2-8 

(Rulemaking -Air) 

I EPA ATTACHMENT NO . ...i_ 

On July 13, 2011, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency or Illinois 

EPA)) filed a proposal to amend Part 223 of the Board's air pollution regulations. See 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 223. The Agency states that it has proposed amendments to reduce volatile organic 

material (YOM) emissions from various consumer products and aerosol coatings. 

Accompanying the proposal were documents including a Statement of Reasons (SR), a Technical 

Support Document and a motion for waiver of specified copy requirements (Mot.). 

The Board today accepts the Agency's proposal and directs the hearing officer to 

schedule and proceed to hearing. The Board also grants the Agency's motion for waiver of 

specified copy requirements. 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL 

The Agency states that "[o]zone is not emitted directly by most sources." SR at I. The 

Agency further states that precursors such as YOM, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide react 

in the presence of sunlight and high temperatures to for ozone. !d., citing TSD at 7. The Agency 

indicates that Part 223 "reduces YOM emissions by putting limits on the YOM contents of 

numerous consumer products." SR at 2. 

The Agency seeks to amend Part 223 to "include limits in percent YOM by weight for 

adhesive removers, contact adhesives, non-aerosol antistatic products, electrical cleaners, engine 

degreasers, fabric refreshers, footwear or leather care products, graffiti removers, hair styling 

products, shaving gels, and wood cleaners." !d. at 3, citing TSD at 9. The Agency expects that 

control of these additional categories will reduce YOM emissions in Illinois by one ton per day. 

SR at 4, citing TSD at 18. The Agency argues that "some of these reductions have already taken 

place due to nationwide compliance by many of the larger manufacturers of these products with 

the California or OTC1 rules." SR at 4, citing TSD at 18. The Agency also proposes an 

amendment to the existing Architectural and Industrial Maintenance rule in order to clarify and 

simplifY compliance. SR at I, 4; see 35111. Adm. Code 223.305. The Agency states that its 

proposed amendments would apply to the entire state. !d. at 4. 

1 "OTC" refers to the Ozone Transport Commission comprised of the States of Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, and the District of Columbia. TSD at 8. 
2 

MOTION FOR WAIVER 

The Agency notes that the Board's procedural rules require that the original and nine 

copies of each rulemaking proposal be filed with the Clerk. Mot. at I, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

102.200. The Agency also notes that Section 27(a) of the Environmental Protection Act requires 

the Agency to provide infonnation supporting its proposal. Mot. at I, citing 415 ILCS 5/27(a) 

(20 10). The Agency lists three documents on which it relied in drafting its proposal. Mot. at 1-

2. The Agency states that, including these documents, its proposal comprises "several hundred 

pages. Given the length of the proposal and the resources required to provide nine copies, the 

lllinois EPA requests that the Board waive the normal copy requirements and allow lllinois EPA 

to file the original and four complete copies of the documents." Mot. at 2. The Agency also asks 

that the Board waive the requirement to provide copies of the documents it relied upon to the 

Attorney General's Office and to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (DNR). See 35 

Ill. Adm. Code I 01.200. 

Section 101.500(d) of the Board's procedural rules provide in pertinent part that, 

"[ w ]ithin 14 days after service of a motion, a party may file a response to the motion. If no 

response is filed, the party will be deemed to have waived objection to the granting of the 

motion, but the waiver of objection does not bind the Board or the hearing officer in its 

disposition of the motion." 35111. Adm. Code 101.500(d). Having reviewed the substance of the 

motion, and in the absence of any response, the Board grants the Agency's motion for waiver. 

The Board first allows the Agency to file an original and four complete copies of the documents 

comprising its rulemaking proposal. The Board also waives the requirement that the Agency 

serve copies of the documents on which it relied in drafting its proposal on the Attorney General 

and the DNR. In this regard, the Board notes that the Clerk has provided access to the 

documents through the Clerk's Office On-Line under this docket number Rl2-8. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board accepts this proposal for hearing and directs the assigned hearing officer to 

schedule and proceed to hearing under the rulemaking provisions of the Act and the Board's 

procedural rules. 415 ILCS 5/27,28 (2010); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102. After conducting hearings 

on this proposal, the Board will determine whether to proceed to first notice. In addition, the 

Board grants the Agency's unopposed motion for waiver of specified copy requirements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the lllinois Pollution Control Board, certify that 

the Board adopted the above order on August 4, 2011, by a vote of 5-0. 

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

August 4, 2011 

IN THE MA TIER OF: ) 

) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE, ) 

PART 223 STANDARDS AND ) 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL) 

EMISSIONS FOR AREA SOURCES ) 

R12-8 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

NOTICE OF HEARINGS 

DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION: 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2011 

9:00AM 

Illinois Pollution Control Board Conference Room, First Floor 

1021 N. Grand Ave. East 

(North Entrance) 

Springfield, Illinois 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

1:00PM 

Illinois Pollution Control Board Conference Room 11-512 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph St. 

Chicago, TI!inois 

PURPOSE OF HEARINGS: 

ATTENDING BOARD MEMBER: 

Merit and Economic 

Andrea S. Moore 

HEARING OFFICER: Timothy J. Fox 

HEARING OFFICER ORDER 

!EPA ATTACHMENT NO. _J_ 

RECEIVED 

CLERK'S OFAOS 

AUG 0 4 2011 

STATE OF lWNOIS 

Po!lu!IOO COntrol Board 

On July 13,2011, the TI!inois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a 

proposal to amend Part 223 of the Board's air pollution regulations. See 35 lll. Adm. Code 223. 

The Agency stated that it proposed amendments in order to reduce volatile organic material 

(YOM) emissions from various consumer products and aerosol coatings. 

The Board will conduct two hearings in order to allow the Agency and any other 

interested participants the opportunity to present testimony on the merits and economic impact of 

the proposal. See 415 ILCS 5/28(a) (2010). At hearing, all persons wishing to testify will be 

sworn in and subject to questioning. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.424(f), 102.428(a), (b). The Board 

will also receive any testimony on any economic impact study (EelS) conducted by the 
2 

Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) on the proposed rules or on 

DCEO's decision not to perform an EelS. See 415ll£S 5/27(b) (2010). 

Pre-Filing Deadlines 

Participants who intend to testify at hearing are urged to pre-file their testimony and are 

directed to serve pre-filed testimony on all persons on the Service List. See 35 TIL Adm. Code 

!02.424(c). Before filing pre-filed testimony or any other document with the Clerk, please check 

with the Clerk to obtain the most recent version of the Service List. 

Participants who wish to testify at the first hearing are directed to pre-file all of their 

testimony and any related exhibits no later than Thursday, September 22,2011. See 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 102.424(a). Participants who wish to testify at the second hearing are directed to pre-file 

all of their testimony and any related exhibits no later than Thursday, November 3, 2011. The 

"mailbox rule" at 35 lll. Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not apply to the filing of any of this prefiled testimony, and the Board's Clerk must receive these documents before the close of business 

on these deadlines. However, documents may be filed electronically though the Clerk's Office 

On-Line (COOL) from the Board's Web site at www.i_pcb.state.il.us. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

101.302(d). Any questions about electronic filing through COOL should be directed to the 

Clerk's Office at (312) 814-3629. 

Order of Hearing 

Although Section 27 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/27 (2010)) does not limit the first hearing to 

the testimony of the proponent, the hearing officer intends to begin the first hearing with the 

Agency's presentation of its proposal. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.428(c). After the Agency has 

addressed all questions from other participants, and if time permits before the conclusion of the 

first hearing, other participants who have pre-filed testimony may then testify and respond to 

questions. Participants who do not pre-file testimony for the first hearing will be allowed to 

testify and respond to questions as time permits after the conclusion of pre-filed testimony and 

questions based upon it. For the first hearing, all pre-filed testimony will be entered into the 

record as if read. See 35 lll. Adm. Code 102.424(f). A brief summary of testimony will be 

allowed if a witness wishes to provide one before responding to questions. 

The hearing officer intends to begin the second hearing with any participants who prefiled testimony for the first hearing and were not able to testify at that time. Participants who 

pre-filed testimony for the second hearing will then present that testimony and respond to 

questions. Participants who do not pre-file testimony for the second hearing will be allowed to 

testify and respond to questions as time permits after the conclusion of pre-filed testimony and 

questions based upon it. As at the first hearing, all testimony pre-filed for the second hearing 

will also be entered into the record as if read. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.424(f). A brief 

summary of pre-filed testimony will be allowed if a witness wishes to provide one before 

responding to questions. 
3 

Participant wishing to offer a public comment at either hearing will be allowed to do so if 

time permits at the close of the testimony and questions. The Board's procedural rules also 

include an opportunity to file post-hearing comments. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.108(b). 

Service and Notice Lists 

The hearing officer will establish and maintain both a Notice List and a Service List for 

this proceeding. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.422(a), (b). The Notice List includes participants 

who receive copies only of the Board's opinions and orders and hearing officer orders. 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 102.422(a). The Service List for this rulemaking is the list of persons who receive 

not only the Board's opinions and orders but also other filings such as pre-filed testimony. See 

35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.422(b). 

Note that interested persons may now request electronic notice of filings by providing 

their e-mail address through COOL under this docket number R12-8. This electronic notice 

includes notice of the filing of documents that are not typically provided to persons on the Notice 

List. In addition, COOL provides links to documents filed with the Board, and those documents 

can be viewed, downloaded, and printed free of charge as soon as they are posted to the Board's 

Web site. For more information about the option of electronic notice or COOL, please consult 

either the Board's Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us or John Theniault, the Board's Assistant 

Clerk, at (312) 814-3629. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Timothy J. Fox 

Hearing Officer 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

312-814-6085 

foxt @ipcb.state.il.us 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011 0 S 

IEPA ATTACHMENT N . -

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. ) 

CODE PART 223 STANDARDS AND ) 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC ) 

MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA ) 

SOURCES ) 

TO: 

Katherine D. Hodge 

Hodge Dwyer & Driver 

3150 Roland Ave. 

PO Box 5776 

Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776 

John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

State of Illinois Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Mitchell Cohen 

Chief Legal Counsel 

Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 

Tim Fox 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

State of Illinois Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

) 

NOTICE 

R12- 8 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

Alec M. Davis 

Illinois Environmental 

Regulatory Group 

215 East Adams St. 

Springfield, Illinois 62701 

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief 

Environmental 

Enforcement/Asbestos 

Litigation Division 

Illinois Attorney General's Office 

69 West Washington Street, 18th 

Floor 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Mark A. Biel 

Chemical Industry Council ofiL 

400 West Monroe 

Suite 205 

Springfield, Illinois 62704 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 1 have today filed with the Office of the Pollution Control 

Board the PRE FILED TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS of the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency a copy of which is herewith served upon you. 

DATED: September 22, 2011 

I 021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

217.782.5544 

217.782.9143 (TDD) 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

By: /s/ Charles E. Matoesian 

Charles E. Matoesian 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED 

ON RECYCLED PAPER 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. ) 

CODE PART 223 STANDARDS AND ) 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC ) 

MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA ) 

SOURCES ) 

) 

RI2 -8 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS 

My name is Rory Davis. I am an Environmental Protection Engineer in the Air Quality Planning 

Section, Air Pollution Control Division of the lllinois Environmental Protection Agency's 

("Illinois EPA") Bureau of Air. I have been employed by Illinois EPA in the Air Quality 

Planning Section for five years. Prior to that, I worked at the lllinois Department of 

Transportation for four years as an Engineering Technician. I have a Bachelor of Science degree 

in Computational Physics, as well as a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Illinois 

State University. I also have a Masters degree in Engineering from the University of TI!inois at 

Chicago. My graduate studies consisted of an interdisciplinary program involving coursework 

from the Chemical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering fields with a concentration on 

Environmental Engineering. In my current position with Illinois EPA my duties include 

providing technical support for regulatory proposals. I will be providing testimony regarding the 

proposed amendments to 35 lAC PART 223 regulating consumer and commercial products. 

Proposed Amendments to Part 223 

The TI!inois EPA has proposed a number of amendments to 35 lAC Part 223, and specifically 

amendments to sections regulating consumer products. These amendments are intended to bring 

Illinois consumer products regulations in line with similar regulations in the Ozone Transport 

Commission ("OTC") states and a number of other states that have adopted the YOM limitations 

found in the 2006 OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011 

The bulk of the proposed amendments to Part 223 involve the addition of 12 additional consumer 

product categories that include: adhesive removers, contact adhesives, non-aerosol antistatic 

products, electrical cleaners, electronic cleaners, engine degreasers, fabric refreshers, footwear or 

leather care products, graffiti removers, hair styling products, shaving gels, and wood cleaners. 

Illinois has proposed these additional categories for regulation in order to reduce VOM 

emissions from these consumer product categories in lllinois, and in order to keep Illinois 

regulations regarding consumer products consistent with a large portion of the United States that 

also regulates these products. Regulating agencies and the regulated community are in 

agreement that consistency of regulations regarding consumer products is beneficial to ensure 

that uniform products can be sold and used in regions with similar limits, and to reduce the cost 

to industry of implementing rules by limiting the cost of reformulation, packaging, and shipping. 

In drafting the proposed amendments Illinois EPA has relied mainly upon research conducted by 

the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") in support of California's consumer product 

regulations. 

Background 

In 2007, Illinois EPA proposed amendments to Part 223 that set limits for the VOM content of 

various consumer products that were consistent with limits set for these product categories in 

California and the OTC states. The limits proposed were consistent with those in the 2006 OTC 

Model Rule for Consumer Products that were in turn based on the consumer product VOM limits 

in the California's Midterm Measures II rules and their 2004 amendments to those rules. While 

the majority of the limits proposed were adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and 

were effective as of July I, 2009, a number of categories were excluded by the Board due to a 

lack of technical support for those limits. The categories excluded at that time were those that 

were proposed by California in its 2004 Amendments and incorporated into the 2006 OTC 

Model Rule. In this rulemaking, Illinois EPA is proposing amendments that would include these 

limits in Part 223 as previously proposed, excepting the previously proposed limits for 

toilet/urinal care products and solid/gel room air fresheners. The Illinois EPA, in its technical 

support docUJJ1ent and referenced documents therein, has provided detailed technical support for 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011 

the additional consumer product categories and the associated YOM limits for those categories in 

the proposed amendments. 

Reduction of VOM in lllinois Due to Proposed Amendments 

Illinois EPA has estimated that YOM emissions in Illinois may be reduced by approximately one 

ton per day due to the proposed amendments and additional regulated categories. As stated in 

the Technical Support Document, it is likely that this is an overestimate because a number of 

products manufactured by national and regional companies will have already been reformulated 

to comply with the limits identical to those that Illinois has proposed that are in effect in other 

' 

regwns. 

Proposed Amendments are Technically Feasible 

Illinois EPA is confident that the proposed amendments are technically feasible because in all 

categories there are compliant products that have been in use for a number of years in regions 

that have limits identical to those proposed for Illinois. 

Proposed Amendments are Economically Reasonable 

illinois EPA is also confident that the proposed amendments are economically reasonable, again, 

because there are compliant products that have been in use for a number of years in regions that 

have limits identical to those proposed for Illinois. Additionally, Illinois EPA has relied upon 

the aforementioned CARB research to estimate that the proposed amendments could have a cost 

to industry that ranges between £4,020 and $4,680 per ton of YOM reduced. However, as is the case with 

estimates of emission reduction, these are likely overestimates. Economic research conducted by CARB 

included costs of researching compliant fonnulations of products, refonnulating the products, 

repackaging, and relabeling. In a great number of cases these costs have already been incurred by 

industry in order to comply with the identical limits in California, the OTC states, and a number of other 

states. 

Summary of Testimony 

In summary, the proposed amendments for consumer products are economically reasonable and 

cost effective measures for reducing YOM emissions from the affected source categories on a 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011 

statewide basis. The product YOM limits in the rule are also technically feasible, and have been 

achieved where the aforementioned OTC and CARB rules are in effect. While estimates for 

reductions from these categories may have already been partially achieved, a great majority of 

the cost has also already been incurred, and these amendments will serve to make lllinois 

regulation of these categories more uniform with similar regulations nationwide. 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

COUNTY OF SANGAMON 

) 

) 

) 

ss 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached, 

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS upon the following persons: 

Katherine D. Hodge 

Hodge Dwyer & Driver 

3150 Roland Ave. 

PO Box 5776 

Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776 

John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

State of Illinois Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Mitchell Cohen 

Chief Legal Counsel 

Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 

Tim Fox 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

State of Illinois Center 

100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I 

Alec M. Davis 

Illinois Environmental 

Regulatory Group 

215 East Adams St. 

Springfield, lllinois 62701 

Matthew J. Dunn, Chief 

Environmental 

Enforcement! Asbestos 

Litigation Division 

Illinois Attorney General's Office 

69 West Washington Street, 18th 

Floor 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Mark A. Biel 

Chemical Industry Council of IL 

400 West Monroe 

Suite 205 

Springfield, Illinois 62704 

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, 

Is/ Charles E. Matoesian 

Charles E. Matoesian 

Assistant Counsel 

Division of Legal Counsel 
Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011 

Dated: September 22, 2011 

I 021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

217.782.5544 

217.782.9143 (TDD) 
!EPA ATTACHMENT NO.~ 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BoARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PART 223 STANDARDS AND ) 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC ) 

MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA ) 

SOURCES ) 

) 

R12-8 

(Rulemaking - Air) 

RECEIVED 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

SEP. 2 6 2011 

STATE OF ILUNOIS 

TESTIMONY OF THE Pollution Control Board 

CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION 

Joseph T. Yost 

Senior Director, Strategic Issues Advocacy 

1667 K Street NW, Suite 300 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

(202) 833-7325 

Filed: September 22. 2011 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 

PART 223 STANDARDS AND 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC 

MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA 

SOURCES 

R12-8 

(Rulemaking - Air) 

NOTICE 

TO: John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

State of Illinois Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 

Mark A. Biel, CAE, !OM 

Executive Director 

Chemical Industry Council of Illinois 

400 W. Monroe, Suite 205 

Springfield, IL 62704 

Mitchell Cohen, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, lllinois 62702-1271 

Alec M. Davis, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 

215 East Adams St. 

Springfield, IL 62701 

Matthew J. Dunn, Esq. 

Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Asbestos Litigation Div. 

Illinois Attorney General's Office 

69 West Washington Street, 18" Floor 

Chicago, lllinois 60602 

Catherine D. Hodge, Esq. 

Hodge, Dwyer & Driver 

3150 Roland Ave 

Springfield, IL 62703 

Charles E. Matoesian, Esq. 

Assistant Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Division of Legal Counsel 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have filed today with the office of the Pollution Control Board a copy 

of testimony that the Consumer Specialty Products Association will present on the REGULATORY 

PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 223 STANDARDS AND 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC MATERJAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA SOURCES and 

APPEARANCE of the Consumer Specialty Products Association of copy of which is herewith served 

upon you. 

DATED: September 22, 2011 

1667 K Street NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20006 

202-833-7325 

Consumer Specialty Products Association 

0 

enior Director, Strat gic Issues Advocacy 
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BoARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PART 223 STANDARDS AND ) 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC ) 

MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA ) 

SOURCES ) 

) 

R12·8 

(Rulemaking - Air) 

APPEARANCE 

The undersigned hereby enters an Appearance on behalf of the Consumer 

Specialty Products Association. 

DATED: September 22.2011 

!667 K Street NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20006 

202-833· 7325 

Respectfully Submitted, 

CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION 

- II -
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 

PART 223 STANDARDS AND 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC 

MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA 

SOURCES 

Rl2-8 

(Rulemaking - Air) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Notice of Filing 

2. Appearance of Joseph T. Yost, Senior Director, Strategic Issues Advocacy, for the 

Consumer Specialty Products Association 

3. Synopsis of Testimony 

4. Testimony of the Consumer Specialty Products Association 

5. Certificate of Service 

- 111 -
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BoARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PART 223 STANDARDS AND ) 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC ) 

MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA ) 

SOURCES ) 

) 

R12-8 

(Rulemaking - Air) 

SYNOPSIS OF TESTIMONY 

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) offers general support for the 

illinois EPA's proposed regulation because it is consistent with the Ozone Transport 

Commission's Model Consumer Products Rule. By taking this action, the Agency will 

promulgate stringent regulatory standards that are consistent with the volatile organic compound 

(VOC) limits established by final regulations promulgated in Midwest and East Coast states. 

Regionally consistent state regulations will improve air quality without imposing unnecessary 

impediments to interstate commerce. 

CSP A recommends that the Board make three necessary and reasonable revisions to the 

proposed requirements set forth at 35 IAC § 223.211. First, CSP A recommends that the Board 

revise 35 lAC§ 223.211 to clearly articulate that the existing stock of products manufactured 

before the effective date of the new prohibitions (i.e., July I, 2012) may continue to be sold, 

supplied, or offered for sale in illinois. Requiring manufacturers, distributors and retailers to 

dispose of otherwise usable and saleable products will create unintended adverse environmental 

impacts (e.g., unnecessary land-filling) and adverse economic impacts on businesses. 

Second, CSP A recommends that the Board delete the proposed restrictions for General 

Purpose Degreasers since this proposed action will produce minimal, if any, reductions in volatile 

- 1 -
organic material (YOM) emissions. However, this proposed requirement will have the adverse 

effect of eliminating manufacturers' ability to produce (or distributors'and retailers' ability to sell) 

low-flammability products for use in Illinois, and thus it could create fire risks in the workplace. 

Third, the Board should eliminate the reference to "Aerosol Adhesives" in 35 lAC 

§ 223.211 since this product category is currently subject to existing regulations that are set forth at 

Section 223.208. 

Fourth, the Board should make a necessary technical correction in the current table of 

standards set forth at Section 223.205(a) by replacing the term "Adhesives - Spray" (a term that is 

not defined anywhere in the regulation) with the term "Aerosol Adhesives" since this term is 

defined by Section 223.203 of the current regulation. 

- 2-
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) 

) 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) 

PART 223 STANDARDS AND ) 

LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC ) 

MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA ) 

SOURCES ) 

) 

TESTIMONY 

I. INTRODUCTION 

R12-8 

(Rulemaking - Air) 

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) appreciates the opportunity to 

present testimony to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) on the proposed amendments to 

35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223 Standards and Limitations for Organic Material Emissions for Area 

Sources. The proposed amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223, Subpart 8 will add new 

regulatory limits on volatile organic materials (VOMs) in II broad categories (including 

subcategories) of consumer and commercial products. These proposed new VOM limits are 

consistent with the volatile organic compound (VOC) 1 limits contained in the Ozone Transport 

Commission's (OTC's) current Model Rule for Consumer Products2 and with final regulations 

promulgated by Ohio/ Michigan,4 Indiana5 and 10 East Coast states.6 This proposed regulation is 

1 The tenns "VOM" and "VOC" have the same meaning. See 35IAC § 211.7150(a). 

2 The text of OTC's current Model Rule for Consumer Products is posted at: 

http://www.otcair.org/projects details.asp?FID~99&fview~stationarv# (hereinafter referred to as "OTC 

Model Rule.") 

3 See Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-112. The full text of the regulation is posted on the 

Ohio EPA website at: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapclregs/3745 112.aspx, 

'See Mich. Admin. Code Rule 660. The full text of the regulation is posted on the Michigan DEQ 

website at: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/O, 1607,7-135-3310 41 08-173523--.00.html. 

5 See Ind. Admin. Code Title 326 Rule 15. The full text of the regulation is posted at: 

http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03260/ A00080.PDF (see pp. 122-160). 

6 The following East Coast states have promulgated fma1 regulations that impose similar VOC 

limits: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 

• 3 • 
part of the comprehensive strategy developed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

(Illinois EPA or Agency) to reduce ground-level ozone to demonstrate attainment of the federal 

ozone air quality standard. If approved by the Board, the final rule will take effect on July I, 2012. 

CSPA filed written comments on the Agency's draft proposed amendments on 

June 24, 2011. CSPA commends the Illinois EPA for their concerted efforts to ensure that all 

interested stakeholders have an opportunity to participate in this open and transparent rulemaking 

process. CSPA's testimony before the Board is limited to the proposed regulation set forth at 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code Part 223 Subpart B: Consumer and Commercial Products (Sections 223.200-223.285). 

II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST 

CSP A is national trade association representing the interests of approximately 

240 companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution and sale of consumer and 

commercial products that help household and institutional customers create cleaner and healthier 

environments. Currently, 42 CSPA member companies have facilities (or headquarters) located 

in Illinois. 

CSPA member companies' products include disinfectants that kill germs in homes, hospitals 

and restaurants; air fresheners that eliminate odors; pest management products for home, garden 

and pets; cleaning products and polishes for use throughout the home and institutions; products 

used to protect and improve the performance and appearance of automobiles; and a host of other 

products used every day. These products are formulated and packaged in many forms and are 

generally marketed nationally. Through its product stewardship program Product Care® and 

scientific endeavors, CSP A provides its members a platform to effectively address issues regarding 

the health, safety, sustainability and environmental impacts of their products. 

Rhode Island and Virginia (note: the Virginia VOC regulation only applies in specified portions of the 

commonwealth). 

- 4 -
CSPA member companies manufacture and market more than two-thirds of the broad 

product categories covered by the current provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223 and the 

proposed amendments presented for the Board's consideration today. 

Since the late 1980s, CSP A has worked actively and cooperatively with Illinois,7 

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia to provide 

our industry's perspective on these states' consumer products regulations. In addition, CSPA is 

participating as an active stakeholder in efforts by the OTC and the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO) to develop consistent regulatory requirements for consumer and 

commercial products in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest Regions. 

CSPA also worked cooperatively with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA) during the late 1990s as the Agency developed the current National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products.8 Currently, CSPA is working 

cooperatively with OTC States to urge the U.S. EPA to develop revisions to the National 

Consumer Products Rule by incorporating the new VOC limits and related provisions contained 

in the proposed 2014 OTC Model Rule9 

7 On April30, 2008, CSPA presented testimony on the Proposed New 35 Ill. Admin. Code Part 223 

Standards and Limitations for Organic Material Emissions for Area Sources (R08-7 Rulemaking- Air) at 

the Board's public hearing in Springfield, Illinois. In addition, on June 29, 2007, CSPA filed detailed 

written comments with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on the draft proposed rule. 

8 40 C.F.R. Part 59, Subpart C (2011). EPA's National Volatile Organic Compound Emission 

Stands for Consumer Products (hereinafter referred to as ''National Consumer Products Rule") was 

promulgated as a fmal rule in 1998. The text of EPA's regulation is posted at: 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfriwaisidx 05/40cfr59 05.html. 

9 The proposed 2014 OTC Model Rule is scheduled to be considered at the OTC's Fall Meeting on 

Nov. 10, 2011, in Wilmington, DE. If approved, the Model Rule will establish Jan I, 2014, as the effective 

date for the new VOC limits and related enforcement provisions. 

- 5-
Ill. COMMENTS 

A. CSPA Supports Regionally Consistent Consumer Products Regulations. Therefore. 

Our Member Companies Express General Support for the Agency's Proposed 

Amendments. 

CSP A member companies strongly support the promulgation of regionally consistent 

regulations for consumer products throughout the Midwest and East Coast. Thus, CSPA is on 

record as supporting the OTC Model Rule because it promotes consistent state regulations in 

broad regions of the country. 1 0 In addition, CSP A is on record as supporting individual state 

regulations based on the OTC Model Rule in Illinois and other Midwest and East Coast states. 

CSPA strongly believes that interstate commerce should not be impaired by the 

promulgation of different state regulations. Moreover, the adoption of consistent regional 

regulations is a practical necessity for small- and medium-size businesses since these companies 

generally lack the staff resources to ensure that the companies' products comply with a 

patchwork of different (and potentially conflicting) state-specific requirements. 

B. CSPA Recommends that the Board Mak:e Three Necessarv and Reasonable 

Revisions to the Proposed Provisions of35 lAC§ 223.21 I. 

As currently drafted, Sec. 223.21 I of the proposed amendment incorporates an "optional" 

provision in the current OTC Model Rule11 that prohibits the manufacture, sale, supply or 

offering for sale of specified consumer product categories that contain methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene or trichloroethylene. The prohibition on the manufacture and sale of these 

products is proposed to take effect on July I, 2012. For reasons set forth below, CSPA 

10 During the past 1 I years, CSPA participated actively as a stakeholder in all phases of the 

OTC's open and transparent process to develop and revise the Model Consumer Products Rule. 

11 The explanatory section of the OTC Model Rule states that the document contains some 

provisions that restrict the use of certain compounds that may not cause or contribute to ozone formation. 

The note states, " .. .it is up to each state to decide whether it wishes to include regulation of said compounds 

in its state-specific rulernaking. OTC takes no position on whether to include these compounds in such a 

rulemaking." See OTC Model Rule at p. I. 

-6-
respectfully urges the Board to incorporate three reasonable and necessary revisions to 

Section 223.211 in the final regulation. 

I. Section 223.211 should be revised to clearly state that product existing stock 

manufactured before the effective date of the new prohibitions may continue to 

be sold. supplied, or offered for sale in Illinois. 

As currently drafted, as of July I, 2012, Section 223.211 will restrict broad categories of 

products that contain perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene from being 

sold, supplied, offered for sale or manufactured for use in Illinois. However, the proposed section 

is silent on what, if anything, manufacturers, distributors and retailers must do with existing 

product stock that was manufactured before the July I, 2012, effective date of the prohibitions. 

This omission creates an untenable situation in which otherwise usable and sale products would 

have to be disposed of; thus, creating unintended environmental impacts caused by land filling 

large quantities of products. A majority of states that impose similar prohibitions on the use of 

chlorinate compounds provide a three-year sell-through period to ensure that product 

manufacturers, distributors and retailers have an adequate amount oftime to ensure that non· 

compliant products are withdrawn from the shelves. The other states that restrict the use of these 

chemical compounds do not impose any sell-through limitation since, as a practical matter, 

existing stock of these products are generally sold quickly (possibly in less than three years). 12 

To eliminate potential environmental problems and to reduce compliance burden for 

manufacturers, distributors and retailers, CSP A recommends that the Board revise 

Section 223.211 to clearly state that products manufactured before July I, 2012, may continue to 

be sold, supplied or offered for sale in lllinois. 

12 See Conn. Agencies Regs.§ 22a-174-40(d)(S) 

http://www .ct. gov/depllib/ deo/ air/regulations/mainregs/ sec40consumerorod.pdf at p. 40-23 

7 DE Admin. Code 1141 §2.3.8 

http://regulations.delaware.gov/ AdminCode/title7/I000/1100/1141.pdf at p. 37. 

R.I. Air Pollution Control Reg. No. 31 § 3.9(a) 

hltp://www.dem.ri.gov/pubslregs/regs/air/air31 09.pdf at p. 39. 

- 7-
2. Based upon workplace safety reasons. the Board should delete the proposed 

restrictions for the General Puroose Degreaser product category. 

In general, product formulators continue to make a concerted effort to eliminate the use 

ofperchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene (i.e., chlorinated compounds) in 

their products. However, there are limited situations when the use of these chemical compounds 

is necessary to produce low-flammability general purpose degreaser products that can be used by 

facilities' maintenance operations in which ignition sources (e.g., metal parts contacting other 

metal parts) may be present. There is a legitimate workplace safety concern that a spark from 

such ignition sources could cause a fire if it comes into contact with flammable vapors. 

Moreover, as articulated in comments CSPA filed with The Illinois EPA on June 24,2011, 

perchloroethylene and methylene chloride are exempted from the definition of"VOM" for the 

purposes of compliance with VOM limitations or VOM content requirements since these 

compounds have very low photochemical reactivity. See 35 lAC § 211. 7150(a) and 40 C.F. R. 

§ 51.1 OO(s). Consequently, the Agency's proposed restriction on the General Purpose Degreaser 

product category will produce minimal, if any, reduction ofVOM emissions, and thus, is not 

necessary to achieve attainment of federal ozone standards. 

CSP A urges the Board to consider: (I) workplace safety reasons for the continuing use of 

low-flammable general purpose degreaser products; and (2) the fact that minimal, if any, amount 

of VOM emissions will be achieved by the proposed restriction. Therefore, CSP A recommends 

that the Board delete the restriction on the General Purpose Degreaser category in Section 

223.211 of the final rule. 

3. The Board should make a necessarv technical correction to proposed Section 223. 

As currently drafted, Section 223.211 proposes to restrict the use ofperchloroethylene, 

methylene chloride and trichloroethylene in eight product categories; the proposed restrictions will 

take effect on July I, 2012. This proposed list of product categories includes "Aerosol Adhesives," a 

- 8 -
product category that is subject to existing requirements currently set forth at Section 223.208. The 

existing provisions of Section 223.208 include a restriction on the use of perchloroethylene, 

methylene chloride and trichloroethylene that has been in effect since July I, 2009. Since the 

Aerosol Adhesive product category is subject to existing regulatory requirements, CSPA 

recommends that the Board delete the reference to "Aerosol Adhesives" in Section 223.211 of the 

final regulation. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated above in Section III B of this Testimony, CSPA 

recommends that the Board make the following revisions in the final regulation: 

Italicized text= text added to the lllinois EPA's proposed regulation 

StrielleH ted text deleted frornthe Illinois EPA's proposed regulation. 

Section 223.211 Requirements for Adhesive Removers, AeFosol Adhesins, 

Contact Adhesives, Electrical Cleaners, Electronic 

Cleaners, Footwear or Leather Care Products, Gesenl 

PHFJIBSe Degnssers, and Graffiti Removers 

a. Effeem·e J11lr 1, ZOU, sNo person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in Illinois any Adhesive Removers, Aerasol Adhesives, 

Contact Adhesives, Electrical Cleaners, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear or 

Leather Care Products, Gesersl P11rpose Degnssen, and Graffiti Removers 

manufactured on or after July 1, 2012, that contain any of the following 

compounds: methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene 

b. Impurities 

The requirements of Section 211(a) do not apply to any Adhesive Removers, 

Aerosol Adhesives, Contact Adhesives, Electrical Cleaners, Electronic 

Cleaners, Footwear or Leather Care Products, General P11rpose Degressers, 

and Graffiti Removers containing methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or 

trichloroethylene that is present as an impurity in a combined amount equal 

to or less than 0.01% by weight. 

CSP A believes that these recommended revisions are both necessary and reasonable. 

C. The Board should make a necessarv technical revision in the current table of 

standards set forth at Section 223 .205(a). 

The current provisions of Section 223.205(a)(l) establish VOM limits for the "Adhesives- Spray'' 

product category. This term is not defined in either the current regulation or the proposed 

- 9-
revtstons. Therefore, CSPA recommends that the Board replace the term "Adhesives- Spray" 

with the term "Aerosol Adhesives" since this term is defined by Section 223.203 of the current 

regulation. This revision would ensure consistency with the term used by CARB 's regulation. 13 

Finally, the revision would be consistent with the OTC Model Rule, which uses the term 

"Adhesives" in the Table of Standards. 14 

IV. CONCLUSION 

While the proposed regulation contains stringent VOM limits, CSPA supports the 

Illinois EPA's proposal because it is consistent with the OTC Model Rule and the final 

regulations promulgated by Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and I 0 East Coast states. Moreover, CSPA 

is committed to continuing to work cooperatively with the Illinois EPA to improve air quality. 

CSP A commends the Illinois EPA for conducting a very open and transparent process 

to develop this proposed regulation. We appreciate the opportunity to participate as an active 

stakeholder in this important process to develop a technologically challenging set of new VOM 

limits and related enforcement provisions that are part of the Illinois EPA's comprehensive 

strategy to demonstrate attainment of the federal Clean Air Act's strict ozone standard. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the Consumer Specialty Products 

Association requests that the Board revise proposed Section 223.211 to clearly state that existing 

product stock manufactured before the July I, 2012, effective date of the new prohibitions may 

continue to be sold, supplied, or offered for sale in Illinois. Second, the Board should delete the 

13 The tenn "Adhesive: Aerosol" is used in CARB's Table of Standards. See Cal. Code Regs. 

Title 17, § 94509(a). 

14 The term "Adhesives" is used in the OTC Model Rule. See Section 3(a) of the OTC Model Rule. 

- 10-
proposed restrictions for General Purpose Degreasers set forth at 35 lAC§ 223.211. This 

proposed action will ensure that manufacturers have the continued ability to produce lowflammability general purpose degreaser products. Third, the Board should eliminate the 

reference to "Aerosol Adhesives" in 35 lAC§ 223.211 since this product category is currently 

subject to existing regulations set forth at Section 223.208. Finally, the Board should revise the 

current text of Section 223 .205(a) by deleting the term "Adhesives- Spray" and replacing it with 

the term "Aerosol Adhesive." 

DATED: September 22.2011 

1667 K Street NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20006 

202-833-7325 

Respectfully submitted, 

CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION 

- II -
District of Columbia ss 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned do hereby state and attest to the fact that I have served the attached 

copy of the testimony that the Consumer Specialty Products Association will present on the 

REGULATORY PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 223 

STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR AREA 

SOURCES and APPEARANCE upon the person to whom it is directed, by placing a copy in an 

envelope addressed to: 

John Therriault, Clerk 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

State of Illinois Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 

Chicago, 111inois 606018 

www.ipcb.state.il.us 

Mark A. Biel 

Executive Director 

Chemical Industry Council of Illinois 

400 W. Monroe, Suite 205 

Springfield, Illinois 62704 

Mitchell Cohen, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 

Alec M. Davis, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 

215 East Adams St. 

Springfield, Illinois 62701 

Matthew J. Dunn, Esq. 

Chief, Environmental Enforcement/ Asbestos 

Litigation Div. 

Illinois Attorney General's Office 

69 West Washington Street, !81

h Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Catherine D. Hodge, Esq. 

Hodge, Dwyer & Driver 

P.O. Box 5776 

Springfield, lllinois 62705-5776 

Charles E. Matoesian, Esq. 

Assistant Counsel 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Division of Legal Counsel 

1 021 North Grand A venue East 

P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

Charles.Matoesian@Illinois.gov 

and mailing same by First Class Mail from Washington, DC, with sufficient postage affixed, as 

indicated above. 

DATED: Seotember 22.2011 

1667 K Street NW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20006 

202-833-7325 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME 

";2;~~~~ N!Y Com.'tllSSlOn Expires t/?fk ;l 

- I -

CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 

ASSOCIATION 
I 

!EPA ATTACHMENT NO. 1 

Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity 

September 20, 20 I I 

Mr. G. Tanner Girard 

Acting Chairman 

Illinois Pollution Control Board 

1021 North Grand Ave. East 

Springfield, IL 62794-9274 

Dear Chairman Girard: 

?ul {iu!nn fovornl}r • ~illf(:ll Hd:icy. Dt~c<lo: 

ReceBveo 

CLERK'S OFACE 

SEP 2 8 2011 

STATE OF ILLtN 

Pollutior> Control BOIS Dard 

ORIGINAL 

I am in receipt of your request that the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity 

(hereafter "Department") do an economic impact study, pursuant to 4 I 5 ILCS 5/27(b), on a 

proposal entitled Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223 Standards and Limitations for 

Organic Material Emissions for Area Sources, (R 12-8). 

At this time, the Department is unable to undertake such an economic impact study. Therefore, I 

must respectfully decline your request. 

Sincerely, 

Warren Rib ley 

Director 

wv:,v.ildtt~('.ne: ----.,-----

;t;p! a;t MilnrM 

Spri~ldd. ·raw.""· eUGI i~;J 

'!11.>1B11$00 .. !(}!) SOQ,JSH.(J)) 

':lfllot~ ~ lk-n:;:l.\•t: f!tl!'f 

'(,f, \'Jt,! P·Y.'h~ur. ~~·~-t~· \J4,:~ i-!00 

U.a11~o !l~'·"'i ~0601 :;zJ~ 

m_.?.:~nn • rmHfliJ:!~~drH 

7309'/mf V...··· ;~(C l'l 

vr.··~· ~":w1.t?liH ren ~18/~ij~-13~:. mv ~J.!ltH!l~l 

·;:,,;,,, ::·i:-•tHier .-~~ ;,,;;;,~.;~ ~~-~-~-;·- -· 
<iJ I EPA ATTACHMENT NO.-

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

BEFORE THE 

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

F~endments to 35 Illinois 

Administrative Code, Part 223, 

Standards and Limitations for 

Organic Material Emissions for 

Area Sources 

DOCKET R12-8 

9 Hearing held, pursuant to notice, on Thursday, 

10 October 6, 2011, at the hour of 9:00a.m., at 1021 

11 N. Grand Ave. East, Springfield, Illinois, before 

12 TIMOTHY FOX, duly appointed Hearing Officer. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

L.A. REPORTING SERVICE 

(312) 419-9292 

24 REPORTER: LAUREL A. PATKES, CSR #084-001340 

1 
I N D E X 

Opening remarks by Hearing Officer 

Motion that the Board amend the rule to 

reflect the proper language as in the Board 

final order 

Motion taken under advisement 

Remarks by Rory Davis 

EXHIBITS 

MARKED 

Hearing Exhibit 1 8 

3 

PAGE 

4 

9 

10 

11 

l'.DMITTED 

8 
4 

1 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Good morning 

2 and welcome to this Illinois Pollution Control Board 

3 hearing. My name is Tim Fox, and I'm the hearing 

4 officer for this rulernaking proceeding which is 

5 entitled: In the Matter of Amendments to 35 

6 Illinois Administrative Code, Part 223, Standards 

7 and Limitations for Organic Material Emissions for 

8 Area Sources. 

9 We have had, in addition to 

10 the Agency, the proponent prefiled testimony 

11 submitted to the Board by a second participant. We 

12 had expected him to be present. He may be 

13 unavoidably delayed. What we will do is convene as 

14 we have just done at 9 a.m. at the scheduled time 

15 and go off the record to allow him some time to 

16 arrive. We'll go back on the record at 9:15 whether 

17 he is here or not. Thank you. 

18 

19 

(Recess taken.) 

HEARING OFFICER FOX: We have come 

20 back on the record at 9:15. 

21 The kind Mr. Davis of the 

22 Agency has indicated that Mr. Yost is not available 

23 and not intending to be present for our hearing 

24 today so we will proceed. 
1 I do want to note for the 

2 record that present today from the Board, my 

3 immediate left is Board Member Andrea S. Moore, the 

4 lead board member for this assigned to this 

5 rulemaking proceeding. At my far right is Board 

6 Member Thomas E. Johnson, and at my immediate right 

7 is Board Member Jennifer A. Burke. 

8 The docket number for this 

9 rulemaking assigned by the Board is Rl2-8. The 

10 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency filed its 

11 rulemaking proposal on July 13th of 2011, and in an 

12 order dated August 4, 2011, the Board accepted this 

13 proposal for hearing and did grant the Agency's 

14 motion for a waiver of specified copy requirements. 

15 Today, we are, of course, 

16 holding the first hearing in this rulemaking. The 

17 second is now scheduled to take place beginning on 

18 Thursday, November 17, 2011 in Chicago. 

19 In an order dated August 4, 

20 2011, the hearing officer directed participants 

21 wishing to prefile testimony for this hearing to do 

22 so on or before Thursday, September 22nd of 2011, 

23 and on that date on September 22nd, the Board did 

24 receive prefiled testimony by Mr. Rory Davis on 

5 
1 behalf of the IEPA. 

2 On September 26, the Board 

3 also received prefiled testimony from Mr. Joseph 

4 Yost on behalf of the Consumer Specialty Products 

5 Association, or CSPA, and that has been posted as 

6 well to the Board's website through the clerk's 

7 office online. 

8 We will begin this hearing 

9 today with the prefiled testimony by Mr. Davis on 

10 behalf of the Agency, and under the Board's 

11 procedural rules, that will be entered into the 

12 record as if read, but if Mr. Davis would like to 

13 begin with a brief summary of introduction, that 

14 would certainly be appropriate. 

6 

15 At that point, we will turn to 

16 questions that the board members or any other 

17 participants may have for the Agency, and once we 

18 have completed that, we can see whether there is 

19 anyone present who did not prefile testimony but 

20 would like to testify today or offer a public 

21 comment here today. 

22 I do want to note for the 

23 record that there is a sheet at the door on which 

24 any person can indicate that they wish to testify by 
1 signing in, but I can plainly see that no one has 

2 done so at this point in our proceedings. 

7 

3 This proceeding is, of course, 

4 governed by the Board's procedural rules so that all 

5 information relevant and that is not repetitious or 

6 privileged will be admitted into the record, and I 

7 would certainly note that any questions posed by the 

8 Board are intended just to assist in developing a 

9 clear and complete record and do not reflect any 

10 predetermination of the Agency's rulernaking 

11 proposal. 

12 And with that, I can see 

13 whether there are any questions about our 

14 procedures. 

15 Neither seeing nor hearing 

16 any, Mr. Matoesian, it's the point where we can turn 

17 to you to begin the Agency's presentation. 

18 MR. MATOESIAN: Thank you. 

19 I would just like to say I'm 

20 Charles Matoesian appearing for the Illinois 

21 Environmental Protection Agency. I'm assistant 

22 counsel in the Bureau of Air, Division of Legal 

23 Counsel, and with me today is Mr. Rory Davis who is 

24 an environmental protection engineer in the Bureau 
1 of Air, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 

2 I would just start by -- I 

3 would like to enter his testimony as read as an 

4 exhibit. 

5 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. 

6 If we may receive a copy of 

7 that, Mr. Matoesian, that would be great. 

8 Mr. Matoesian has moved that 

9 the Board admit the prefiled testimony of Mr. Rory 

10 Davis as Hearing Exhibit No. l. 

ll Is there any objection to the 

12 motion? 

l3 Neither seeing nor hearing 

14 any, Mr. Matoesian, it will be marked as Hearing 

15 Exhibit No. 1 and admitted into the record under 

16 that exhibit number. 

17 (Whereupon Hearing Exhibit 1 was 

18 marked for identification and 

19 admitted into evidence at this 

20 time.) 

21 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Were there 

8 

22 any other housekeeping details that you wish to take 

23 care of this morning? 

24 MR. MATOESIAN: Yes. I'd like to 
9 

1 make an oral motion. 

2 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good, 

3 Mr. Matoesian. Please proceed. 

4 MR. MATOESIAN: Okay. Under Part 

5 223, it was a new part created in our prior 

6 rulemaking, and there was some strange transposition 

7 error. The Board order sending the final notice was 

8 correct, but for some reason, the published version 

9 in the Illinois Register had an incorrect notation; 

10 specifically, in Section 223.205(a) (6) and (a) (17). 

11 (a) (6) says under (A) Aerosol -- it should say 40 

12 HVOM and 10 MVOM, but for some reason, it says 40 

13 HVOM and 10 HVOM. 

14 Similarly, under (B) 

15 Nonaerosol, it should read 0 HVOM and 0 MVOM but for 

l6 some reason, it says 0 MVOM and 0 MVOM. 

17 On No. 17, deodorant, (A) 

18 Aerosol, again, it should read 0 HVOM and 10 MVOM, 

19 but instead, it reads 0 HVOM and 10 HVOM. 

20 And for (B) Nonaerosol, it 

21 should read 0 HVOM and 0 MVOM but instead reads, 0 

22 MVOM and 0 MVOM. 

23 We would just move that the 

24 Board amend the rule to reflect the proper language 
1 as in the Board final order. 

2 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good, 

3 Mr. Matoesian. 

4 And just to be clear for the 

5 record, you are referring to the Part 223 standards 

6 adopted in rulemaking 8-17, am I correct? 

7 

8 

MR. MATOESIAN: Yes. 

HEARING OFFICER FOX: And that 

9 became final in 2009 if memory serves me correctly. 

10 MR. MATOESIAN: Yes. 

11 HEARING OFFICER FOX: And again, 

12 just to be certain, the changes are in Subsections 

13 (a) (6) and (a)l7 that you had described on the 

14 record here today, correct? 

15 

16 

MR. MATOESIAN: Yes, correct. 

HEARING OFFICER FOX: Thank you 

10 

17 very much for letting me clarify that Mr. Matoesian. 

18 We do have that in the transcript of hearing and 

19 we'll certainly take that under advisement as a 

20 motion to amend as part of this rulemaking 

21 proceeding 12-8. 

22 Did you have any other details 

23 that you wish to take care of? 

24 MR. MATOESIAN: No, I do not. 
1 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. 

2 Why don't we ask the court 

3 reporter-- it seems that it's time to turn to any 

4 questions that we may have of Mr. Davis. If he 

5 could be sworn in, we could turn to those very 

6 quickly. 

7 (Whereupon the witness was sworn 

8 by the reporter.) 

9 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Mr. Davis, 

10 thank you very much for your presence today. 

11 Did you have any introduction 

12 or any other remarks with which you wanted to begin 

13 here this morning? 

14 MR. DAVIS: In general, and like my 

15 testimony says, we're proposing to add several 

16 categories to our current consumer products rules. 

17 The addition of these categories would make our 

18 rules mirror the current Ozone Transport Commission 

19 rules that were amended in 2006. 

20 The Agency feels that the 

21 categories are, there•s compliant products that are 

22 economically reasonable in all the categories we're 

23 proposing, and these same rules are in effect in 

24 generally all of the OTC states and several Midwest 

11 
12 

1 states. 

2 HEARING OFFICER FOX: And to 

3 clarify, Mr. Davis, the OTC references to the Ozone 

4 Transport Commission states in the northeastern part 

5 of the country? 

6 

7 

MR. DAVIS: That's correct. 

HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. 

8 Thank you for letting me clarify. 

9 All right. With that, 

10 Mr. Davis, thank you for those remarks. 

11 We can see whether any of the 

12 board members have any questions on the basis of the 

13 proposal or the support for it? 

14 I am not seeing or hearing 

15 any. 

16 I do have one question on 

17 which I'd like to ask your indulgence, Mr. Davis. 

18 The statement of reasons 

19 identifies generally the potentially affected 

20 entities including the geographical regions that are 

21 affected. 

22 My request is -- and if the 

23 Agency could do this, it would be very 

24 appreciated -- if there is a list of the potentially 
1 affected sources in the product categories that are 

2 included by this that could be produced for the 

3 second hearing as a hearing exhibit, that would be 

4 helpful to the Board in determining the full scope 

5 of the proposal and1 of course, the entities that 

6 may be affected. 

13 

7 Certainly the Board recognizes 

8 that there may be other parties not listed that 

9 could conceivably be affected or entities identified 

10 as potentially affected that would not fall under 

11 this for some reason, but if you have a list of what 

12 the Agency expects to be the potentially affected 

13 parties that you can prepare either as a DVD or as a 

14 spreadsheet or other printed document, that would be 

15 very helpful. 

16 Is that a possibility for the 

17 second hearing on the 17th of November? 

18 MR. DAVIS: Yes, and I should say I 

19 do have a list of potentially affected manufacturers 

20 of these products. Potentially affected sources 

21 could involve all retailers that sell these 

22 products, which would be a very long list. 

23 The outreach that the Agency 

24 did was to potentially affected manufacturers of the 
1 products. 

2 HEARING OFFICER FOX: And I 

3 appreciate that clarification. That in particular 

4 would be helpful recognizing, as you've identified 

5 in the technical support documents, some of the 

6 other documents, these are sold in a wide range of 

7 supermarkets, drugstores and other retail 

8 establishments, they could number in the tens of 

9 thousands conceivably. So the manufacturers would 

10 be of particular interest to the Board. I 

11 appreciate your clarification on that. 

12 Any other follow-up questions 

13 on the part of the Board? 

14 

14 Why don't we go off the record 

15 very briefly and just discuss a quick procedural 

16 issue. 

17 (Whereupon an off-the-record 

18 discussion transpired at this 

19 time.) 

20 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Back on the 

21 record then. 

22 The second hearing in this 

23 docket has been scheduled to take place on Thursday, 

24 November 17, 2011 at l p.m. at the Board's offices 
1 in Chicago. 

2 And in going off the record 

3 quickly to discuss a procedural issue, we did 

4 confirm that the original deadline to prefile 

5 testimony for that second hearing is Thursday, 

6 November 3rd of 2011, and the mailbox rule, the 

7 Board's mailbox rule, will not apply to that, so 

8 that it is due in the Board's offices by the close 

9 of business on Thursday, November 3rd. 

10 Copies of the transcripts of 

11 today's hearing should be available within five 

12 business days I believe, by Thursday, the 13th of 

13 October. 

14 And, in addition, anyone may 

15 

15 file written public comments in this rulemaking, and 

16 those may be filed electronically through the 

17 Board's clerk's office online. 

18 Naturally, any questions about 

19 that can be directed to the clerk's office. 

20 Are there any other matters to 

21 be addressed? 

22 MR. V~TOESIAN: Just one question. 

23 Does·Mr. Yost's testimony, is 

24 that considered entered into the record yet or not? 
1 HEARING OFFICER FOX: It is in the 

2 Board's record of this proceeding. It hasn't been 

3 admitted, of course, as a hearing exhibit here 

4 today, but that has been received and filed by the 

5 Board. 

6 MR. MATOESIAN: And we could file 

7 questions concerning it if we have any? 

8 HEARING OFFICER FOX: Yes, 

9 absolutely so, absolutely so. 

10 

ll you. 

12 

MR. MATOESIAN: All right. Thank 

HEARING OFFICER FOX: And if you 

13 wish to file those on or before the deadline for 

14 prefiled testimony at the second hearing, 

15 Mr. Matoesian, we'd certainly be happy to field 

16 those as well and make those part of our record. 

17 

18 you. 

19 

MR. MATOESIAN: Okay. Good. Thank 

HEARING OFFICER FOX: Anything 

20 further on the part of the Agency? 

21 

22 

MR. MATOESIAN: No. 

HEARING OFFICER FOX: Very good. 

23 Anything further on the part 

24 of any of the board members? 

16 
1 Neither seeing nor hearing 

2 anything, we can adjourn. 

3 Mr. Matoesian and Mr. Davis, 

4 thank you very much for your presence here today. 

5 (Adjournment at 9:28a.m.) 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

17 
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) 

)SS. 

2 COUNTY OF SANGAMON) 

3 

4 CERTIFICATE 

5 I, Laurel A. Patkes, Certified Shorthand 

18 

6 Reporter in and for said County and State, do hereby 

7 certify that I reported in shorthand the foregoing 

8 proceedings and that the foregoing is a true and 

9 correct transcript of my shorthand notes so taken as 

10 aforesaid. 

11 Dated October 8, 2011. 

12 

13 

14 

Certified Shorthand Reporter 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

November 17, 20 II 

IEPA ATIACHMENT N0.1 

REC!EIVII!D 

CLERK'S OFFICE 

NOV I 7 2011 

IN THE MA TIER OF: ) 

) 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Pollution Control Board . ,,. 

STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR ) 

ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FOR ) 

AREA SOURCES: .1\MENDMENTS TO 35 ) 

ILL. ADM. CODE PART 223 ) 

Rl2-8 

(Rulemaking- Air) 

HEARING OFFICER ORDER 

The second hearing in this rulemaking took place as scheduled on Thursday, Novermber 

17, 2011, in Chicago. The Board expects to receive the transcript of that hearing on or before 

Monday, November 28, 2011. When it receives the transcript, the Board will post it to the 

Clerk's Office On-Line (COOL), which is accessible through the Board's Web site 

( www. i pcb.state.il.us). 

During the second hearing, the hearing officer indicated that the Board would accept 

post-hearing comments until Wednesday, December 14,2011. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

102.108(b). The "mailbox rule" at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not apply to the filing 

of these post-hearing comments, and the Board Clerk's Office must receive post-hearing 

comments before the close of business on Wednesday, December 14, 2011. Although comments 

may be filed electronically through COOL, all electronic or approved fax filings must be 

received by the Clerk's Office no later than 4:30PM on December 14, 2011. Questions about 

electronic filing should be directed to the Clerk's Office at 312-814-3629. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Timothy J. Fox, Hearing Officer 

Ulinois Pollution Control Board 

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500 

Chicago, lllinois 60601 

312-814-6085 

312-814-3669 (fax) 

fox t @i pcb.state.il. us 
t 

OR~ !EPA ATIACHMENT NO. I () 

Page 1 

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 

PART 223 STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS 

FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS 

FOR AREA SOURCES. 

R12-8 

(Rulemaking-Air) 

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS of the above-entitled 

cause held at the James R. Thompson Center, 100 West 

Randolph Street, Suite 11-500, Chicago, Illinois, 

before Hearing Officer Timothy J. Fox, at 1:00 o'clock 

p.m. on Thursday, November 18, 2011. 
1 A p P E A RAN C E S: 

2 ANAND RAO 

JENNIFER A. BURKE 

3 TIMOTHY J. FOX 

THOMAS E. JOHNSON 

4 DEANNA GLOSSER, Ph.D. 

CARRIE ZALEWSKI 

5 

Page 2 

6 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BY: MR. RORY DAVIS 

7 MR. CHARLES E. MATOESIAN 

1021 North Grand Avenue East 

a P.O. Box 19276 

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 

9 (217)524-4343 

( 21 7 ) 52 4 -4 71 0 ( fax) 

10 E-mail: Rory.Davis@illinois.gov 

11 CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION 

BY: MR. JOSEPH T. YOST 

12 1667 K Street, NW - Suite 300 

washington, D.C. 20006 

13 (202) 872-8110 - (202) 833-7325 Direct 

(202)223-2636 (fax) 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 
1 

Page 3 

TIMOTHY FOX: 1:00 o'clock having arrived, 

2 I want to convene this hearing. 

3 Good afternoon and welcome to the Illinois 

4 Pollution Control Board Hearing in the matter of 

5 Standards and limitations for Organic Material Emissions 

6 for Areas Sources, Amendments to 35 Illinois 

7 Administrative Code Part 223. 

8 My name is Tim Fox and I'm the Hearing 

s Officer for this Rulemaking, which the Board has 

10 docketed as R12-8. Before we get underway, I want to 

11 note that present from the Board today are at my 

12 immediate left Board Member Jennifer Burke, at my 

13 immediate right Board Member Thomas Johnson, at his 

14 right Board Member Deanna Glosser, and at my far right 

15 is Board Member Carrie Zalewski. Also present is 

16 Anand Rao, at my far left, of the Board's technical 

17 staff. 

18 The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

19 initiated this Rulemaking proceeding by filing a 

20 proposal on July 13th of 2011, and in an Order dated 

21 August 4th, 2011 the Board accepted the proposal for 

22 hearing and the first hearing took place on October 6th, 

23 2011 in Springfield. I want to note that on September 

24 26th, 2011, after the deadline to pre-file testimony for 
Page 4 

:{ 

1 the first hearing, the Board did receive pre-filed ' r', 

2 testimony by Mr. Joseph Yost of the Consumer Specialty 

3 Products Association, or CSPA. 

4 We will begin today with Mr. Yost whose 

5 pre-filed testimony is entered, as if read, under 

6 Section 104.424(f) of the Board's procedurals rules. 

7 But, we certainly can allow him to offer a summary or an 

8 introduction, if he would like to do so, before we turn 

9 to questions on the basis of that pre-filed testimony. 

10 we then can turn to pre-filed testimony by 

11 anyone -- I'm sorry. We can turn to any person who 

12 did not pre-file testimony, but wishes to testify today. 

13 There is a sign-in sheet inside the door so that anyone 

14 can indicate that they wish to do so. I can see clearly 

15 that no one has so indicated. We would, then, turn to 

16 the Agency, in the event that the Board has questions. 

17 Mr. Matoesian for the Agency, we would ask that 

18 Mr. Davis be sworn to respond to those, if necessary. 

19 Following that, as time permits, any person wishing to 

20 offer a public comment may do so and we will extend 

21 that offer once again before we adjourn. 

22 Quickly, this proceeding is governed by the 

23 Board's procedural rules under which all information 

24 that is relevant and is not repetitious or privileged 
Page 5 

1 will be admitted into the record. Please note that any 

2 questions that are posed today by the Board or its staff 

3 are intended solely to help develop a clear and complete 

4 record and do not reflect any prejudgement or 

5 predetermination on the Agency's proposal. 

6 Are there any questions about our procedures 

7 before we get underway? I don't see or hear any. 

8 Mr. Yost, I had indicated that we would 

9 begin with you, but, Mr. Matoesian, you had indicated 

10 that you had a housekeeping matter that you quickly 

11 wanted to address. 

12 MR. MATOESIAN: Yes. We were just going to 

13 enter this list of potentially effective manufacturers 

14 in Illinois as an exhibit. We had said at the first 

15 hearing we would produce it and we are doing that now. 

16 TIMOTHY FOX: I appreciate your preparation 

17 and submission of that, Mr. Matoesian. 

18 It has been moved into the record of this 

19 proceeding as Exhibit No. 2. Is there any objection to 

20 the motion being granted? Neither seeing nor hearing 

21 any, Mr. Matoesian, it will be marked and admitted as 

22 Exhibit No. 2 in this proceeding. 

23 Thank you once again for your preparation of 

24 that. That is in the record. 
1 

Page 6 

Mr. Yost, the time has come to prepare for 

2 your pre-filed testimony. If you'd like to take a seat 

3 at that head table, we will have the court reporter 

4 swear you in. 

5 JOSEPH YOST: Thank you. 

6 JOSEPH T. YOST 

7 having been first duly sworn by court reporter, was 

8 examined and testified on his oath as foll01~s: 

9 TIMOTHY FOX: Mr. Yost, you had indicated 

10 that you may have a summary or introduction and the time 

11 has come for that, if you wish. 

12 JOSEPH YOST: Thank you. Yes, please, if 

13 I may begin. 

14 My name is Joseph Yost. I represent the 

15 Consumer Specialty Products Association. We're a 

16 national trade association comprised of approximately 

17 240 companies, approximately 42 companies of CSPA 

18 member companies have facilities located here in 

19 Chicago, Illinois, either facilities or their 

20 headquarters are located in Illinois. We also represent 

21 companies that manufacture or market more than 

22 two-thirds of the products that are currently regulated 

23 under Illinois's regulation and also more than 

24 two-thirds of the products that are subject to the 
Page 7 

1 proposed amendments of this proposed regulation. 

2 I would like to begin by respectfully 

3 requesting that the Board admit my pre-filed testimony 

4 as a hearing exhibit. 

5 TIMOTHY FOX: Mr. Yost, you have helpfully 

6 prepared a number of copies of it. 

7 Mr. Matoesian, has the Agency received a 

8 copy of this? 

9 CHARLES MATOESIAN: Yes. 

10 TIMOTHY FOX: Very good. You've heard the 

11 motion to admit the pre-filed testimony filed by 

12 Mr. Yost on September 26th as Exhibit No. 3 in this 

13 proceeding. Is there any objection to the motion? 

14 Neither seeing nor hearing any, Mr. Yost, it is marked 

15 and admitted as Exhibit No. 3, and thank you once again 

16 for your preparation of the copies. 

17 JOSEPH YOST: Thank you very much, Mr. Fox. 

18 I would like to supplement the pre-filed 

19 testimony by raising two technical amendments to the 

20 proposal put forth by the Department. Specifically, in 

21 Section 223.203, the definition section, the definition 

22 for the term existing product should be amended. As 

23 currently drafted in the current regulation, it states 

24 July l, 2009, which was the effective date of the 
Page 8 

1 original regulation. That, of course, has become 

2 inoperative given the current amendment which would set 

3 new regulations that take effect on July l, 2012. Thus, 

4 we propose to strike the reference to July l, 2009 and 

5 instead insert the language as follows, the effective 

6 date in Section 223.205 Subsection A is the table of 

7 standards. That resolves the problem with citing an 

8 inoperative date and would instead refer to a more 

9 appropriate date for the new regulations that will be 

10 taking effect next year. 

11 The second issue that I'd like to raise is 

12 found in Section 223.207. This is a section that deals 

13 with the regulation of products that are subject to the 

14 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 

15 otherwise known as FIFRA, F-I-F-R-A. This is also the 

16 same issue. In this case, the existing regulation 

17 states July 1, 2010. That was correct under the current 

18 regulation. However, that would be inoperative for any 

19 new FIFRA regulated products that would be subject to 

20 the new regulations that will take effect next year. 

21 FIFRA regulated products are granted a 

22 one-year extension in every state that regulates 

23 consumer products. This is because the products are 

24 regulated not only by USEPA, but by individual state 

j 

L..,,~-=---=·-=·-·-=--=-'"=-~:-: . .,.._,~,·-~=~=--=·"'·~=-=··=-~=--=·=···=·· ·""··~""·-""··-= ... =,.=~·=· -=·-=····=--=····=··=-~=-~="·""·--""~=~=·=·=·=·-=--=·--=·-=--=--~-d..: 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

( 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 9 

agencies. In this case the Illinois EPA regulates 

FIFRA regulated products or the Department of 

Agriculture, I'm not sure which. I would have to confer 

with -- generally they're regulated by an environmental 

agency in states, sometimes by the agriculture agency. 

I apologize, I forget in Illinois which one. But, the 

additional year is a provision in all regulations, it 

was a provision in the existing regulation. We, 

therefore, recommend that the reference to July 1, 2012 

be struck and in its place language to the effect that 

one year after the effective date specified in Section 

225.205, the table of standards. This again addresses 

the concern about ensuring we have a proper effective 

date for these newly regulated products. 

I'd like to please just summarize my 

pre-filed testimony. CSPA, as I mentioned, represents 

a broad range of consumer product manufacturers. 

Manufactured products that are not only sold to 

consumers, but also sold to commercial enterprises, such 

as this office building, hotels, schools, et cetera. 

For the most part, our companies, especially 

the larger companies market products on a national 

basis. We have companies, medium-to-small size 

companies that market products on a regional basis and 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

( 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 10 

we have small companies that sometimes market products 

in individual states. But, as a general matter, we 

strongly support regionally consistent regulations. We 

support that because not only does it make it more 

manageable for manufacturers to market their products, 

but it also ensures that air quality is improved and is 

improved in such a way that it does not interfere with 

interstate commerce. 

We certainly appreciate the actions by the 

Illinois EPA and by the neighboring states, Ohio, 

Indiana, and Michigan, to develop regulations that are 

regionally consistent. I might add, these regulations 

are also consistent with ten east coast states plus the 

District of Columbia. We strongly support, therefore, 

the proposed amendment as a general matter that the 

Department has proposed because it is consistent with 

these other regulations. 

In the pre-filed testimony you'll see three 

suggested revisions that we put forth for the Board to 

consider and one technical correction. I v1on ' t repeat 

those, but I think it's safe to say if you look at what 

we have raised in the pre-filed testimony, they're very 

specific narrow issues. It goes to our desire to work 

with the Department in ensuring that this regulation is 
1 as workable as possible. 

Page 11 

It also underscores the fact, 

2 as I mentioned earlier, as a general matter we strongly 

3 support the proposed amendment that the Department has 

4 put forward because of its consistency with other 

5 states. And at that point, I -- as a summary of my 

6 pre-filed testimony, I'd be more than happy to answer 

7 any questions that the Board members may have. 

8 TIMOTHY FOX: Mr. Yost, thanks very much. 

9 We'll open those questions up to the Agency as well so 

10 they may pose any that they wish to. 

11 Mr. Matoesian or Mr. Davis, do you have any 

12 questions you wish to raise of Mr. Yost at this point? 

l3 

14 

CHARLES MATOESIAN: We have just a few. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Please go ahead, 

15 Mr. Matoesian. 

16 CHARLES MATOESIAN: Mr. Yost, on page eight 

17 of your pre-filed testimony, listed as number two is 

18 your request that the Board delete a restriction on the 

19 general purpose degreaser category that the Agency had 

20 recommended and on page nine of the pre-filed testimony 

21 you can actually see where this will occur in 

22 Section 223.211(a) and (b). 

23 I would just like to know would striking 

24 this restriction make the Illinois rule more consistent 
Page 12 

1 or less consistent with the OTC states? 

2 JOSEPH YOST: It would be precedent setting, 

3 in that the other states, and currently there are ten 

4 states that have FIFRA rules that impose a restriction 

5 on the use of these three chemical compounds and the use 

6 of a general purpose degreaser. So, in that regard, 

7 it would set a precedent that this would be somewhat 

8 different. We raise that recommendation for two basis. 

9 One, the use of particularly perchloroethylene and 

10 trichloroethylene is necessary to produce 

11 low-flammability products. It would allow companies to 

12 produce a general purpose degreaser that can be used in 

I 13 

i 

facilities maintenance operations which may be present 

14 near ignition sources. 

15 The second reason that we put forth this 

16 recommendation is that perchloroethylene and methylene 

17 chloride are currently exempted from the definition of 

18 VOM for purposes of compliance with the VOM limitations 

19 for the VOM content requirements in Illinois as a result 

20 of the low photochemical reaction. They're also exempt 

21 from the definition of the federal regulation as well. 

22 So, for the -- in summary, for the purpose of workplace 

23 safety and for the practical reality that the reductions 

24 that would be achieved would be minimal, we ask the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

( 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 13 

Board to consider withdrawing the proposed restriction 

for this one product category, general purpose 

degreaser. But, again, this would be precedent setting. 

The ten states -- ten other states include that. What 

we would propose to do is as each of these states go 

forward, because we anticipate that within the next 

several years these states will develop additional 

regulations based on a yet to be completed 2014 Ozone 

Transport Commission model rule. The model rule will 

not be -- the Ozone Transport Commission just had a 

meeting last week, as a matter of fact. It was 

anticipated they would approve the model rule at that 

point. For a variety of reasons, they elected to defer 

a consideration to until June of next year, their annual 

meeting, and I fully anticipate it will be approved at 

that point, and, thus, states will go forward with a new 

round of regulation. And what we would then ask is 

those states to consider also withdrawing the 

restriction of the general purpose degreaser. 

But, again, to answer your question 

directly, Mr. Matoesian, it would be inconsistent with 

the ten states that oppose this similar restriction. 

But, for reasons that I just stated, I think we would 

certainly request that the Board consider the merits 
Page 14 

1 and consider withdrawing the proposed restriction in 

2 this case in Illinois. 

3 CHARLES MATOESIAN: Thank you. So, these 

4 other ten states, they currently have compliant products 

5 that could be sold with this restriction in it? 

6 

7 

JOSEPH YOST: Yes, sir. That is correct. 

CHARLES MATOESIAN: Would this result in 

8 different products being sold in Illinois than they're 

9 being sold in the other OTC states? 

10 JOSEPH YOST: To the extent that the 

11 restriction be lifted off general purpose degreaser, the 

12 ansv1er would be yes. And again this -- this would not 

13 necessarily be sold widely. This would be sold -- this 

14 type of product would be sold more likely to commercial 

15 enterprises and not necessarily over -- through normal 

16 retail outlets such as the majority of general purpose 

17 degreaser products would be sold. 

18 Did I answer yo~r question, Mr. Matoesian? 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

CHARLES MATOESIAN: Yes. 

JOSEPH YOST: Thank you. 

CHARLES MATOESIJI.N: Thank you. 

Those were all the questions I have. 

ANAND RAO: May I ask a follow-up question? 

TIMOTHY FOX: Sure. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

' 13 

{ 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 15 

ANAND RAO: Regarding these general purpose 

degreasers, are there products that are, you know, 

low-flammability products which do not contain these 

three chemical compounds that are listed? 

JOSEPH YOST: Mr. Rao, to the best of my 

knowledge -- I'm not a chemist. I must plead-- I do 

not have the technical expertise to answer definitively. 

It's been explained to me that 

the -- particularly the use of perchloroethylene is 

very helpful in developing low-flammability products. 

I believe it may be essential, although I don't know if 

there are alternatives. I cannot, unfortunately, answer 

that directly. 

I'll be happy to consult with our companies 

who actually manufacture these products to provide a 

more definitive answer. 

ANAND RAO: I'd appreciate that. Also, if 

you can give us some information as to whether any of 

these products, if they exist, are being sold in these 

other states where they have restriction. 

JOSEPH YOST: Mr. Rao, again, I will check 

with the experts and I'll be happy to get that 

information back. To whom should I give it to, the 

Agency or the Board? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

( 

Page 16 

TIMOTHY FOX: If you could file it with 

the Board, that would be helpful, since we're not 

anticipating another hearing in this matter, but we can 

certainly discuss the timing for filing of comments in 

response, things of nature, Mr. Yost. 

JOSEPH YOST: Thank you, Mr. Fox. 

ANAND RAO: And if you file it with the 

Board, it will be on our website so the Agency 

will -- thank you very much. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Mr. Rao, any additional 

questions? 

ANAND RAO : No. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Mr. Matoesian, I think you've 

indicated that you have exhausted the questions you had 

for Mr. Yost? 

CHARLES MATOESIAN: Yes, we're finished. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Did any of the Board members 

wish to pose a question before we move on? Neither 

seeing nor hearing that they do, Mr. Yost, we can 

certainly thank you for your 

ANAND RAO: Oh, I didn't have any question 

on this particular issue. 

TIMOTHY FOX: My misunderstanding. Please 

go ahead, Mr. Rao. 
1 

Page 17 

ANAND RAO: Mr. Yost, I think your third 

2 recommendation in section two -- it's the fourth one, 

3 the 223.205(a). You recommended that the Board replace 

4 the term adhesives spray in Section 223.205(a) (2) with 

5 the term aerosol adhesives, since the term is defined 

6 in 223.203. 

7 

8 

JOSEPH YOST: Yes, sir. 

ANAND RAO: We were looking at the 

9 definition of aerosol adhesives under 223.203. If you 

10 look at the definition, the definition excludes special 

11 purpose spray adhesives, mist spray adhesives, and wet 

12 spray adhesives, they're excluded from the definition. 

13 

14 

15 

THOMAS JOHNSON: On page four. 

JOSEPH YOST: Yes, sir. 

ANAND RAO: When you go to 223.205 (a) ·(2), 

16 where you want us to replace the heading, those excluded 

17 additives are listed in there. So, it seems like 

18 there's some kind of inconsistency between the 

19 definition and what's list here. 

20 JOSEPH YOST: Mr. Rao, you raise a very good 

21 point and certainly my intent was not to get an 

22 exclusion through the backdoor --

23 ANAND RAO: No, no, no. I think because the 

24 way the rules are written, we're also a little confused 
( 

Page 18 

1 with that definition. 

2 

3 

JOSEPH YOST: I think --

ANAND RAO: And if the Agency has anything 

4 to say, please feel free. 

5 JOSEPH YOST: Mr. Rao, what I was trying 

6 to get at is if you look at the table of standards that 

7 California has established, which is the basis for this 

8 regulation and the other states that have used the Ozone 

9 Transport Emissions model rule, they use the term 

10 aerosol colon adhesive. So, I was trying to get 

11 something -- making a suggestion and again this is 

12 just a technical recommendation, that would be more 

13 consistent with what California and what other states 

14 have done. Maybe I --

15 ANAND RAO: It's just the way our rules 

16 are written. If it •s just a technical correction that 

17 you're looking for, if we leave the rule as it's written 

18 now will that cause any problems? 

19 JOSEPH YOST: No, sir. In fact, looking 

20 at your definition more thoroughly, I think it would be 

21 probably prudent for me to withdraw that recommendation. 

22 Because certainly my intent was to ensure more 

23 consistency with other states and if that makes an 

24 inherent conflict with the Illinois regulation, then, it 

L·=··"=-~=-"=·-·=·=· .. ··=---=·-·=····=··-=-'"= .. -= .. ·=--=· ··=··=-·-=-=· =·-·=-·=~~=-·=· =====--=-=·--=· ·=~-=-·=·=-~=-.,J,., 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

( 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 19 

certainly would be inappropriate to do so and I would 

withdraw that recommendation. 

ANAND RAO: Thank you. Just one more 

question. You also suggested that the Board should 

eliminate reference to aerosol adhesives in Section 

223.211, since the product category is already being 

regulated under Section 223.208. Looking at 223.208, 

those requirements do not account for impurities in 

parts. Is that something that should go in to 223.208, 

just like what the Agency is proposing under 223.211? 

JOSEPH YOST: Mr. Rao, it probably should. 

And, in fact, to a certain extent it makes sense to 

include this particular product category with the other 

ones because they're all -- they fall into the general 

prohibition on the use of those three chemical 

compounds. 

The only point I was trying to raise is 

that this product category is already regulated. So, 

thus, putting it in this new section could raise some 

potential ambiguity as to how the product is regulated, 

and at least since it's currently regulated it doesn't 

make sense that it would also be subject to prospective 

regulation as well. So, that's why I raise that for the 

Board's consideration. I'm not sure how that should be 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

( 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 20 

handled. I just raised it for the Board's consideration 

on this. 

ANAND RAO: Your recommendation made me 

take another look at what we had on our books and I saw 

impunities not addressed in the existing rules and if 

the Agency can take a look at it and get back to us. 

That's all I have. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Completely done? 

ANAND RAO: Now I am. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Sorry to cut you off earlier. 

Did the Board members have any questions 

that they wish to raise at this point? 

JOSEPH YOST: May I just make a closing 

remark, Mr. Fox? 

TIMOTHY FOX: Please do so, Mr. Yost. 

JOSEPH YOST: Thank you. 

In closing, I'd like to say I certainly 

appreciate the work of the Department to conduct a 

very open and transparent rulemaking process. CSPA 

appreciates the professionalism of the Department staff 

and we appreciate the opportunity to participate 

actively as a stakeholder in this process, and we also 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Board 

and present our recommendations and we again appreciate 
Page 21 

1 the very open process that this Board has conducted. 

2 Thank you for this opportunity. 

3 TIMOTHY FOX: Thank you, Mr. Yost, for your 

4 time today. 

5 Mr. Matoesian, we had before beginning 

6 the hearing raised the possibility that we may wish to 

7 have Mr. Davis sworn for a couple of questions and if 

8 we -- if you're prepared to field those now, Mr. Davis, 

9 and we can have you sworn in, I think we can move 

10 through those pretty quickly. Thank you very much. 

11 RORY DAVIS 

12 having been first duly sworn by court reporter, was 

13 examined and testified on his oath as follows: 

14 TIMOTHY FOX: Mr. Davis, thank you for your 

15 willingness to be sworn in. I just have a couple of 

16 questions. 

17 I want to follow-up, first of all, on a 

18 couple of the questions that were already raised about 

19 the existing Section 223 and-- 223.208 that addresses 

20 aerosol adhesives, and my question is whether the Agency 

21 in post-hearing comments, the deadline for which we'll 

22 establish in a few minutes, would be willing to address 

23 including the language regarding impurities from your 

24 proposal in this docket into that existing language in 
Page 22 

1 223.208? Could you address the suitability of doing 

2 that for us in written comments? 

3 RORY DAVIS: Yes. In fact, I was -- I was 

4 going to say we appreciate Mr. Yost's thorough review of 

5 the rule and that for the most part we do agree with 

6 some of their suggestions. And I was going to say that 

7 in post-hearing comments we will attempt to get very 

8 specific language, section by section, of how we think 

9 we should address some of these issues. 

10 TIMOTHY FOX: That would be much 

11 appreciated. Thank you very much. 

12 I wanted also to address the recommendation 

13 that Mr. Yost had made on behalf the CSPA, in favor of 

14 what has been termed "sell through" period for products 

15 that were manufactured before the effective date of 

16 these proposed regulations. 

17 Does the Agency have a response to or a 

18 position to the recommendation he has made about a sell 

19 through period? 

20 

21 

RORY DAVIS: We concur. We concur that that 

would be better language to it would be consistent 

22 with our previous sell through policy or sell through 

23 period which is indefinite sell through. 

24 The way it's worded presently would make it 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

' 13 \ 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 23 

exactly as they say, it would make all products on that 

effective date regardless of sell through or when they 

were manufactured prohibited. So, we do concur that 

would be better language. 

TIMOTHY FOX: And that as long as they were 

manufactured before the proposed effective date of 

July 1st, 2012, this could be they could continue to 

be sold until that supply was exhausted. 

RORY DAVIS: Right. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Very good. Thank you for 

clarifying that, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. Rao, did you have any questions for the 

Agency? 

ANAND RAO: No. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Did any of the Board members 

have any questions they wish to pose? 

Mr. Yost, it's open to you, if you have 

questions for the Agency at this point? 

JOSEPH YOST: No, sir, Mr. Fox, I do not. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

TIMOTHY FOX: Very good. I can clearly see 

that the sign-in sheet on which persons could indicate 

that they wish to testify today is blank and I'd like 

the record to reflect that no additional persons have 
Page 24 

1 appeared for hearing since we got underway at 1:00 p.m. 

2 I ~1ant to take care of one quick 

3 housekeeping detail, so to speak, and that is that 

4 under Section 27(d) of the Environmental Protection Act, 

5 the Board must request the Department of Commerce and 

6 Economic Opportunity, or DCEO, conduct an economic 

7 impact study of proposed rules before the Board adopts 

8 them. The Board, then, must make either the economic 

9 impact study or the Department's explanation for not 

10 conducting one available to the public at least 20 days 

11 before a public hearing. 

12 In a letter dated August 4th, the Board's 

13 acting chairman at the time, Dr. G. Tanner Girard, 

14 requested that DCEO conduct an economic impact study of 

15 this proposal and requested a response no later than 

16 September 15th of 2011. In a letter dated September 

17 20th of 2011, DCEO's director Mr. Warren Ribley 

18 responded that the Department had received the Board's 

19 request. The letter stated, however, that, "At this 

20 time the Department is unable to undertake such an 

21 economic impact study. Therefore, I must respectfully 

22 decline your request." 

23 Is there anyone who wish to testify about 

24 the Board's request or the DCEO's response to it? 

... J 
Page 25 

1 Neither seeing nor hearing any indication of that, we 

2 will put that issue to rest. 

3 What I'd like to do for a few moments is 

4 just go off the record to discuss a quick procedural 

s issue or two. 

6 (Brief off-the-record discussion.) 

7 TIMOTHY FOX: Thank you very much. 

8 In going off the record, the participants 

9 discussed the procedural issue of filing post-hearing 

10 comments. Before it takes action on the Agency's 

11 proposal, the Board will hold open_ a post-hearing 

12 comment period ending Wednesday December 14th of 2011, 

13 approximately two weeks after the Board expects to 

14 receive the transcript of this hearing. Copies of that 

15 transcript are expected to be available by Monday, 

16 November 28th of 2011, and once it is filed with the 

17 Board it will be posted promptly to the Board's website. 

18 To set the specific post-hearing comment 

19 deadline as clearly as possible, I'll issue a Hearing 

20 Officer Order very shortly so that all participants on 

21 the service and notice lists are aware of that deadline. 

22 I do want to note that any person may file written 

23 public comments with the Board's clerk. Those can be 

24 submitted electronically through the clerk's office 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

' 13 

\ 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 26 

online or at COOL, and certainly any questions about 

that process of electronic filing can be directed to the 

clerk. Those filings, whether paper or electronic, must 

be served on the Hearing Officer and all those entities 

that are on the service list, and you may also contact 

the clerk's office to obtain the most current version of 

that list. If anyone has procedural questions about any 

aspect of this rulemaking, my contact information is 

listed on the Board's website. 

Are there any other matters that we need to 

address before adjourning the second hearing? Neither 

seeing nor hearing any, thank you, Mr. Yost, Mr. Davis, 

and Mr. Matoesian, for your time and participation, it's 

appreciated and we can adjourn. Thank you very much. 

(The hearing adjourned 

at 1:33 o'clock p.m.) 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

( 13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

STATE OF ILLINOIS ) 

)SS. 

COUNTY OF C 0 0 K ) 

Page 27 

DAVID J. DEMSKI, being first duly sworn on oath 

says that he is a court reporter doing business in the 

City of Chicago; that he reported in shorthand the 

proceedings given at the taking of said hearing on the 

18th day of November, 2007, and that the foregoing is 

a true and correct transcript of his shorthand notes so 

taken as aforesaid, and contains all the proceedings 

given at said hearing. 

DAVID J. DEMSKI ~ CSR# 084-004386 
A 

about5:6 

9:13 21:18 

22:18 24:23 

26:1,7 

above-entit ... 

I :8 

accepted 

3:21 

account 19:8 

achieved 

12:24 

Act 8:14 24:4 

acting 24:13 

action 25:10 

actions I 0:9 

actively 

20:22 

actually 

11:2115:15 

add 10:12 

additional 

9:7 13:7 

16:10 23:24 

additives 

17:17 

address 5:11 

21:22 22:1 

22:9,12 

26:11 

addressed 

20:5 

addresses 

9:1221:19 

adhesive 

18:10 

adhesives 

17:4,5,9,11 

17:11,12 

19:5 21:20 

adjourn 4:21 

26:14 

adjourned 

26:15 

adjourning 

26:11 

ADMI:4 

Administr .•. 

3:7 

admit 7:3, II 

admitted 5: I 

5:21 7:15 

adopts 24:7 

aerosol17:5 

17:9 18:10 

19:5 21:20 

aforesaid 

27:10 

after3:24 

9:11 25:13 

afternoon 

3:3 

again4:21 

5:23 7:15 

9:12 13:3 

13:20 14:12 

15:21 18:11 

20:24 

agencies 9:1 

agency2:6 

3:18 4:16 

4:17 7:7 9:5 

9:5 11:9,19 

15:24 16:8 

18:3 19:10 

20:6 21:20 

22:17 23:13 

23:18 

Agency's 5:5 

25:10 

agree 22:5 

agriculture 

9:3,5 

ahead 11:14 

16:24 

air 10:6 

allow 4:7 

12:11 

already 19:6 

19:18 21:18 

alternatives 

15:12 

although 

15:11 

ambiguity 

19:20 

amended 

7:22 

amendment 

8:2 10:15 

11:3 

amendments 

1:4 3:6 7:1 

7:19 

Anand2:2 

3:16 14:23 

15:1,17 

16:7,12,21 

17:1,8,15 

17:23 18:3 

18:15 19:3 

20:3,9 

23:14 

annual13: 14 

another 16:3 

20:4 

answer 11:6 

13:20 14:12 

14:18 15:7 

15:12,16 

anticipate 

13:6,15 

anticipated 

13:12 

anticipating 

16:3 

anyone4:11 

4:13 24:23 

26:7 

13:12 

approved 

13:15 

approxima •.• 

6:16,17 

25:13 

AREA 1:5 

Areas 3:6 

arrived 3:1 

aspect26:8 

association 

2: II 4:3 

6:15,16 

attempt 22:7 

August 3 :21 

24:12 

available 

24:10 25:15 

Avenue2:7 

aware25:21 

B 

b 11:22 

back 15:23 

20:6 

backdoor 

17:22 

based 13:8 

basis 4:9 9:23 

9:24 12:8 

18:7 

anything become 8: I 

18:3 before1:1,11 

apologize 9:6 3:10 4:8,21 

appear 20:23 5:7 16:18 

appeared 20:23 21:5 

24:1 22:15 23:6 

appreciate 24:7,11 

5:16 10:9 25:10 26:11 

15:17 20:18 begin4:4 5:9 

20:21,23,24 6:13 7:2 

22:4 beginning 

appreciated 21 :5 

22:11 26:14 behalf22:13 

appreciates being 5:20 

20:20 14:8,9 

appropriate 15:19 19:6 

8:9 27:4 

approve believe 15: II 

best 15:5 

better 22:21 

23:4 

between 

17:18 

blank23:23 

Board 1:1 

3:4,9,11,12 

3:13,14,15 

3:21 4:1,16 

5:2 7:3 

10:19 II :7 

11:18 13:1 

13:24 15:24 

16:2,8,17 

17:3 19:4 

20:11,23 

21 :I 23:15 

24:5,7,8 

25:11,13,17 

Board's 3:16 

4:6,23 

19:24 20:1 

24:12,18,24 

25:17,23 

26:9 

books 20:4 

Box2:8 

Brief25:6 

broad 9:17 

building 9:20 

Burke2:2 

3:12 

Page 28 

certainly 4:7 

10:9 13:24 

16:4,20 

17:21 18:22 

19:1 20:17 

26:1 

cetera 9:20 

chairman 

24:13 

CHARLES 

2:7 7:9 

11:13,16 

14:3,7,19 

14:21 16:16 

check 15:21 

chemical 

12:5 15:4 

19:15 

chemist 15:6 

Chicago 1: I 0 

6:19 27:6 

chloride 

12:17 

citing 8:7 

City27:6 

clarifying 

23:11 

clear 5:3 

clearly 4: 14 

23:21 25:19 

clerk25:23 

26:3 

business 27:5 clerk's 25:24 

26:6 

c 

C2:127:2 

California 

18:7,13 

care24:2 

Carrie2:4 

3:15 

case8:16 9:1 

14:2 

category 

11:19 13:2 

19:6,13,18 

cause 1:9 

18:18 

Center 1:9 

certain 19:12 

closing 20:13 

20:17 

coast 10:13 

Code 1:4 3:7 

colon 18:10 

Columbia 

10:14 

come6:1,11 

comment 

4:20 25:12 ' 

25:18 

comments 

16:421:21 • 

22:2,7 

25:10,23 
Page 29 

commerce 11:418:23 cut20:1 0 15:2 each 13:5 18:7 ~ 10:8 24:5 consistent delete 11:18 earlier II :2 et9:20 : 

commercial 10:3,12,13 D DEMSKI 20:10 event4:16 l 

9:1914:14 10:1611:24 date 7:24 8:6 27:4,15 east2:7 every 8:22 ~ 

Commission 12:1 18:13 8:8,99:11 Department 10:13 exactly 23: I ~ ' 13:9,10 22:21 9:14 22:15 7:20 9:2 economic examined 6:8 ,, 

1 ' 

companies consult 15:14 23:2,6 10:16,24 24:6,6,8,14 21:13 ~ 

' 

6:17,17,18 dated3:20 11:3 20:18 24:21 excluded i 

consumer ' 

6:21 9:21 2:11 4:2 24;12,16 20:20 24:5 effect8:3,10 17:12,16 i 

' 9:22,23,24 6:15 8:23 DAVID27:4 24:18,20 8:20 9:10 excludes -~ 

10:112:11 9:17 27:15 Departmen ••• effective 5:13 17:10 ' 

~ 

15:14 Davis2:6 24:9 7:24 8:5 exclusion ' consumers l 

complete 5:3 9:19 4:1811:11 desire 10:23 9:11,13 17:22 " 

,j 

completed contact 26:5 21:7,8,11 detai124:3 22:15 23:2 exempt 12:20 ' 

!i 

13:8 26:8 21:14 22:3 develop 5:3 23:6 exempted t: 

Completely contain 15:3 22:20 23:9 IO:l I 13:7 eightll:l6 12:17 l 

20:8 contains 23:11 26:12 developing either6:19 exhausted ,, 

1 

compliance 27:10 day 27:8 15;10 24:8 16:14 23:8 ~ 12:18 content 12:19 days 24:10 different elected 13 : 13 exhibit 5:14 i. 

compliant continue DCE024:6 12:8 14:8 electronic 5:19,22 7:4 ~ 

1 

14:4 23:7 24:14 Direct 2:13 26:2,3 7:12,15 ~ 

compounds Control! :1 DCEO's directed 26:2 electronica ... exist 15:19 ' 12:5 15:4 3:4 24:17,24 directly 25:24 existing 7:22 ' ~ 

deadline 3:24 ' 19:16 convene3:2 13:21 15:13 eliminate 8:16 9:8 ~ 

comprised COOL26:1 21:21 25:19 director 19:5 20:5 21:19 1 

6:16 copies 7:6, 16 25:21 24:17 Emissions 21:24 -~ 

I 

concern 9:13 25:14 deals 8:12 discuss 16:4 1:5 3:5 18:9 expected ' 

concur 22:20 copy 7:8 Dcanna2:4 25:4 ending25:12 25:15 " ' ' 

22:20 23:3 correct 8:17 3:14 discussed ensure 18:22 expects 25: 13 '! 

December ' ensures I 0:6 ,, 

conduct 14:6 27:9 25:9 expertise ~ 

20:18 24:6 correction 25:12 discussion ensuring 15:7 ·! 

.j 

24:14 10:20 18:16 decline 24:22 25:6 9:13 10:24 experts 15:22 ' 'i 

conducted COUNTY defer 13:13 District enter 5:13 explained ) 

~; 

21:1 27:2 defined 17:5 10:14 entered4:5 15:8 :j 

conducting couple 21:7 definition docket 21:24 enterprises explanation ,; 

' 

24:10 21:15,18 7:21,21 docketed 9:1914:15 24:9 ,! 

! 

confer9:3 course 8:1 12:17,21 3:10 entities 26:4 extend4:20 ~ 

conflict court 6:3,7 17:9,10,10 doing 5:15 environme ... extension ~ 18:24 21:12 27:5 17:12,19 22:1 27:5 2:6 3:18 9:4 8:22 I 

confused CSPA4:3 18:1,20 done18:14 24:4 extent 14:10 1 

17:24 6:17 9:16 definitive 20:8 EPA9:1 19:12 ~ 

consider 20:19 22:13 15:16 door4:13 10:10 E-mail2:1 0 j 10:20 13:1 CSR27:15 definitively Dr 24:13 especially 

13:18,24 current 7:23 15:7 drafted 7 :23 9:21 F i. 

' 

14:1 8:2,17 26:6 degreaser du1y6:7 essential facilities 6:18 i 

considerati ... currently 11:1912:6 21:12 27:4 15: II 6:19 12:13 

13:14 19:24 6:22 7:23 12:12 13:3 D.C 2:12 establish fact 11: I 

20:1 12:3,17 13:19 14:11 21:22 13:11 18:19 

consistency 14:4 19:21 14:17 E established 19:12 22:3 

i degreasers E2:1,1,3,7 falll9:14 ; 

' ...... --~. •-=>=" ==...... ...... -- - ,._,,.., ., . ~- ~.,-~,.,..,..... .. .... ....... ~·~-...;=···"""-=~-.! 
Page 30 

24:9,14,21 interstate ' far 3:14,16 20:8,10,14 happy 11:6 L ' :! 

' favor22:13 20:15 21:3 15:14,22 impose 12:4 10:8 language 8:5 ,i 

fax 2:9,13 21:14 22:10 having3:1 improved introduction 9:1021:23 

federal8: 14 23:5,10,15 6:7 21:12 I 0:6,7 4:8 6:10 ' 21:24 22:8 ~ 

12:21 23:19,21 head 6:3 impunities issue8:11,16 22:21 23:4 

feell8:4 25:7 heading 20:5 16:22 25:2 larger9:22 

few 11:13 free 18:4 17:16 impurities 25:5,9,19 last 13:11 

21:22 25:3 from 3:11 headquart ... 19:8 21:23 issues I 0:23 later 24:15 

field 21:8 12:17,21 6:20 inappropri ... 22:9 least 19:21 ~ 

( 

FIFRA8:15 17:12 21:23 hear 5:7 19:1 24:10 

8:19,21 9:2 fully 13:15 heard 7:10 include 1 3:4 J leave 18:17 ' 

12:4 Fungicide hearing l: 11 19:13 J 1: II 2:3 left3:12,16 

me 16:1,7 8:14 3:2,4,8,22 including 27:4,15 less12:1 

25:22 F-1-F-R-A 3:22 4:1 21:23 James I :9 letter24:12 t 

flled7:11 8:15 5:15,20 7:4 inconsisteu ... Jennifer 2:2 24:16,19 

25:16 7:14 16:3 17:18 3:12 lifted 14:11 

filing 3:19 G 16:1921:6 inconsistent Johnson2:3 ' like 4:8 6:2 ' 

16:4 25:9 G24:13 24:1,11 13:21 3:13 17:13 7:2,18 8:11 general! 0:2 Joseph 2:11 ; 

26:2 25:1,14,19 indefinite 9:15 11:23 

filings 26:3 10:1511:2 26:4,11,12 22:23 4:2 6:5,6,12 17:1719:10 ' 

finished 11:1912:6 26:15 27:7 Indiana 6:147:17 20:17 23:23 ' 

16:16 12:12 13:2 27:11 10:11 12:2 14:6 25:3 0 

first 3:22 4:1 13:1914:11 held 1:9 indicate 4:14 14:10,20 likely 14:14 \ 

5:14 6:7 14:1615:1 help 5:3 23:22 15:5,21 limitations 

21:12,17 19:14 helpfull5:10 indicated 16:6 17:7 1:43:5 

27:4 generally 9:4 16:2 4:15 5:8,9 17:14,20 12:18 

Following Girard 24: 13 helpfully 7:5 6:9 16:14 18:2,5,19 list5:13 

4:19 give 15:18,23 him4:7 indication 19:1120:13 17:19 26:5 

follows 6:8 given 8:2 hold25:11 25:1 20:16 23:19 26:7 

8:5 21:13 27:7,11 hotels 9:20 individual July 3:20 listed 11:17 ' follow-up Glosser2:4 housekeep!. .. 8:24 10:2 7:24 8:3,4 15:417:17 : 

·: 

14:2321:17 3:14 5:10 24:3 information 8:17 9:9 26:9 

foregoing go 11:1413:5 -~-·--·--· 4:23 15:18 23:7 lists 25:21 

27:8 13:16 16:24 I 15:23 26:8 June 13:14 little 17:24 

forget9:6 17:1519:9 ignition inherent just 5:12 9:15 located 6:18 

forth 7:20 25:4 12:14 18:24 11:13,23 6:20 

10:1912:15 goes 10:23 ILL 1:4 initiated 3:19 13:10,23 Jong23:5 :: 

forward II :4 going 5:12 Illinois 1: I inoperative 18:12,15,16 look I 0:21 " 

13:6,16 22:4,6 25:8 1:102:6,8 8:2,8,18 19:3,10 17:10 18:6 ' : 

found 8:12 good 3:3 7:10 3:3,6,18 Insecticide 20:1,13 20:4,6 

four 17:13 17:20 23:10 5:14 6:19 8:14 21:1525:4 looking 17:8 23:21 6:20 9:1,6 insert8:5 . fourth 17:2 18:17,19 governed 10:10 11:24 K Fox1:112:3 inside4:13 19:7 ' 

3:1,8 5:16 4:22 12:19 14:2 instead 8:5,8 K2:12 27:2 

low 12:20 

6:9 7:5,10 Grand2:7 14:8 18:24 intended 5:3 kind 17:18 

low-flamm ... ' 

7:1711:8 granted 5:20 27:1 intent 17:21 know 11:23 

12:1115:3 

11:1414:24 8:21 Illinois's 6:23 18:22 15:2,11 15:10 

16:1,6,10 immediate interfere knowledge 

16:13,17,23 H 3:12,13 10:7 15:6 M 

handled 20:1 impact24:7 known8:15 

..... ,,., .... ..,.._. ... •"' ,_. __ 

- "'-~- .... -~--~~- -~-~""- ----' ..... "·~'· . _.,, ... ~"'~"~-·~=--· ..... _.,~, ........... ,..,_" ·" .. _,._,.,.,.,c...,,, •. ,._'-""-'"""'•' ...._._.~u-•__.. ..... .....,. ... ~.,---.. . ~= 
made20:3 

22:13,18 

maintenance 

12:13 

majority 

14:16 

make 10:4 

II :24 19:22 

20:13 22:24 

23:1 24:8 

makes 18:23 

19:12 

making 

18:11 

manageable 

10:5 

6:10,13 

11:7,10 

12:13 14:23 

15:11 20:13 

21:6 25:22 

26:5 

Maybe 18:14 

medium-to ... 

9:23 

meeting 

13:11,15 

member3:12 

3:13,14,15 

6:18 

members 

11:716:17 

manufacture 20:11 23:15 

6:21 15:15 mentioned 

manufactu... 9:16 11:2 

9:18 22:15 merits 13:24 

23:3,6 methylene 

manufactu... 12:16 

5:13 9:17 Michigan 

10:5 10:11 

marked 5:21 might I 0:12 

7: 14 minimal 

market 6:21 12:24 

9:22,24 minutes 

10:1,5 21:22 

Material] :5 mist 17:11 

3:5 misunderst ... 

Matoesian 16:23 

2:7 4:17 5:9 model 13:9,9 

5:12,17,21 13:1218:9 

7:7,9 11:11 moments 

11:13,15,16 25:3 

13:21 14:3 Monday 

14:7,18,19 25:15 

14:21 16:13 more6:21,23 

16:1621:5 8:810:4 

26:13 11:6,24 

matter 1:3 14:1415:16 

3:4 5:10 18:12,20,22 

10:2,15 19:3 

11:2 13:11 most9:21 

16:3 22:5 26:6 

matters motion 5:20 

26:10 7:11,13 

may 4:20 move 16:18 

21:9 

moved5:18 

much7:17 

11:816:9 

21:1022:10 

22:11 25:7 

26:14 

must 15:6 

24:5,8,21 

26:3 

--------

N 

N2:1 

name3:8 

6:14 

narrow 

10:23 

national6: 16 

9:22 

nature 16:5 

near 12:14 

necessarily 

14:13,15 

necessary 

4:18 12:10 

need 26:10 

neighboring 

10:10 

Neither 5:20 

7:14 16:18 

25:1 26:11 

new 8:3,9,19 

8:20 13:16 

19:19 

newly9:14 

next 8: I 0,20 

13:6,14 

nine 11:20 

normall4:15 

North2:7 

note 3:11,23 

5:1 25:22 

notes 27:9 

notice 25:21 

November 

I :12 25:16 

27:8 

number7:6 

II :17 

NW2:12 

0 

027:2,2 

oath 6:8 

21:13 27:4 

objection 

5:19 7:13 

obtain26:6 

occur II :21 

October 3:22 

off14:11 

20:10 25:4 

25:8 

offer 4:7,20 

4:21 

office 9:20 

25:24 26:6 

Officer I: II 

3:9 25:20 

26:4 

off-the-rec ... 

25:6 

Oh 16:21 

Ohio 10:10 

once4:21 

5:23 7:15 

25:16 

one4:15 9:6 

9:11 10:20 

12:9 13:2 

17:219:3 

24:2,10 

ones 19:14 

one-year 

8:22 

online 26:1 

only8:24 

9:18 10:4 

19:17 

open 11:9 

20:19 21:1 

23:17 25:11 

operations 

12:13 

opportunity 

20:21,23 

21:2 23:20 

24:6 

oppose 13:22 

Order3:20 

25:20 

Organic I :5 

3:5 

original 8: I 

OTC 12:1 

14:9 

other 10:17 

11:4 12:3 

13:4 14:4,9 

15:20 18:8 

18:13,23 

19:13 26:10 

otherwise 

8:15 

outlets 14:16 

over 14:15 

Ozone 13:8 

13:10 18:8 

o'clock I :II 

3:1 26:16 

p 

P2:1 ,I 

page II :16 

II :20 17:13 

paper26:3 

part I :4 3:7 

9:21 22:5 

participants 

25:8,20 

participate 

20:21 

participation 

26:13 

Page 31 

photochem... ] 

12:20 

Ph.D2:4 

place 3:22 

9:10 

plead 15:6 

please 5:1 

6:12 9:15 J 

II :14 16:23 1 ' 18:420:15 ~ 

plus 10:13 J 

point II :5,12 1 

13:13,16 i 

" 17:21 19:17 ' 

20:12 23:18 j 

policy22:22 

Pollution I :I I 

3:4 ; 

poseii:IO : 

16:18 23:16 : 

posed 5:2 

position 

22:18 

possibility 

21:6 

possible II :I 

25:19 

' i 

J 

'i 

' I 

1 

posted 25: 17 

post-hearing 

21:21 22:7 J 

25:9,11,18 j 

potential 

19:20 

potentially 

particular 5:13 

16:22 19:13 practical 

particularly 12:23 

12:9 15:9 

parts 19:9 

perchloroe ... 

12:9,16 

15:9 

period 22:14 

22:19,23 

25:12 

permits 4:19 

person4:11 

4:19 25:22 

persons 

23:22,24 

precedent 

12:2,7 13:3 

predetermi ... 

5:5 

prejudgem... ~ 

5:4 

preparation 

5:16,23 

7:16 

prepare6:1 ~ 

prepared 7:6 ( 

21:8 ~ 

~! 

~~~ -.!} 
Page 32 

present3:11 8:23,23 9:2 14:11,16 16:21,24 regulated respond 4:18 j ' 

3:15 12:13 9:14,18,22 15:1 17:11 17:1,8,15 6:22 8:19 responded l 

' ,, 

20:24 9:2410:1,5 purposes 17:20,23 8:21,24 9:2 24:18 ~ 

presently 12:11 14:4 12:18 18:3,5,15 9:4,14 19:7 response " ' " 22:24 14:8,17 put 7:20 19:3,11 19:18,20,21 16:5 22:17 ' ' pretty 21: I 0 15:2,3,10 10:1911:4 20:3,9 regulates 24:15,24 " previous 15:15,19 12:15 25:2 23:12,14 8:22 9:1 rest25:2 

22:22 22:14 23:1 putting 19:19 reaction regulation restriction 

pre-flle 3:24 profession ... p.m I :12 24:1 12:20 6:23 7:1,23 11:18,24 .: 

4:12 20:20 26:16 read4:5 8:1,13,16 12:4 13:1 I 

~ pre-filed 4: I prohibited P.02:8 reality 12:23 8:18 9:8 13:19,22 

4:5,9,10 6:2 23:3 reason 12:15 10:24 12:21 14:1,5,11 5 

7:3,11,18 prohibition Q reasons 13:17 18:8 15:20 ,. 

9:16 10:18 19:15 quality 10:6 13:13,23 18:24 19:23 result 12:19 ' 

promptly question receive4:1 14:7 • 10:22 11:6 regulations ; 

; 

11:17,20 25:17 13:20 14:18 25:14 8:3,9,20 9:7 retaill4: 16 ' 

privileged proper 9:13 14:23 16:18 received 7:7 I 0:3, II ,12 review 22:4 I 

., 

4:24 proposal 16:21 19:4 24:18 10:17 13:8 revisions ~ 

probably 3:20,21 5:5 21:20 recommend 22:16 10:19 'i 

18:21 19:11 7:20 21:24 questions 4:9 9:9 relevant 4:24 Ribley 24:17 \ 

problem 8:7 24:15 25:11 4:16 5:2,6 recommen ... remark right3:13,14 1 

' problems propose 8:4 11:7,9,12 12:8,16 20:14 3:14 23:9 ., 

18:18 13:5 14:22 16:11 17:2 18:12 repeat 10:20 Rodenticide ' 

procedural proposed 7:1 16:14 20:11 18:21 19:2 repetitious 8:14 ' 

4:23 25:4,9 7:1 10:15 21:7,16,18 20:3 22:12 4:24 RORY2:6 ,. 

~ 

26:7 10:1611:3 23:12,16,18 22:18 replace 17:3 21:11 22:3 

procedurals 13: I 14:1 26:1,7 recommen ... 17:16 22:20 23:9 ' 

4:6 22:16 23:6 quick24:2 20:24 REPORTI:8 Rory.Davis ... ; 

procedures 24:7 25:4 recornmen ... reported 2:10 I 

5:6 proposing quickly 4:22 11:20 17:3 27:6 round 13:17 

proceeding 19:10 5:10 21:10 record 5:1,4 reporter 6:3 rule 11:24 

1 3:19 4:22 prospective R 5:18,24 6:721:12 13:9,9,12 

5:19,22 19:22 23:24 25:4 27:5 18:9,17 • 

7:13 Protection Rl:92:1 25:8 represent 22:5 ' 

proceedings 2:6 3:18 raise 8:11 reductions 6:14,20 rulemaking :1 

1:8 27:7,10 24:4 11:12 12:8 12:23 represents 3:9,19 ' \' 

process 20:19 provide 17:2019:17 refer 8:8 9:16 20:19 26:8 ' ' 19:19,23 :1 

20:22 21:1 15:15 reference 8:4 request 11:18 Rulemakin ... :i 

26:2 provision 9:7 20:12 9:9 19:5 13:24 24:5 I :4 ! 

raised 10:22 ·i 

produce 5:15 9:8 reflect 5:4 24:19,22,24 rules 4:6,23 ~ 

12:10,12 prudent 20:1 21:6 23:24 requested 12:417:24 1 

product7:22 18:21 21:18 regard 12:6 24:14,15 18:15 20:5 ' 

; 

9:17 13:2 public4:20 raising 7: 19 regarding requesting 24:7 :; 

14:1419:6 24:10,11 Randolph 15:1 21:23 7:3 R12-81:4 ~ 

19:13,18,20 25:23 1:10 regardless requireme ... 3:10 ' 

products purpose range9:17 23:2 12:19 19:8 

2:11 4:3 11:1912:6 Rao 2:2 3:16 regional 9:24 resolves 8:7 s ~ 

6:15,22,24 12:12,22 14:23 15:1 regionally respectfully S2:1 ' 

8:13,19,21 13:2,19 15:5,17,21 I 0:3,12 7:2 24:21 safe 10:21 j 

16:7,10,12 ,, 

safety 12:23 

' ·- '~-""" - '"'"'---~~-~.....,.,_~·~ - ....... ~~ .......... _.. __ -"-"~ ~~ ~-~ ' ooo=; ..... ,._.,.,,_._.....,.."""~~,~--=-"'~~ 
Page 33 

same 8:16 sir14:617:7 stated 13 :23 support I 0:3 16:6,9,20 16:23 20:8 ; 

J 

saw20:4 17:1418:19 24:19 10:4,14 19:3 20:16 20:10,15 ~ 

says 27:5 23:19 states 7:23 II :3 21:2,3,10 21:3,14 l 

1 schools 9:20 size9:23 8:179:5 sure9:3 21:14 22:11 22:10 23:5 ., 

' 

seat6:2 small! 0:1 10:2,10,13 14:24 19:24 23:10,20 23:10,15,21 1 

second 8:11 sold 9:18,19 11:5 12:1,3 swear6:4 25:7 26:12 25:7 1 

12:15 26:11 14:5,8,9,13 12:4 13:4,4 sworn4:18 26:14 today 3:11 I 

section 4:6 14:13,14,17 13:5,7,16 6:7 21:7,9 thanks 11:8 4:4,12 5:2 ! 

i 

7:21,21 8:6 15:19 23:8 13:18,22 21:12,15 their 6:19 21:4 23:23 ' ' 8:12,12 solely 5:3 14:4,9 27:4 10:5 13:14 trade6:16 

9: II II :22 some 15:18 15:20 18:8 22:6 transcript 

i 

i 

17:2,4 19:5 17:18 19:19 18:13,23 T things 16:5 25:14,15 ~! 

19:7,19 22:6,9 Street I :I 0 T2:11 6:6 think 10:21 27:9 i ' 

21:1922:8 something 2:12 table 6:3 8:6 13:23 16:13 ' transparent 1 

22:8 24:4 18:1119:9 strike 8:4 9:12 18:6 17:1,23 20:19 i 

see4:14 5:7 sometimes striking take6:2 8:3 18:2,20 Transport j 

I 0:18 11 :21 9:5 10:1 II :23 8:20 20:4,6 21:9 22:8 13:9,10 -1 

23:21 somewhat strongly 10:3 24:2 third 17:1 18:9 i 

seeing 5:20 12:7 10:1411:2 taken 27:10 Thomas2:3 trichloroet. .. i 

7:1416:19 sorry 4:11 struck 9:10 takes 25: I 0 3:13 17:13 12:10 J 

j 

25:1 26:12 20:10 study 24:7,9 taking 8:10 Thompson true27:9 " I 

seems 17:17 sources 1:5 24:14,21 27:7 1:9 trying 18:5 ;j 

sell22:14,18 3:612:14 subject 6:24 Tanner thorough 18:1019:17 l 

22:22,22,23 speak 24:3 8:13,19 24:13 22:4 turn4:8,10 ·; 

23:2 speciall7:10 19:22 technical thorougWy 4:11,15 ' 

3:16 7:19 ' 

sense 19:12 Specialt)• submission 18:20 two7:19 

19:22 2:114:2 5:17 10:20 ]5:7 three 10:18 11:1712:8 i 

September 6:15 submitted 18:12,16 12:5 15:4 17:2 25:5 

3:23 7:12 specific 25:24 ten 10:13 19:15 25:13 

24:16,16 10:23 22:8 Subsection 12:3 13:4,4 through two-thirds 

served 26:4 25:18 8:6 13:22 14:4 14:15 17:22 6:22,24 

service 25:21 Specifically suggested term7:22 21:10 22:14 type 14:14 

26:5 7:20 10:1919:4 17:4,5,5 22:19,22,22 

set 8:2 12:7 specified suggestion 18:9 22:23 23:2 u 

25:18 9:11 18: II termed22:14 25:24 unable 24:20 

setting 12:2 spray 17:4,11 suggestions testified 6:8 Thursday under 4:5,23 ,., 

13:3 17:11,12 22:6 21:13 I :12 6:23 8:17 ·! ·' 

several 13 :7 Springfield suitability testify 4:12 Tim3:8 17:919:7 :j 

., 

sheet4: 13 2:8 3:23 22:1 23:23 24:23 time4:19 6:1 19:10 24:4 ,, 

., 

23:22 ss 27:1 Suite 1:10 testimony 6:10 21:4 underscores J 

" shorthand staff3:17 5:2 2:12 3:24 4:2,5,9 24:13,20 11 :I I 

! 

27:6,9 20:20 summarize 4:10,12 6:2 26:13 undertake ~ 

shortly 25:20 stakeholder 9:15 7:3,11,19 timing 16:4 24:20 ' 

sign-in 4:13 20:22 summary4:7 9:1610:18 Timothy I: 11 undenvay ;: 

~ 

23:22 standards 6:1011:5 10:22 II :6 2:3 3: I 5:16 3:10 5:7 ; 

similar 13 :22 I :4 3:5 8:7 12:22 11:17,20 6:9 7:5,10 24:1 ·\ 

' since 16:2 9:12 18:6 supplement thank5:23 11:8,14 unfortunat... i 

17:5 19:6 state 8:22,24 7:18 6:5,12 7:15 14:24 16:1 15:12 ~ 

' 

19:21 24:1 27:1 supply 23:8 7:17 14:3 16: I 0, 13,17 until13:14 , 

;; 

14:20,21 23:8 I 

! 

;i '""'·"""'"---.~---- .. -~~ ..... N·- ·- -~--·· --'-· - -""-='---=·~""- . -""·~-....... ~..., ......... -. ~ 

~-· 
Page 34 

use 12:5,5,9 wet 17:11 16:1917:1 25:16 62794-9276 J 

15:9 18:9 we'1111 :9 17:7,14,20 2012 8:3 9:9 2:8 ~ 

19:15 21:21 18:2,5,19 23:7 l 

J 

used 12:12 we're6:15 19:1120:13 2014 13:8 ' 

18:8 16:2,16 20:15,16 202)223-26 •.• 

USEPA8:24 17:24 21:3 22:13 2:13 ' 

~ 

widely 14: 13 23:17,19 202)833-73 •.. 

v willing 21 :22 26:12 2:13 ' 

variety 13: 13 willingness Yost's 22:4 202)872-81 ... ' 

version 26:6 21:15 2:13 

very 7:10,17 wish4:14 z 217)524-43 •.• ' 

10:22 II :8 6:1111:10 Zalewski 2:4 2:9 ! 

15:10 16:9 11:1216:18 3:15 217)524-47 ••• { 

17:20 20:19 ' 20:12 21:6 2:9 ' 

~ 21:1,10 23:16,23 0 2231:4 3:7 ' 22:7,11 24:23 084-004386 21:19 1 

23:10,21 wishes4:12 27:15 223.203 7:21 

25:7,20 wishing 4:19 17:6,9 ; 

1 26:14 withdraw 17:24 8:3,4 223.205 8:6 1 

VOM 12:18 " 18:21 19:2 8:17 9:9 223.205(a) ,', 

12:18,19 withdrawing 1st23:7 17:3 

w 13:1,18 1:001:113:1 223.205(a)(2) 

J 4:1 24:1 17:4,15 want3:2,10 ' 

worded 223.207 8:12 ' 3:23 17:16 22:24 

1:3326:16 

223.208 19:7 100 I :9 ' 21:1724:2 work 10:23 19:7,9 ' 

25:22 20:18 

10212:7 21:19 22:1 'i 

wanted 5:11 workable 104.424(f) 223.211 19:6 i 

4:6 .\ 22:12 11 :I 19:10 1 

Warren workplace 11-5001:10 223.211(a) I 

13th3:20 ' 24:17 12:22 II :22 :1 

Washington 14th25:12 ' 

written 17:24 225.205 9:12 5 

2:12 18:16,17 

15th24:16 

240 6:17 ' 

way 10:7 22:2 25:22 

1667 2:12 

26th 3:24 ' 

17:2418:15 181:12 

7:12 ' 

22:24 y 18th27:8 27(d)24:4 website 16:8 year 8: I 0,20 192762:8 28th 25:16 

25:17 26:9 9:7,11 2 ' 

Wednesday 3 ., 

13:14 ·' 2 5:19,22 } 

25:12 years 13:7 20 24:10 3 7:12,15 ; 

week 13:11 Yost 2: II 4:2 20th24:17 300 2:12 

weeks25:13 4:4 5:8 6:1 351:4 3:6 

welcome3:3 6:5,6,9,12 

20006 2:12 

well11:9 6:14 7:5,12 

2007 27:8 4 ; 

2009 7:24 8:4 ' 12:21 19:23 7:14,17 4th 3:21 

were5:12 11:8,12,16 

2010 8:17 24:12 

14:22 17:8 J 2:2 14:6 20111:12 42 6:17 

21:18 22:15 14:10,20 3:20,21,23 ' 3:24 24:16 6 ; 

23:3,5 15:5,21 J 

West 1:9 16:5,6,15 

24:17 25:12 6th 3:22 " ; 

" 

' ----·d,._._ . ... __ ...,.._. ___ ,,. ... ...,.c '-'"_,...,.....,....._,.,--~ ..... - ................... "-"'-..... .,.. . . --~ ......... __ _,__