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

\00WestRahdolph · '•

·**Suini"xi~500** ·' ··**Chic;\~o;** IL 6060\ ,, .••. 312'814-3620 :• . FAx 

### 3'f2:.S14-3669

# ,;,~~~~~?"

;**:;····!.:·:~~;~:\:•·** <'!''**-~.'~i** '

..._,...

:-.:. 

# 2 POLLUTION CONTROL 

# Bd"-'fmMENTNO._

August 4, 2011 Warren Ribley, Director

, Department ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity

620 East Adams Street, S-6 Springfield, Illinois 62704

· Re: Request for Economic Impact Study for: Amendments 

### to 35 Ill. Adm.

· CodePart223 Standards and Limitations for OrganicMaterial Emissions for

Area Sources, (R12-8) Dear DirectorRibley: On August 4, 2011, the Board accepted for hearing a proposal filed bythe 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 thatits proposal seeks to amend Part 223 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations and reduce volatile organic material (YOM) • emissions from various consumerproducts and aerosol coatings. I write to request

, that yourDepartment conduct an economic impact study concerning this proposal. Section 27(b) ofthe Environmental Protection Act requires that the Board: (1) request that theDepartment ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity conduct a study ofthe economic impact ofthe proposed rules. The Department maywithin 30 to 45 days ofsuch requestproduce a study ofthe economic impact ofthe 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 proposedrules, (B) the effects ofthe proposed rules on employmentlevels, commercial productivity, the economic growth ofsmall businesses with 100 orJess employees, and the State's overall economy, and (C) the costper unit ofpollution reduced and the variability in cost based on the size ofthe facility and the percentage ofcompany revenues expected to be used to implement the proposed rules; and conduct at least one public hearing on the economic impact ofthose new rules. At least 20 days before the hearing, theBoard shall notify- 

## ..

the public ofthe hearing and makethe economic impact study, or the Department ofCommerce andEconomic Opportunity's explanation for notproducing an economic impact study, available to the public. Such public hearingmay be held simultaneously oras a part ofany Board hearing considering such new rules. 415 ILCS 5/27(b) (2010). TheBoard intends to proceed promptly with thisrulemaking and asks that you determine whetherDCEO will conduct an economic impact study on the proposal andrespond no later than Thursday, September 15, 2011. 

### IfI, ormy staff, canprovide you with any additional information, please Jet meknow_ Thank you in advancefor yourprompt response. Sincerely,

G. Tanner Girard Acting Chairman Pollution Control Board

cc: John T. Therriault, AssistantClerk ofthe BoardILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD August 4, 20II IN THEMATTER OF: ) ) AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE ) PART 223: STANDARDS AND ) LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL ) EMISSIONS FORAREA SOURCES ) ORDER OFTHEBOARD (byA.S. Moore): Rl2-8 (Rulemaking -Air) IEPA ATTACHMENT NO

.

# ...i_

OnJuly 13, 2011, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (AgencyorIllinois EPA)) filed a proposal to amend Part 223 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 223. The Agencystates that it has proposed amendments to reducevolatile organic material (YOM) emissions from various consumerproducts and aerosol coatings. Accompanying the proposal were documents including a Statement ofReasons (SR), a Technical Support Document and a motion for waiverofspecified copyrequirements (Mot.). The Board today accepts the Agency'sproposal and directs thehearing officerto schedule and proceed to hearing. The Board also grants the Agency's motion for waiverof specified copyrequirements. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Agency states that "[o]zoneis not emitted directlybymost sources." SRat I. The Agency further states thatprecursors such as YOM, nitrogen oxides, and carbonmonoxide react in thepresence ofsunlight and hightemperatures to for ozone. !d., citing TSD at 7. The Agency indicates that Part 223 "reduces YOM emissions byputting limits onthe YOM contents of numerous consumerproducts." SR at 2. The Agency seeks to amend Part 223 to "include limits inpercent YOMby weight for adhesive removers, contact adhesives, non-aerosol antistatic products, electrical cleaners, engine degreasers, fabric refreshers, footwear orleather careproducts, graffiti removers, hair styling products, shaving gels, and wood cleaners." !d. at 3, citing TSD at 9. The Agency expects that control ofthese additional categories will reduce YOM emissions in Illinois by one tonperday. SR at 4, citingTSD at 18. TheAgency argues that "someofthesereductions have alreadytaken place due to nationwide compliancebymany ofthe largermanufacturers ofthese products with the California orOTC 1rules." SR at 4, citingTSD at 18. The Agencyalso proposes an amendment to theexisting Architectural and Industrial Maintenance rule in orderto clarify and simplifY compliance. SR at I, 4; see 35111. Adm. Code 223.305. The Agency states that its proposed amendments would applyto the entire state. !d. at 4.

1 "OTC"refers to the Ozone Transport Commissioncomprised ofthe States ofConnecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, NewJersey,New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia, andthe District ofColumbia. TSD at 8.2

MOTION FOR WAIVER The Agency notes that the Board'sprocedural rules require that the original and nine copies ofeachrulemaking proposal be filed with the Clerk. Mot. at I, citing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.200. The Agency also notes that Section 27(a) ofthe Environmental Protection Act requires theAgency to provide infonnation supporting its proposal. Mot. at I, citing 415 ILCS 5/27(a) (2010). The Agency lists three documents onwhich it relied in drafting itsproposal. Mot. at 1- 2. TheAgency states that, includingthese documents, its proposal comprises "several hundred pages. Given the length ofthe 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 ofthe documents." Mot. at 2. The Agency also asks that theBoard waive therequirement to provide copies ofthe documents itrelied uponto the Attorney General's Office and to the Illinois DepartmentofNatural Resources (DNR). See 35 Ill. Adm. Code I01.200. Section 101.500(d) ofthe Board's procedural rules provide in pertinent part that, "[w]ithin 14 days after service ofa motion, a partymay file a response to the motion. Ifno response is filed, the partywill be deemed to havewaived objection to the granting ofthe motion, but the waiverofobjection does not bind the Board orthehearing officerin its disposition ofthe motion." 35111. Adm. Code 101.500(d). Having reviewed the substance ofthe motion, and in the absence ofanyresponse, the Board grants the Agency's motion for waiver. The Board first allows the Agencyto file an original and four completecopies ofthe documents comprising its rulemaking proposal. The Board also waives the requirement thatthe Agency serve copies ofthe documents onwhich it relied in drafting its proposal onthe AttorneyGeneral and the DNR. In this regard, the Board notes that the Clerkhas provided access to the documents through the Clerk's Office On-Line underthis docket numberRl2-8. CONCLUSION The Board accepts thisproposal for hearing and directs the assigned hearing officerto schedule and proceed to hearingunder the rulemakingprovisions ofthe Act and the Board's procedural rules. 415 ILCS 5/27,28 (2010); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102. Afterconductinghearings onthisproposal, theBoard will determinewhether to proceed to first notice. In addition, the Board grants the Agency'sunopposed motion for waiver ofspecified copyrequirements. IT IS SO ORDERED. I, John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk ofthe lllinois Pollution Control Board, certifythat the Board adopted the above orderonAugust 4, 2011, by a vote of5-0.

JohnT. Therriault, Assistant Clerk Illinois Pollution Control BoardILLINOIS POLLUTIONCONTROLBOARD August4, 2011 IN THEMATIEROF: ) ) 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,FirstFloor 1021 N. GrandAve. East (North Entrance) Springfield, Illinois THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2011 1:00PM Illinois Pollution Control BoardConference Room 11-512 James 

### R. Thompson Center 100W. Randolph St. Chicago, TI!inois PURPOSE OFHEARINGS: ATTENDING BOARD MEMBER: Merit andEconomic Andrea S. Moore TimothyJ. Fox HEARING OFFICER: 

### HEARING OFFICER ORDER !EPAATTACHMENT NO.

# _J_

RECEIVED

CLERK'SOFAOS



## AUG 

## 042011 STATE OF lWNOIS 

### Po!lu!IOO COntrol 

## Board

On July 13,2011, the TI!inois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed a proposal to amendPart 223 ofthe Board's air pollution regulations. See 35 lll. Adm. Code 223. TheAgency stated that it proposed amendments in ordertoreduce volatile organic material (YOM) emissionsfrom various consumerproducts and aerosol coatings. The Board will conducttwo hearings in order to allow the Agency and any other interested participants the opportunity topresent testimony on the merits and economic impact of the proposal. See 415 ILCS 5/28(a) (2010). At hearing, all persons wishingto testify will be sworn in and subjectto 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) conductedby the2 Department ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) on theproposedrulesoron 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 areurged to pre-filetheirtestimony and are directed to servepre-filed testimonyon all persons ontheServiceList. See 35 

### TIL Adm. Code !02.424(c). Beforefiling pre-filed testimony or anyother document with the Clerk, pleasecheck with the Clerk to obtain the most recent version ofthe Service List. Participants who wish to testify atthe first hearing are directed to pre-file all oftheir testimony and any relatedexhibits no later than Thursday, September22,2011. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.424(a). Participants who wish to testify at the second hearing are directed topre-file all oftheirtestimony and any related exhibits nolaterthan Thursday, November3,2011. The "mailbox rule" at 35 lll. Adm. Code 101.300(b)(2) does not apply to the filing ofany ofthis prefiled testimony, andthe Board'sClerk must receive these documents before the close ofbusiness on these deadlines. However, documents may be filed electronically though theClerk's Office On-Line (COOL) from the Board'sWeb site at www.i_pcb.state.il.us. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.302(d). Any questions aboutelectronic filing through COOL should bedirected to the Clerk's Office at (312) 814-3629. 

### OrderofHearing Although Section 27 ofthe Act (415 ILCS 5/27 (2010)) does not limit thefirst hearing to the testimony ofthe proponent, the hearingofficerintends to begin the first hearing with the Agency's presentation ofits proposal. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.428(c). Afterthe Agency has addressed all questions from otherparticipants, and iftime permits before the conclusion ofthe first hearing, other participants who have pre-filed testimony may then testify and respond to questions. Participants who do notpre-file testimony for the first hearingwill be allowed to testify and respond to questions as time permits afterthe conclusion ofpre-filedtestimony and questions based upon it. Forthe first hearing, all pre-filed testimony will be enteredinto the record as ifread. See 35 

### lll. Adm. Code 102.424(f). A briefsummary oftestimony will be allowed ifa witness wishes to provide one before responding to questions. The hearing officer intends to begin the second hearing with anyparticipants whoprefiled testimony for thefirst hearing and werenot able to testify at that time. Participants who pre-filed testimony for the secondhearingwill then presentthat testimony and respondto questions. Participants who donot pre-file testimony for the second hearingwill be allowedto testify and respond to questions as timepermits after the conclusion ofpre-filed testimony and questions based upon it. As atthe first hearing, all testimony pre-filed for the second hearing will also beentered into the record as ifread. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.424(f). A brief summaryofpre-filed testimony will be allowed ifa witness wishes to provide onebefore responding to questions.

### 3 Participant wishing to offer apublic comment at either hearing will 

### be allowed to do so if time permits at the close ofthe testimony and questions. The Board'sprocedural rules also include an opportunity to file post-hearing comments. 

### See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.108(b). 

### Service and Notice Lists The hearing officerwill establish and maintain both aNotice List and a ServiceList for this proceeding. 

### See 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 102.422(a), (b). The Notice List includes participants who receive copies only ofthe Board's opinions and orders and hearing officerorders. 35 

### Ill. Adm. Code 102.422(a). The Service List for this rulemaking is the listofpersons who receive not onlythe Board'sopinions and orders but also otherfilings such as pre-filed testimony. 

### See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.422(b). Note that interested persons may now request electronic notice offilings by providing theire-mail address through COOL underthis docket numberR12-8. This electronic notice includes notice ofthe filing ofdocuments that are not typicallyprovidedto persons on the Notice List. In addition, COOLprovides links to documents filed with theBoard, and those documents can be viewed, downloaded, and printed free ofcharge as soon as they are posted to the Board's Web site. Formore information aboutthe option ofelectronic notice orCOOL, please consult eitherthe Board'sWeb site at www.ipcb.state.il.us orJohn Theniault, the Board'sAssistant Clerk, at (312) 814-3629. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Timothy J. Fox HearingOfficer Illinois Pollution ControlBoard 100W. 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 IEPAATTACHMENT 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 FORAREA ) SOURCES )

TO: KatherineD. Hodge Hodge Dwyer & 

### Driver 3150 Roland Ave. PO Box 5776 Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776 John Therriault, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board State ofIllinois Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601

Mitchell Cohen ChiefLegal Counsel Illinois Dept. ofNaturalResources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 Tim Fox Illinois Pollution ControlBoard State ofIllinois Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 )



### NOTICE R12- 8 (Rulemaking- Air)

Alec M. Davis Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 EastAdams St. Springfield, Illinois 62701 MatthewJ.Dunn, Chief Environmental Enforcement/Asbestos Litigation Division Illinois Attorney General's Office 69 West Washington Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 MarkA. Biel Chemical Industry Council ofiL 400 West Monroe Suite 205 Springfield, Illinois 62704

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011

PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat 1have today filed with the Office ofthe PollutionControl Board the PRE FILED TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency a copy ofwhich is herewith served upon you.

DATED: September22, 2011 I021 North Grand AvenueEast 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 ofLegal 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. ) CODEPART 223 STANDARDS AND ) LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC ) MATERIAL EMISSIONS FORAREA ) SOURCES ) ) RI2 -8 (Rulemaking- Air)

TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS Myname is RoryDavis. I am an Environmental Protection Engineer in the Air Quality Planning Section, AirPollution Control Division ofthe lllinois Environmental Protection Agency's ("Illinois EPA") Bureau ofAir. Ihave been employed by Illinois EPA in the Air Quality Planning Section for five years. Priorto that, I worked at thelllinois Department of Transportation for four years as an Engineering Technician. Ihave a Bachelor ofScience degree in Computational Physics, as well as a Bachelor ofScience degree in Mathematics from Illinois State University. I also have aMasters degree in Engineering from the University ofTI!inois at Chicago. My graduate studies consisted ofan interdisciplinaryprogram involving coursework from the Chemical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering fields with a concentration on Environmental Engineering. In my currentposition with Illinois EPA my duties include providing technical support for regulatoryproposals. I will beproviding testimonyregarding the proposed amendments to 35 lAC PART223 regulating consumer and commercial products. Proposed Amendments to Part 223 The TI!inois EPAhas proposed a numberofamendments to 35 lAC Part 223, and specifically amendments to sections regulating consumerproducts. These amendments are intended to bring Illinois consumerproductsregulations in line with similarregulations in the Ozone Transport Commission ("OTC") states and anumber ofother states thathave adopted the YOMlimitations found in the 2006 OTC Model Rule for ConsumerProducts.

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011

The bulk oftheproposed 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 leathercareproducts, graffiti removers, hair stylingproducts, shaving gels, and wood cleaners.

Illinois has proposed these additional categories for regulation in order to reduce VOM emissions from these consumerproduct categories in lllinois, and in orderto keep Illinois regulations regarding consumerproducts consistent with a largeportion ofthe United States that also regulates these products. Regulating agencies and the regulated community are in agreement that consistency ofregulations regarding consumerproducts is beneficial to ensure that uniform products can be sold and used in regions with similar limits, and to reduce the cost to industry ofimplementingrulesby limiting the cost ofreformulation, packaging, and shipping.

Indrafting theproposed amendments Illinois EPA has relied mainlyupon research conducted by the California AirResources Board ("CARB") in support ofCalifornia's consumerproduct regulations. Background In2007, Illinois EPAproposed amendments to Part 223 that set limits for the VOM content of various consumerproducts 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 inturn based on the consumer productVOM limits in the California's Midterm Measures II rules and their 2004 amendments to those rules. While the majority ofthe limits proposed were adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and were effective as ofJuly I, 2009, a numberofcategories were excluded bythe Board due to a lack oftechnical support for those limits. The categories excluded at that time were thosethat were proposed by California in its 2004 Amendments and incorporated into the 2006 OTC Model Rule. Inthis rulemaking, Illinois EPA is proposing amendments that would include these limits in Part 223 as previouslyproposed, exceptingthepreviouslyproposed 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

### ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011

the additional consumerproduct categories and the associated 

### YOM limits for those categories in the proposed amendments.

Reduction of

### VOMin lllinois Dueto Proposed Amendments Illinois EPA has estimated that 

### YOM emissions in Illinois maybereduced by approximately one tonper daydue to the proposed amendments and additional regulated categories. As stated in the Technical Support Document, it is likelythat this is an overestimatebecause a number of products manufacturedbynational and regional companies will have already been reformulated to complywith the limits identical to those that Illinois has proposed that are in effect in other ' regwns. Proposed Amendments are TechnicallyFeasible Illinois EPA is confident that the proposed amendments aretechnicallyfeasible because in all categories there are compliant products that have been in use for a number ofyears in regions thathave limits identical to those proposed for Illinois. Proposed Amendments areEconomicallyReasonable illinois EPA is also confident thatthe proposed amendments are economicallyreasonable, again, because there are compliant products that have been inuse for a number ofyears in regions that have limits identical to thoseproposed for Illinois. Additionally, Illinois EPA has relied upon the aforementioned CARB research to estimatethat theproposed amendments couldhave a cost to industry that ranges between £4,020 and $4,680 perton ofYOM reduced. However, as is the case with estimates ofemission reduction, these are likely overestimates. Economic research conducted by CARB included costs ofresearching compliant fonnulations ofproducts, refonnulating the products, repackaging, and relabeling. In a great number ofcases these costs have already been incurred by industry in order to comply with the identical limits in California, the OTC states, and anumber ofother states. Summary ofTestimony In summary, the proposed amendments for consumerproducts are economically reasonable and cost effectivemeasures for reducing 

### YOM emissions from the affected source categories on a

### Electronic Filing- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011

statewide basis. Theproduct YOM limits in the rule are also technicallyfeasible, and havebeen achieved wherethe aforementioned OTC and CARB rules are in effect. While estimates for reductions from these categories mayhave alreadybeen partially achieved, a great majority of the costhas also already been incurred, and these amendments will serve to make lllinois regulation ofthese categories more uniform with similarregulations 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 Ihave served electronically the attached, PREFILED TESTIMONY OF RORY DAVIS upon the following persons: KatherineD. Hodge Hodge Dwyer & 

### Driver 3150 Roland Ave. PO Box 5776 Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776 John Therriault, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board StateofIllinois Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago,Illinois 60601

Mitchell Cohen ChiefLegal Counsel Illinois Dept. ofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 Tim Fox Illinois Pollution ControlBoard State ofIllinois Center 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 6060I Alec M. Davis Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group 215 EastAdams St. Springfield, lllinois 62701 MatthewJ. Dunn, Chief Environmental Enforcement!Asbestos Litigation Division Illinois Attorney General's Office 69 WestWashington Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Mark A. Biel Chemical Industry Council ofIL 400 WestMonroe Suite 205 Springfield, Illinois 62704

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Is/Charles E. Matoesian Charles E. Matoesian Assistant Counsel Division ofLegal Counsel

## ElectronicFiling- Received, Clerk's Office, 09/22/2011

Dated: September 22, 2011 I021 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 62011 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

### BEFORETHE 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 StateofIllinois Center 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218 MarkA. Biel, CAE, !OM ExecutiveDirector Chemical Industry Council ofIllinois 400 W. Monroe, Suite 205 Springfield, IL 62704 Mitchell Cohen, Esq. General Counsel Illinois Department ofNatural Resources OneNatural Resources Way Springfield, lllinois 62702-1271 Alec M. Davis, Esq. General Counsel Illinois Environmental RegulatoryGroup 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 ofLegal Counsel 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276

PLEASETAKE NOTICE that I have filed today with the office ofthe Pollution Control Board a copy oftestimonythat the Consumer Specialty Products Association will present onthe REGULATORY PROPOSALFORAMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 223 STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC MATERJAL EMISSIONS FORAREA SOURCES and APPEARANCE ofthe Consumer Specialty Products Association ofcopy ofwhichis herewith served upon you.

DATED: September22, 2011 1667 K StreetNW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 202-833-7325 

### Consumer SpecialtyProductsAssociation

0 eniorDirector, 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

Theundersigned herebyenters an Appearance onbehalfofthe Consumer SpecialtyProducts Association.

DATED: September22.2011 !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 ofFiling 2. Appearance ofJoseph T. Yost, SeniorDirector, Strategic Issues Advocacy, for the Consumer Specialty Products Association 3. Synopsis ofTestimony 4. Testimony ofthe Consumer SpecialtyProducts Association 5. Certificate ofService

- 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 SpecialtyProducts Association (CSPA) offers general support for the illinois EPA's proposed regulationbecauseitis consistent with the OzoneTransport Commission's Model ConsumerProducts Rule. Bytakingthis action, the Agencywill promulgate stringentregulatory standards that are consistent withthe volatileorganic compound (VOC) limits established byfinal regulations promulgated in Midwest and East Coast states. Regionallyconsistent stateregulations will improve air qualitywithout imposingunnecessary impediments to interstate commerce. CSPA recommends that the Board makethreenecessary and reasonable revisions to the proposed requirements set forth at 35 IAC 

### §223.211. First, CSPA recommendsthat theBoard revise 35 lAC§ 223.211 to clearlyarticulatethatthe existing stock ofproductsmanufactured before theeffectivedate ofthe newprohibitions 

### (i.e., July I,2012) maycontinueto be sold, supplied, oroffered for sale in illinois. Requiringmanufacturers, distributors and retailers to dispose ofotherwise usable and saleableproducts will create unintended adverse environmental impacts (e.g., unnecessary land-filling) and adverseeconomic impacts onbusinesses. Second, CSPA recommends thatthe Board delete the proposed restrictions for General Purpose Degreasers since this proposed action will produce minimal, ifany, reductions in volatile

- 1 -organic material (YOM) emissions. However, this proposed requirement will havethe adverse effectofeliminatingmanufacturers' abilityto produce (or distributors'andretailers' abilityto sell) low-flammability products for usein Illinois, and thus it could create fire risks in the workplace. Third, the Board should eliminate the referenceto "Aerosol Adhesives" in 35 lAC 

### §223.211 since this product category is currently subject to existingregulations that are set forth at Section 223.208. Fourth, the Board should make a necessarytechnical correction inthe current table of standards set forth at Section 223.205(a) byreplacingthe term "Adhesives

- Spray" (a term thatis notdefined anywhere in the regulation) with the term "Aerosol Adhesives" since this term is definedby Section 223.203 ofthe 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 SpecialtyProducts Association (CSPA) appreciates the opportunityto present testimonyto the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) ontheproposed amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. CodePart 223 Standards and Limitations for OrganicMaterial Emissions for Area Sources. Theproposed amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. CodePart 223, Subpart 

### 8 will addnew regulatorylimits on volatile organic materials (VOMs) in II broad categories (including subcategories) ofconsumer and commercial products. These proposed new VOM limits are consistentwiththevolatile organiccompound (VOC) 1limits contained intheOzoneTransport Commission's (OTC's) current Model Rule for ConsumerProducts2 and with final regulations promulgatedby Ohio/ Michigan,4 Indiana5 and 10 East Coast states.6 Thisproposedregulation is

1The tenns "VOM" and "VOC" have the same meaning. 

### See 35IAC §211.7150(a). 2The text ofOTC's current Model Rule for Consumer Products is posted at: http://www.otcair.org/projects**details.asp?FID~99&fview~stationarv#** (hereinafterreferredto as "OTC Model Rule.") 3

### See Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-112. The full text ofthe regulationis posted onthe Ohio EPA website at: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapclregs/3745 112.aspx, 

### 'SeeMich. Admin. Code Rule 660. The full text ofthe regulation is posted on the Michigan DEQ website at: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/O, 1607,7-135-3310 4108-173523--.00.html. 5

### See Ind. Admin. Code Title 326 Rule 15. The full text ofthe regulation is postedat: http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03260/A00080.PDF 

### (see pp. 122-160). 6The following East Coast states have promulgated fma1 regulations that impose similarVOC limits: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, • 3 •part ofthe comprehensive strategy developed bythe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA orAgency) to reduce ground-level ozoneto demonstrate attainment ofthe federal

ozone air quality standard. 

### Ifapproved bythe Board, the final rule will take effect on July I, 2012. CSPA filed written comments on theAgency's draft proposed amendments on June 24, 2011. CSPA commends the Illinois EPA for their concerted efforts to ensurethat all interested stakeholders have an opportunityto participate inthis open and transparentrulemaking process. CSPA's testimonybeforethe Boardis limited to the proposed regulation set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. CodePart 223 Subpart B: Consumerand Commercial Products (Sections 223.200-223.285).



### II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST CSPA is national trade association representingthe interests ofapproximately 240 companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution and sale ofconsumer and commercial products that help household and institutional customers create cleaner and healthier environments. Currently, 42 CSPA member companies have facilities (orheadquarters) located in Illinois. CSPAmember companies' products include disinfectants that kill germs in homes, hospitals and restaurants; air fresheners that eliminate odors; pestmanagementproducts for home, garden and pets; cleaningproducts and polishes for use throughoutthe home and institutions; products usedto protect and improve theperformance and appearance ofautomobiles; and a host ofother productsused every day. These products areformulated andpackaged in manyforms and are generallymarketednationally. Through itsproduct stewardship program Product Care® and scientificendeavors, CSPAprovides its members a platform to effectivelyaddress issuesregarding thehealth, safety, sustainabilityand environmental impacts oftheirproducts.

RhodeIsland and Virginia (note: theVirginia VOC regulation only applies in specifiedportions ofthe commonwealth). 

### - 4 -CSPAmember companiesmanufacture and marketmorethantwo-thirds ofthebroad product categories coveredbythecurrent provisions of35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 223 and the proposed amendments presented for the Board's consideration today. Sincethe late 1980s, CSPA has worked actively and cooperativelywith Illinois,7 California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, NewJersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginiato provide

ourindustry's perspective onthese states' consumerproductsregulations. Inaddition, CSPA is participating as an active stakeholder in effortsbythe OTC and theLake Michigan AirDirectors Consortium (LADCO) to develop consistentregulatory requirements for consumer and commercial products intheNortheast, Mid-Atlantic and Midwest Regions. CSPA also worked cooperativelywiththe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) duringthe late 1990s as theAgency developed the currentNational VolatileOrganic Compound Emission Standards for ConsumerProducts.8 Currently, CSPA is working cooperativelywith OTC States to urge theU.S. EPA to develop revisions to the National ConsumerProducts Ruleby 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 ProposedNew 35 Ill. Admin. CodePart 223 Standards and Limitations for Organic Material Emissions for Area Sources (R08-7 Rulemaking- Air) at the Board's public hearing in Springfield, Illinois. Inaddition, on June 29, 2007, CSPA filed detailed written comments with the Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency onthedraftproposedrule. 840 C.F.R. Part 59, Subpart C (2011). EPA's National VolatileOrganic Compound Emission Stands for ConsumerProducts (hereinafterreferred to as ''National ConsumerProducts Rule") was promulgated as a fmal rule in 1998. Thetext ofEPA'sregulation is posted at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfriwaisidx 05/40cfr59 05.html. 9The proposed 2014 OTC Model Rule is scheduled to be considered atthe OTC's Fall Meeting on Nov. 10, 2011, inWilmington, DE. Ifapproved, the Model Rule will establish Jan I, 2014, as the effective date for the new VOC limits and related enforcementprovisions.



### - 5-

## Ill. COMMENTS A. CSPA Supports Regionally Consistent ConsumerProducts Regulations. Therefore. OurMember Companies Express General Support for theAgency's Proposed Amendments. CSPA member companies strongly supportthepromulgationofregionally consistent regulations for consumerproducts throughout the Midwest and East Coast. Thus, CSPA is on record as supportingthe OTCModel Rulebecause it promotes consistent state regulations in broadregions ofthe country. 1 0 In addition, CSPA is onrecord as supporting individual state regulationsbased on the OTCModel Rule in Illinois and otherMidwest and East Coast states. CSPA stronglybelieves that interstate commerceshould notbeimpaired bythe promulgation ofdifferent stateregulations. Moreover, the adoption ofconsistent regional regulations is a practical necessityfor small- and medium-sizebusinesses sincethese companies generally lack the staffresources to ensure thatthe companies' products complywith a patchwork ofdifferent (andpotentiallyconflicting) state-specificrequirements. B. CSPARecommends thattheBoard Mak:e Three Necessarvand Reasonable Revisions to the Proposed Provisions of35 lAC§ 223.21 I. As currentlydrafted, Sec. 223.21 I oftheproposed amendment incorporates an "optional" provision in the current OTCModel Rule11 thatprohibits themanufacture, sale, supply or offering for sale ofspecified consumerproduct categories that contain methylene chloride, perchloroethyleneortrichloroethylene. Theprohibition onthemanufactureand saleofthese products is proposed to take effect onJuly I, 2012. Forreasons set forth below, CSPA

10 During thepast 1 I years, CSPA participated actively as a stakeholder in all phases ofthe OTC'sopen and transparent process to develop and revisethe Model ConsumerProducts Rule. 11 The explanatory section ofthe OTC Model Rule states that the document contains some provisions that restrictthe use ofcertain compounds that maynot cause orcontributeto ozone formation. Thenote states, "

.. .it is up to each stateto decide whether it wishes to include regulation ofsaid compounds inits state-specific rulernaking. OTC takes no position on whetherto includethese compounds in such a rulemaking." See OTC Model Rule at p. I. -6-respectfullyurges the Boardto incorporatethreereasonable and necessaryrevisions to Section 223.211 inthe final regulation. I. Section 223.211 should be revised to clearly state thatproduct existing stock manufactured beforethe effective date ofthe newprohibitions may continueto be sold. supplied, oroffered for sale in Illinois. As currently drafted, as ofJuly I, 2012, Section 223.211 will restrictbroad categoriesof productsthat containperchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene from being sold, supplied, offered for sale or manufactured foruse in Illinois. However, the proposed section is silent on what, ifanything, manufacturers, distributors and retailers must do with existing product stock that was manufactured beforethe July I, 2012, effective date oftheprohibitions. This omission creates anuntenable situationin which otherwiseusable and saleproducts would have to bedisposed of; thus, creatingunintended environmental impacts caused byland filling largequantities ofproducts. A majorityofstates that impose similarprohibitions on theuse of chlorinate compounds provide a three-year sell-through period to ensurethat product manufacturers, distributors and retailers have an adequate amount oftimeto ensure that non· compliantproducts are withdrawn from the shelves. The other states that restrict the use ofthese chemical compounds do notimpose any sell-through limitation since, as a practical matter, existing stock oftheseproducts are generally sold quickly (possiblyin less than three years). 12 To eliminatepotential environmental problems and to reduce compliance burden for manufacturers, distributors andretailers, CSPA recommends that the Board revise Section 223.211 to clearly statethatproducts manufactured before July I, 2012, may continue to be sold, supplied oroffered for sale in lllinois.

12 See Conn. Agencies Regs.§ 22a-174-40(d)(S) http://www.ct.gov/depllib/deo/air/regulations/mainregs/sec40consumerorod.pdfatp. 40-23 7 DEAdmin. Code 1141 §2.3.8 http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title7/I000/1100/1141.pdfat p. 37. R.I. Air Pollution Control Reg. No. 31 § 3.9(a) hltp://www.dem.ri.gov/pubslregs/regs/air/air31 09.pdfat p. 39.

- 7-

### 2. Basedupon workplace safetyreasons. the Board should delete the proposed restrictions for the General Puroose Degreaser product category. In general, product formulators continueto make a concerted effort to eliminate the use ofperchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene (i.e., 

### chlorinated compounds) in theirproducts. However, there are limited situations when the use ofthese chemical compounds is necessary to producelow-flammability general purpose degreaserproductsthat can beused by facilities' maintenance operations in which ignition sources (e.g., 

### metal parts contacting other metal parts) maybepresent. There is a legitimate workplace safety concern that a spark from such ignition sources could cause a fire ifit comes into contact with flammable vapors. Moreover, as articulated in comments CSPA filed with The Illinois EPA on June 24,2011, perchloroethyleneand methylene chloride are exempted from the definition of"VOM" for the purposes ofcompliance with VOM limitations orVOM content requirements sincethese compounds have very low photochemical reactivity. See 

### 35 lAC §211.7150(a) and 40 C.F. R. § 51.1OO(s). Consequently, the Agency's proposed restriction onthe General Purpose Degreaser product category will produce minimal, ifany, reduction ofVOMemissions, and thus, is not necessaryto achieve attainment offederal ozone standards. CSPA urges the Board to consider: (I)workplace safety reasons for the continuinguse of low-flammable generalpurpose degreaserproducts; and (2) the fact that minimal, ifany, amount ofVOM emissions will be achieved bythe proposed restriction. Therefore, CSPArecommends that the Board delete 

### the restriction on the General Purpose Degreaser categoryin Section 223.211 ofthe final rule. 3. The Board should make a necessarvtechnical correctionto proposed Section 223. As currentlydrafted, 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. Thisproposed list ofproduct categories includes "Aerosol Adhesives," a 

### - 8 -product categorythatis subject to existingrequirements currently set forth at Section 223.208. The existingprovisions ofSection 223.208 include a restriction on theuse ofperchloroethylene, methylene chloride andtrichloroethylenethathas been in effect sinceJuly I, 2009. Sincethe Aerosol Adhesiveproduct category is subjectto existing regulatory requirements, CSPA recommends that the Board deletethe referenceto "Aerosol Adhesives" in Section 223.211 ofthe final regulation. Therefore, for thereasons stated abovein Section III Bofthis Testimony, CSPA recommends that the Boardmakethe following revisions inthe final regulation: 

### Italicized text=text added to the lllinoisEPA'sproposed regulation StrielleH ted text deleted frornthe Illinois EPA'sproposed regulation. Section 223.211 Requirements for Adhesive Removers, AeFosolAdhesins, Contact Adhesives, Electrical Cleaners, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear or LeatherCare Products, Gesenl PHFJIBSe Degnssers, and Graffiti Removers

a. Effeem·eJ11lr 1,ZOU, sNo person shall sell, supply, offer forsale, or manufacture for use in Illinois any AdhesiveRemovers, AerasolAdhesives, Contact Adhesives, Electrical Cleaners, Electronic Cleaners, Footwearor Leather Care Products, GeserslP11rpose Degnssen,and Graffiti Removers 

### manufacturedon orafterJuly 1, 2012, that contain any ofthe following compounds: methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene b. Impurities Therequirements ofSection 211(a) do not applyto anyAdhesive Removers, Aerosol Adhesives, Contact Adhesives, Electrical Cleaners, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear or Leather CareProducts, GeneralP11rpose Degressers, and Graffiti Removers containingmethylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylenethat is present as an impurity in a combined amountequal to orless than 0.01% byweight. CSPAbelieves thatthese recommended revisions areboth necessary and reasonable. C. The Board should make a necessarvtechnical revision in the current table of standards set forth at Section 223.205(a). The currentprovisions ofSection223.205(a)(l) establish

### VOM limits for the "Adhesives- Spray'' product category. This term is not defined in eitherthe current regulation ortheproposed



### - 9-revtstons. Therefore, CSPArecommends that the Board replacethe term "Adhesives- Spray" with the term "Aerosol Adhesives" sincethisterm is defined by Section 223.203 ofthe current regulation. Thisrevision would ensure consistencywith theterm used by CARB's regulation. 13 Finally, therevision would beconsistentwith the OTC Model Rule, which uses the term "Adhesives" intheTable ofStandards. 14



## IV. CONCLUSION While the proposed regulation contains stringent VOM limits, CSPA supports the Illinois EPA's proposalbecause itis consistent with the OTC Model Rule and the final regulations promulgated byOhio, Michigan, Indiana and I0 East Coast states. Moreover, CSPA is committed to continuing to work cooperatively with the Illinois EPA to improve airquality. CSP A commends the Illinois EPA for conducting a very open and transparent process to developthis proposed regulation. We appreciatethe opportunity to participate as an active stakeholderinthis importantprocess to develop a technologically challenging set ofnew VOM limits and related enforcementprovisions that are part ofthe Illinois EPA's comprehensive strategyto demonstrate attainment ofthefederal CleanAirAct's strict ozone standard.



### WHEREFORE, for thereasons stated above, the Consumer SpecialtyProducts Associationrequests that theBoard reviseproposed Section 223.211 to clearly state that existing product stockmanufactured before the July I,2012, effective date ofthe new prohibitions may continueto be sold, supplied, or offered for sale in Illinois. Second, the Board should delete the

13 Thetenn "Adhesive: Aerosol" is used in CARB'sTable ofStandards. See Cal. CodeRegs. Title 17, § 94509(a). 14 Theterm "Adhesives"isused inthe OTC Model Rule. See Section 3(a) ofthe OTC Model Rule.

- 10-proposed restrictions for General PurposeDegreasers set forth at 35 lAC§ 223.211. This proposed action will ensurethat manufacturers have the continued ability to producelowflammability general purpose degreaserproducts. Third, theBoard should eliminatethe reference to "Aerosol Adhesives" in 35 lAC§ 223.211 sincethis product categoryis currently subject to existingregulations set forth at Section 223.208. Finally, the Board should revise the current text ofSection 223.205(a) bydeleting the term "Adhesives- Spray" and replacing it with the term "Aerosol Adhesive."

DATED: September22.2011 1667 K StreetNW, Suite300 Washington, DC 20006 202-833-7325 Respectfully submitted, CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

- II -

### DistrictofColumbia 

## ss

PROOFOFSERVICE I, the undersigned do hereby stateand attest to the fact that Ihave served theattached copy ofthe testimonythat the Consumer Specialty Products Association will present onthe REGULATORY PROPOSALFORAMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART 223 STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSIONS FORAREA SOURCES and APPEARANCE upon the person to whom it is directed, byplacing a copyin an envelope addressed to: JohnTherriault, Clerk Illinois Pollution Control Board State ofIllinois Center 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500 Chicago, 111inois 606018 www.ipcb.state.il.us Mark A. Biel ExecutiveDirector Chemical Industry Council ofIllinois 400W. Monroe, Suite 205 Springfield, Illinois 62704 Mitchell Cohen, Esq. General Counsel Illinois Department ofNatural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 AlecM. 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, !81hFloor 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 ofLegal Counsel 1

021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 Charles.Matoesian@Illinois.gov

and mailing samebyFirst Class Mail from Washington, DC, with sufficientpostage affixed, as indicated above. DATED: Seotember 22.2011 1667 K StreetNW, Suite300 Washington, DC 20006 202-833-7325 SUBSCRIBEDAND SWORNTOBEFORE ME

# ";2;~~~~ N!YCom.'tllSSlOn Expires 

# t/?fk;l - I - CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

# I !EPA ATTACHMENT NO. 

# 1

Illinois Department of Commerce & 

## Economic Opportunity

September20, 20II

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 82011 STATE OF

### ILLtN Pollutior> Control BOIS 

### Dard



# ORIGINAL

I am in receipt ofyourrequest that the DepartmentofCommerce and Economic Opportunity (hereafter "Department") do an economic impact study, pursuantto 4I5ILCS 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 mustrespectfully decline yourrequest. Sincerely,

Warren Ribley 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'/mfV...···**;~(C** l'l**vr.··~· ~":w1.t?liH** ren**~18/~ij~-13~:.** 

### mv**~J.!ltH!l~l** ·;:,,;,,, ::·i:-•tHier**.-~~ ;,,;;;,~.;~** **~~-~-~-;·-** -·

# <iJ IEPA 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 1I 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 84 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 51 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 by1 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 Bureau1 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 to9 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 language1 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 1112 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 potentially1 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 and 1 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 the1 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 offices1 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? 161 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 24 171 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 24ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD November 17, 20II IEPA ATIACHMENT

# N0.1 REC!EIVII!D

CLERK'SOFFICE



## NOV I 

## 7 2011 IN THEMATIER OF: ) ) 

### STATE OF ILLINOIS 

### Pollution ControlBoard



# . ,,. STANDARDS ANDLIMITATIONS FOR ) ORGANIC MATERIALEMISSIONS 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 thetranscript ofthat hearing on orbefore Monday, November28, 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.ipcb.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 ofthese post-hearing comments, and the Board Clerk's Office must receive post-hearing comments before the close ofbusiness on Wednesday, December 14, 2011. Although comments may be filed electronically through COOL, all electronic or approved fax filings must be received bythe Clerk's Office no laterthan 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) foxt@ipcb.state.il.ust**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 (217 ) 524-4710 (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 23 241 

### 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 and1 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 consistentPage 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 the1 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 be1 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 it1 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 office1 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# 084-004386A 

### 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 acting24:13 action25:10 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 address5:11

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 adjourn4:21

26:14 adjourned

26:15 adjourning

26:11 ADMI:4 Administr.•.

3:7 admit7:3, II 

### admitted5: I



### 5:21 7:15 adopts24:7 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 agree22:5 agriculture

9:3,5 ahead 11:14 16:24 air 10:6 allow4:7

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 Areas3:6 arrived 3:1 aspect26:8 association



### 2:II 4:3 6:15,16 attempt22:7 August3:21

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 basis4:9 9:23

9:24 12:8 18:7 anything become8: I



### 18:3 before1:1,11 apologize 9:6 3:10 4:8,21 appear20:23 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 being5:20

20:20 14:8,9 appropriate 15:19 19:6

8:9 27:4 approve believe 15:

### II best 15:5 better22:21 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's3:16

4:6,23 19:24 20:1 24:12,18,24 25:17,23 26:9 books 20:4 Box2:8 Brief25:6 broad9:17 building9:20 Burke2:2

3:12 Page 28 certainly4:7 10:9 13:24 16:4,20 17:21 18:22 19:1 20:17 26:1 cetera9:20 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 clear5:3 clearly4: 14

23:21 25:19 clerk25:23

26:3 business27:5 clerk's25:24 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 cut20:10 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 date7:24 8:6 27:4,15 east2:7 every8:22**~** Commission 12:1 18:13 8:8,99:11 Department 10:13 exactly23:I

## ~ ' 13:9,10 22:21 9:14 22:15 7:20 9:2 economic examined6:8 ,, ' 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••• effective5:13 17:10 '**~** 15:14 Davis2:6 24:9 7:24 8:5 exclusion ' consumers l complete5:3 9:19 4:1811:11 desire 10:23 9:11,13 17:22 " ,j completed contact26:5 21:7,8,11 detai124:3 22:15 23:2 exempt 12:20 ' !i 13:8 26:8 21:14 22:3 develop5:3 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 day27:8 15;10 24:8 16:14 23:8

### ~ 12:18 content 12:19 days24:10 different elected 13:13 exhibit5:14 i. compliant continue DCE024:6 12:8 14:8 electronic 5:19,22 7:4**~** 1 14:4 23:7 24:14 Direct2:13 26:2,3 7:12,15**~** compounds Control!:1 DCEO's directed26:2 electronica

... exist 15:19 

## ' 12:5 15:4 3:4 24:17,24 directly 25:24 existing7:22 

## '**~** deadline3:24 ' 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 copies7:6,16 25:21 24:17 Emissions 21:24**-~** I concern9:13 25:14 deals 8:12 discuss 16:4 1:5 3:5 18:9 expected 

## ' concur22:20 copy7:8 Dcanna2:4 25:4 ending25:12 25:15 " ' ' 22:20 23:3 correct8:17 3:14 discussed ensure 18:22 expects25: 13 '! 

# ' December ensures I0:6 ,, 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 decline24:22 25:6 9:13 10:24 experts 15:22 ' 'i conducted COUNTY defer 13:13 District enter5:13 explained )**~;**

21:1 27:2 defined 17:5 10:14 entered4:5 15:8 :j conducting couple21:7 definition docket21:24 enterprises explanation ,; ' 24:10 21:15,18 7:21,21 docketed 9:1914:15 24:9 ,! ! confer9:3 course8:1 12:17,21 3:10 entities26:4 extend4:20**~** conflict court6:3,7 17:9,10,10 doing5:15 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-mail2:10 

### j 10:20 13:1 CSR27:15 definitively Dr24:13 especially 13:18,24 current7:23 15:7 drafted7:23 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.C2:12 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 language8:5 ,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 I0:6,7 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 from3:11 headquart

... 19:8 21:23 issues I0:23 later24:15 field 21:8 12:17,21 6:20 inappropri

... 22:9 least 19:21**~**



### ( FIFRA8:15 17:12 21:23 hear5:7 19:1 24:10 8:19,21 9:2 fully 13:15 heard7:10 include 13:4 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

... Jennifer2:2 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 ' like4:8 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 Joseph2:11 ; 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 indicate4:14 14:10,20 likely 14:14 \

5:14 6:7 14:1615:1 help5:3 23:22 15:5,21 limitations 21:12,17 19:14 helpfull5:10 indicated 16:6 17:7 1:43:5 27:4 generally9:4 16:2 4:15 5:8,9 17:14,20 12:18 Following Girard24: 13 helpfully7:5 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 hotels9:20 individual July3:20 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 lists25:21

27:8 13:16 16:24 I 15:23 26:8 June 13:14 little 17:24 forget9:6 17:1519:9 ignition inherent just5:12 9:15 located6:18 forth7:20 25:4 12:14 18:24 11:13,23 6:20 10:1912:15 goes 10:23 ILL 1:4 initiated3:19 13:10,23 Jong23:5 :: forward II:4 going5:12 Illinois 1:I inoperative 18:12,15,16 look I0:21 

### " 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 intended5:3 kind 17:18 low-flamm

... ' 7:1711:8 granted5:20 27:1 intent 17:21 know 11:23 12:1115:3 11:1414:24 8:21 Illinois's6:23 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 handled20:1 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 marked5:21 mightI0:12

7: 14 minimal market6:21 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 motion5:20

26:10 7:11,13 may4:20 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 Neither5:20

7:14 16:18 25:1 26:11 new 8:3,9,19

8:20 13:16 19:19 newly9:14 next8:I0,20 13:6,14 nine 11:20 normall4:15 North2:7 note3:11,23

5:1 25:22 notes 27:9 notice25:21 November I:12 25:16 27:8 number7:6

II:17 NW2:12 0 027:2,2 oath6:8

21:13 27:4 objection

5:19 7:13 obtain26:6 occur II:21 October3:22 off14:11

20:10 25:4 25:8 offer4:7,20

4:21 office9:20

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 online26:1 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 original8: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 partI: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 place3:22

9:10 plead 15:6 please5:1

6:12 9:15 J 

### II:14 16:23 1 ' 

### 18:420:15**~** 

### plus 10:13 J 

### pointII: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 : posed5:2 position

22:18 possibility

21:6 possible II:I

25:19 

## ' i J 'i 

### ' I 1



### posted25: 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 period22:14

22:19,23 25:12 permits4:19 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**~** 

### prepared7:6 (

21:8**~ ~!** 

## ~~~ 

# -.!}

### Page 32 present3:11 8:23,23 9:2 14:11,16 16:21,24 regulated respond4:18 

### ' 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 put7:20 19:3,11 19:18,20,21 16:5 22:17 

# ' ' pretty21:I0 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-flle3:24 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-filed4: 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 proper9:13 14:23 16:18 received 7:7 I0:3,II,12 review22:4 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 questions4:9 9:9 relevant4:24 Ribley24:17 \ problem 8:7 24:15 25:11 4:16 5:2,6 recommen... remark right3:13,14 1 ' problems propose8:4 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 16:1420:11 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 quickly4:22 11:20 17:3 27:6 round 13:17 proceeding 19:10 5:10 21:10 record 5:1,4 reporter6:3 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 raise8:11 reductions 6:14,20 rulemaking :1 1:8 27:7,10 24:4 11:12 12:8 12:23 represents 3:9,19 ' \' process20:19 provide 17:2019:17 refer8:8 9:16 20:19 26:8 ' ' 19:19,23 :1 20:22 21:1 15:15 reference8:4 request 11:18 Rulemakin

... :i 26:2 provision9:7 20:12 9:9 19:5 13:24 24:5 I:4 

### ! raised 10:22 ·i produce5:15 9:8 reflect5:4 24:19,22,24 rules4:6,23**~** 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 raising7: 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 Rao2:2 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 I0:3,12 7:2 24:21 safe 10:21 j 16:7,10,12 ,, safety 12:23 

## '



# ·-**'~-"""** 

# -**'"'"'---~~-~.....,.,_~·~** - .......**~~** ..........

_..__**-"-"~ ~~**  

## '**~-~** ooo=;.....**,._.,.,,_._.....,.."""~~,~--=-"'~~**

### Page 33

same8:16 sir14:617:7 stated 13:23 supportI0:3 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**~** 

### says27:5 23:19 states7:23 II:3 21:2,3,10 21:3,14 

# l 1 schools9:20 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 today3:11 

## I section4:6 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 their6:19 21:4 23:23 

### ' 

# ' 8:12,12 solely5:3 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 StreetI:I0 T2:11 6:6 think 10:21 27:9 

## ' i 

### 21:1922:8 something 2:12 table6:3 8:6 13:23 16:13 

## ' transparent 

## 1 22:8 24:4 18:1119:9 strike8:4 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



### I0:18 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 

### seeing5:20 12:7 10:1411:2 taken27:10 Thomas2:3 trichloroet.

.. i



### 7:1416:19 sorry4:11 struck9:10 takes25:I0 3:13 17:13 12:10 J j 

### 25:1 26:12 20:10 study24:7,9 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 subject6:24 Tanner thorough 18:1019:17 

# l

22:22,22,23 speak24:3 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 served26:4 25:18 8:6 13:22 14:4 14:15 17:22 6:22,24 service25:21 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 set8:2 12:7 specified suggestion 18:9 22:23 23:2 

## u

25:18 9:11 18:II termed22:14 25:24 unable24:20 setting 12:2 spray 17:4,11 suggestions testified6:8 Thursday under4:5,23

,., 

### 13:3 17:11,12 22:6 21:13 I:12 6:23 8:17 ·! 

### ·' several 13:7 Springfield suitability testify4:12 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 3:244:2,5,9 24:13,20 11 :I I ! 

### 27:6,9 20:20 summarize 4:10,12 6:2 26:13 undertake**~** 

### shortly25:20 stakeholder 9:15 7:3,11,19 timing 16:4 24:20 ' 

### sign-in4:13 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 state8:22,24 7:18 6:5,12 7:15 14:24 16:1 15:12**~** ' 

### 19:21 24:1 27:1 supply23:8 7:17 14:3 16:I0,13,17 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 willing21 :22 26:12 2:13 

### ' variety 13:13 willingness Yost's22:4 202)872-81

... 

## ' version26:6 21:15 2:13 very7:10,17 wish4:14 

# z 217)524-43•.• 

## ' 10:22 II :8 6:1111:10 Zalewski2:4 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 wishing4:19 17:6,9 ; 1 26:14 withdraw 17:248:3,4 223.205 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) J4:1 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 14th25:12 ' Washington written 17:24 225.2059:12 5

2:12 18:16,17 15th24:16 240 6:17 ' way 10:7 22:2 25:22 16672:12 26th3:24 

### ' 17:2418:15 181:12 7:12 

### ' 22:24 y 18th27:8 27(d)24:4 website 16:8 year8: I0,20 192762:8 28th25:16

25:17 26:9 9:7,11 2 ' Wednesday 3 ., 13:14 ·' 2 5:19,22 } 25:12 years 13:7 2024:10 37:12,15 ; week 13:11 Yost2: II 4:2 20th24:17 3002:12 weeks25:13 4:4 5:8 6:1 351:4 3:6 welcome3:3 6:5,6,9,12 200062:12 well11:9 6:14 7:5,12 200727:8 4 ; 20097:24 8:4 ' 12:21 19:23 7:14,17 4th3:21 were5:12 11:8,12,16 20108:17 24:12 14:22 17:8 J2:2 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 6th3:22 

### " ; " ' 

# ----·d,._._

. ... __...,.._.___ ,,. ......,.c**'-'"_,...,.....,....._,.,--~**..... - ................... "-"'-

### ..... .,.. .

### .**--~** 

### .........___,__