(,

AppendixE

Transcript of the Public Hearing Held October 19, 2007
(

(

In the matter of: DAPC Particulate Matter Standards Rules Hearing, taken on October 19, 2007

BEFORE THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF:

DAPC PARTICULATE MATTER

STANDARDS RULES HEARING

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

In the above-captioned matter, taken before

Teresa A. Pollard, a Court Reporter and Notary Public

in and for the State of Ohio, at the Ohio Protection

Agency, Central District Office, Lazarus Government

Center, 50 West Town Street, Room C, Columbus, Ohio on

Friday, October 19, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
(

\,

(

(

In the rnatter of: DAPC Particulate Matter Standards Rules Hearing, taken on October 19, 2007

Page 2 Page 4

1 IN THE MATTER OF DAPC PARTICULATE MATTER 1 Columbus office and may be obtained by contacting Paul

2 STANDARDS RULES HEARING 2 Braun with Ohio EPA's Division of Air Pollution Control

3 3 at (614)644-3734. APPEARANCES

4 - - - 4 All interested persons are entitled to attend

5 MS. DARLA L. PEELLE, Public Involvement Coordinator 5 or be represented, and to present oral and/or written

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6 comments concerning the proposed rule. All written and

6 PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER 7 oral comments received as part ofthe official record

Lazarus Govemment Center 8 will be considered by the Director of Ohio EPA before a 7 50 West Town Street, Suite 700

Columbus, Ohio 43215 9 final decision is made.

8 (614) 644-2160 10 To be included in the official record,

E-mail: Darla.peelle@epa.state.oh.us 11 written comments must be received by Ohio EPA by the

9 12 close of business, today, Friday, October 19, 2007.

10 13 These comments may be filed with me today or e-mailed 11

12 14 to Paul dot Braun at EPA dot state dot O-H dot U-S.

13 15 All written comments submitted for the record receive

14 16 the same consideration as oral testimony given today.

15 17 Written statements submitted after today may 16 18 be considered as time and circumstances permit, but 17

18 19 will not be part ofthe official record ofthe hearing.

19 20 If you wish to present oral testimony at this

20 21 hearing today and have not already signed the

21 22 registration sheet, please do so at this time. The

22 23 sheet is available at the registration table. Persons 23

24 24 will be called in the order in which they have

25 25 registered.

Page 3 Page 5

I Friday Morning Session, 1 There is no cross-examination ofspeakers or

October 19,2007. 2 ofrepresentatives of Ohio EPA in public hearings.

2 10:00 a.m. 3 Ohio EPA hearings such as this afford citizens the

3 - - - 4 opportunity to provide comments on the official record.

4 MS. PEELLE: We are on the record. 5 Therefore, we will not be able to answer questions

5 My name is Darla Peelle. I am a public 6 during the hearing. However, members of the panel may

6 involvement coordinator for Ohio Environmental 7 ask clarifying questions ofthe person testifying to

7 Protection Agency's Public Interest Center. I will be 8 ensure that the record is as complete and accurate as 8 presiding over today's public hearing. 9 possible. 9 Thank you for taking time to attend this 10 Seeing there is no one registered wishing to

10 hearing before Ohio EPA. The purpose ofthe hearing 11 testify, we will go off the record until 10:30.

11 today is to obtain comments from any interested person 12 12 regarding Ohio EPA's proposed rules. ---

13 Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution Control 13 (Recess taken.)

14 has performed a five-year review of OAC Chapter 14 - - -

15 3745-17, OAC Rules 3745-17-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, 15 MS. PEELLE: I'm going back on the record.

16 -08, -09, -10, -11, -12, -13 and -14, to satisfy the 16 Seeing no requests for testimony, I'mjust

17 requirements of Section 119.032 of the Ohio Revised 17 going to remind everyone, for the record, that public

18 Code for a five-year review. DAPC has determined that 18 comments can be submitted until the close of business

19 OAC Rule 0745-17-05 is no longer necessary and should 19 today, October 19,2007.

20 be rescinded and that OAC Rules 3745-17-01, -02, -03, 20 The time is now 10:30 and this hearing is

21 -04, -07, -08, -09, -10, -11, -12, -13 and -14 are 21 adjourned. Thank you.

22 necessary and need to be amended. 22 - - -

23 This rule change has been filed with the 23 Thereupon, at 10:30 a.m., on Friday, October

24 Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review. Copies ofthe 24 19, 2007, the hearing was concluded.

25 rule are available for public review at Ohio EPA's 25 ---

2 (Pages 2 to 5)

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
o '

In the matter of: DAPC Particulate Matter Standards Rules Hearing, taken on October 19, 2007

( 1

2 STATE OF OHIO

CERTIFICATE

Page 6

SS:

3 COUNTY OF FRANKLIN

4

I, Teresa A. Pollard, a Notary Public in and

5 for the State of Ohio, duly commissioned and qualified,

do hereby certify that the aforesaid proceeding on

6 October 19, 2007, was by me reduced to stenotype and

afterward transcribed upon a computer; that the

7 foregoing 1S a true and correct transcript of the

proceedings; that the proceeding was taken at the time

8 and place in the caption specified and was adjourned;

and that I am in no way related to or employed by any

9 attorney or party hereto, or financially interested in

the action.

10

TERESA A. POLLARD

NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF OHIO

My Commission Expires: October 21, 2012.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

hand and affixed my seal of office at Columbus, Ohio,

on this 30th of October, 2007.

(

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

(

24

25

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
In the matter of: DAPC Particulate Matter Standards Rules Hearing, taken on October 19, 2007

Page 1

(

(

(

A comments 3: 11 filed 3:23 4:13 need 3:22 Protection 1: 1,14 specified 6:8

able 5:5 4:6,7,11,13,15 final 4:9 Notary 1:136:4 2:5 3:7 SS6:2

above-captioned 5:4,18 financially 6:9 6:15 provide 5:4 STANDARDS

1:12 Commission 6:20 five-year 3:14,18 public 1:2,13 2:5 1:72:2

accurate 5:8 commissioned foregoing 6:7 0 2:63:5,7,8,25 state 1:144:14

action 6:9 6:5 FRANKLIN 6:3 OAC 3:14,15,19 5:2,176:4 6:2,5

adjourned 5:21 Committee 3:24 Friday 1:17 3: 1 3:20 PUBLIC-STA... statements 4: 17

6:8 complete 5: 8 4:125:23 obtain 3:11 6:15 stenotype 6:6

affixed 6: 11 computer 6:6 from3:11 obtained 4: 1 purpose 3: 10 Street 1:162:7

afford 5:3 concerning 4:6 October 1:173:1 submitted 4: 15

aforesaid 6:5 concluded 5:24 G 4:125:19,23 Q 4:17 5:18

after 4:17 consideration given 4:16 6:6,11,20 qualified 6:5 Suite 2:7

afterward 6:6 4:16 go 5: 11 off 5: 11 questions 5:5,7

Agency 1:1,15 considered 4:8 going5:15,17 office 1:15 4:1 T

2:53:24 4:18 Government 6: 11 R table 4:23

Agency's 3:7 contacting 4: 1 1:15 2:6 official 4:7,10,19 receive 4: 15 taken 1: 12 5: 13

Air 3:13 4:2 Control 3:13 4:2 5:4 received 4:7,11 6:7

already 4:21 coordinator 2:5 H Ohio 1:1,14,14 Recess 5:13 taking 3:9

amended 3:22 3:6 hand 6:11 1:162:5,73:6 record 3:4 4:7,10 Teresa 1: 13 6:4

and/or 4:5 Copies 3:24 hearing 1:2,7 2:2 3:10,12,13,17 4:15,195:4,8 6:15

answer 5:5 correct 6:7 3:8,10,104:19 3:25 4:2,8,11 5:11,15,17 testify 5: 11

APPEARANC... COUNTY 6:3 4:21 5:6,20,24 5:2,36:2,5,11 reduced 6:6 testifying 5:7

2:3 Court 1:13 hearings 5:2,3 6:15 regarding 3: 12 testimony 4: 16

attend 3:9 4:4 cross-examinat... hereto 6:9 one 5:10 registered 4:25 4:205:16

attorney 6:9 5: 1 hereunto 6: 10 opportunity 5:4 5:10 Thank3:95:21

available 3:25 oral 4:5,7,16,20 registration 4:22 time 3:94:18,22

4:23 D I order 4:24 4:23 5:206:7

a.m 1:17 3:2 5:23 DAPC 1:62:1 included 4:10 over 3:8 related 6:8 today3:114:12

3:18 Interest 2:63:7 O-H4:14 remind 5: 17 4:13,16,17,21

B Darla 2:53:5 interested 3: 11 Reporter 1: 13 5:19

back 5: 15 Darla.peelle@e... 4:4 6:9 P representatives today's 3:8

before 1: 1, 12 2:8 involvement 2:5 panel 5:6 5:2 Town 1: 162:7

3:10 4:8 decision 4:9 3:6 part4:7,19 represented 4:5 transcribed 6:6

Braun 4:2,14 determined 3: 18 PARTICULATE requests 5:16 transcript 1: 10

business 4: 12 Director 4:8 J 1:62:1 requirements 6:7

5:18 District 1: 15 Joint 3:24 party 6:9 3:17 true 6:7

Division 3: 13 4:2 just 5:16 PauI4:l,14 rescinded 3:20

C dot 4: 14, 14, 14, 14 Peelle 2:5 3:4,5 review 3:14,18 U

C 1:16 duly 6:5 L 5: 15 3:24,25 until 5: 11,18

called 4:24 during 5:6 L2:5 performed 3:14 Revised 3: 17 U-S4:14

caption 6:8 Lazarus 1:15 2:6 permit 4: 18 Room 1:16

Center 1: 16 2:6,6 E longer 3:19 person 3: 11 5:7 rule 3:19,23,24 W

3:7 employed 6:8 persons 4:4,23 3:254:6 way 6:8

Central 1:15 ensure 5:8 M place 6:8 rules 1:72:23:12 West 1:16 2:7

CERTIFICATE entitled 4:4 made 4:9 please 4:22 3:15,20 WHEREOF 6:10

6: 1 Environmental matter 1:5,6, 12 Pollard 1: 13 6:4 wish 4:20

certify 6:5 1:1 2:53:6 2: 1,1 6:15 S wishing 5: 10

change 3:23 EPA 3:10,13 4:8 may4:l,13,17 Pollution 3:13 same4:16 WITNESS 6:10

Chapter 3:14 4:11,145:2,3 5:6 4:2 satisfy 3:16 written 4:5,6,11

circumstances EPA's 3:12,25 members 5:6 possible 5:9 seal 6:11 4:15,17

4:18 4:2 Morning 3:1 present 4:5,20 Section 3: 17

citizens 5:3 everyone 5: 17 must 4:11 presiding 3:8 Seeing 5:10,16 0

clarifying 5:7 Expires 6:20 proceeding 6:5,7 Session 3:1 023:15,20

close 4:12 5:18 E-mail 2:8 N proceedings 1: 10 set 6:10 033:15,20

Code 3:18 e-mailed 4: 13 name 3:5 6:7 sheet 4:22,23 043:15,21

Columbus 1:16 necessary 3: 19 proposed 3: 12 signed 4:21 053:15

2:74: 1 6: 11 F 3:22 4:6 speakers 5: 1 073:15,21

Ilil

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
In the matter of: DAPC Particulate Matter Standards Rules Hearing, taken on October 19, 2007

Page 2

(

(

(

0745-17-053: 19

083:16,21

093:16,21

1

103:16,21

10:00 1:17 3:2

10:305:11,20,23

113:16,21

119.0323:17

123:16,21

13 3:16,21

143:16,21

191:173:14:12

5:19,246:6

2

20071:173:1

4:125:19,24

6:6,11 If;

2012 6:20

216:20

3

30th 6: 11

3745-173:15

3745-17-013:15

3:20

4

432152:7

5

501:162:7

6

6142:8

614)644-37344:3

644-21602:8

7

7002:7

',Tec" '"

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556
OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

SENATE MEMBERS

TOM NIEHAUS

VICE-CHAIR

HOUSE MEMBERS

ROSS MCGREGOR

CHAIR

(

SUE MORANO

CAPRI S. CAFARO

ROBERT SCHULER

TIM GRENDELL

WILLIAM L. HILLS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CLYDE EVANS

WILLIAM G. BATCHELDER

FRED STRAHORN

SANDRA STABILE HARWOOD

(

(

November 2, 2007

Jim Orlemann

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division ofAir Pollution Control (DAPC)

50 West Town Street, Suite 700

P.O. Box 1049

Columbus,OH 43216-1049

Dear Mr. Orlemann,

This letter is to inform you that the next meeting ofJCARR is scheduled for Tuesday,

November 13, 2007 in the William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) at 1:30 P.M.

The agenda for the November 13, 2007 meeting will include all rules filed between

September 9,2007 and September 28,2007 and those rules refiled not later than

November 2, 2007 as well as no change rules filed between August 15, 2007 and

September 3, 2007.

Please have an agency representative in attendance. The agency representative need only

sign-in on the registration form provided by JCARR staff. The sign-in sheet will qualify

as a witness slip for all rules not on the review agenda. The preregistration allows the

Chair to k.110W upon whom to call ifthere is a need for agency testimony.

If we find a problem or have questions regarding rules filed by your agency, one of our

staff people will be in contact with you prior to the above meeting date.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

William

~~L. Hills

Executive Director

77 South High Street, Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • Fax (614) 752-8803

www.jcarr.state.oh.us
/~ ~, ~,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

119.032 Agenda - 11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA FINAL AGENDA

119.032 Consent

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/15/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/27/2007

Public notice - rulemaking hearings.

Rule Title

Applicability.

Rule Title

Rule Title

Techniques or methods.

Breath tests.

Blood, urine and other bodily substance tests.

Instrument check.

Collection and handling of blood and urine specimens.

Laboratory requirements.

Qualifications of personnel.

s.urveys and proficiency examinations.

Permits.

Revocation and denial of permits.

8/17/2012

8/1/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

8/29/2012

Date Filed: 8/20/2007

Next 119.032

Review Date

Date Filed: 8/17/2007

Next 119.032

Review Date

Date Filed: 8/29/2007

Next 119.032

Review Date

1 Department of Health •

Total Rules In This Package: 10

~"[\loe Action Rule1'.Jumber

119.032 No Change 3701-53-01

119.032 No Change 3701-53-02

119.032 No Change 3701-53-03

119.032 No Change 3701-53-04

119.032 No Change 3701-53-05

119.032 No Change 3701-53-06

119.032 No Change 3701-53-07

119.032 No Change 3701-53-08

119.032 No Change 3701-53-09

119.032 No Change 3701-53-10

2 Department of Health •

Total Rules In This Package: 1

Rule Tvoe Action Rule Number

119.032 No Change 3701-51-01

3 Department of Health •

Total Rules In This Package: 3

Rule Tvoe Action Bule bl,umber

119.032 No Change 3701-60-03

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page1·1111312007
FINAL AGENDA

i~

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AbENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

/"----,

119.032 No Change 3701-60-09 8/1/2012

119.032 No Change 3701-60-10 8/1/2012

4 Department of Transportation • Division of Highways

Liability.

Compliance action.

Net assets.

Application for qualification.

Responsibility and competency.

Work types.

Certificate of qualification.

Joint venture bids.

Contracting procedure--foreign contractors.

Subcontracting procedure.

Prequalification review board.

Revocation and debarment.

Rule Title

Total Rules In This Package: 10

Rule Type Action

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

119.032 No Change

5 State Chiropractic Board •

Total Rules In This Package: 25

Rule Number

5501 :2-3-01

5501 :2-3-02

5501 :2-3-03

5501 :2-3-04

5501 :2-3-05

5501 :2-3-06

5501 :2-3-07

5501 :2-3-08

5501 :2-3-09

5501 :2-3-10

Date Filed: 8/23/2007

Next 119.032

Review Date

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

9/1/2008

Date Filed: 8/28/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/21/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/26/2007

Rule Tvoe AQ!i.Qn Rule Number Next 119.032

Review Date

119.032 No Change 4734-2-01 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-2-02 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-2-03 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-3-01 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-3-02 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-01 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-02 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-03 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-04 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-05 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-06 8/28/2012

Rule Title

Public notice of rules.

Five year rule review.

Rules hearings.

Board records and documents; personal information system.

Public records.

Hearings; disciplinary procedures.

Representatives; appearances; communications; applicability.

Continuances.

Out-of-state attorneys.

Authority and duties of hearing officers.

Broadcasting and photographing administrative hearings.

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page2· ••/.3/2007
-~,

FINAL AGENDA

,~

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 - 1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

-~,

119.032 No Change 4734-4-07 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-08 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-09 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-10 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-11 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-12 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-13 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-4-14 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-6-01 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-6-02 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-6-05 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-6-06 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-6-09 8/28/2012

119.032 No Change 4734-6-10 8/28/2012

Depositions in lieu of testimony at hearing and transcripts of prior testimony for submission

at hearing.

Witnesses; subpoenaes; witness fees.

Evidence; judicial notice of board records; stipulations; certified copy of conviction deemed

conclusive.

Limited discovery procedures.

Motions.

Pre-hearing conferences; status conferences.

Post hearing procedures; reports and recommendations; newly discovered evidence;

addressing the board.

Requesting adjudication hearing; timing of hearing; notification of hearing; requirements for

filing; calculation of time; transcripts.

Application for licensure.

Licensure by endorsement.

License for voluntary public service.

Jurisprudence examination.

Character and fitness standards.

Review of applicants.

119.032 Withdrawn

6 Department of Public Safety • Bureau of Motor Vehicles

Rule Title

Total Rules In This Package: 1

Rule Type Action Rule Number

Date Filed: 11/5/2007

Next 119.032

Review Date

Jurisdiction Ends:

119.032 No Change 4501 :1-3-26 Docket.

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page3·1111312007
~,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

Agenda -11/13/2007 - 1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA FINAL AGENDA

Consent

1 Board of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology •

Total Rules: 6 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/16/2007 Public Hearing: 10/16/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-4-01

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-5-01

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-8-01

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-8-03

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-8-05

Rule Title

Continuing education.

Speech-language pathologist or audiologist; fee for initial license; fee for renewal of

license; late renewal fee.

Definitions.

Rules on appropriate hearing aid test procedures.

Fraud or misrepresentation; hearing aid, assistive listening device; disciplinary

action.

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-9-01 "Code of Ethics".

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/29/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/28/2007 Public Hearing: 10/16/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Refiled Filing Yes 4753-3-10 Exempt practice; renewal.

2 Board of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology •

Total Rules: 5 Original Filing Date: 9/11/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/15/2007 Public Hearing: 10/16/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-01 Educational requirements for student permit.

New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-02 Ohio speech-language pathology graduate program requirements.

New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-04 Application for speech-language pathology student permit.

New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-05 Speech-language pathology student permit holder case load.

New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-06 Identification of speech-language pathology student permit holder.

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/11/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/29/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/28/2007 Public Hearing: 10/16/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page1.1111312007
,~, .,....-----."

FINAL AGENDA

JOINT COMMITTEE ON A~ENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

New Rule Refiled Filing No 4753-10-03 Supervision of speech-language pathology permit holders.

3 Department of Commerce • Board of Building Standards: Ohio Building Code

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :1-35-01 Referenced standards.

4 Department of Commerce • Board of Building Standards: Ohio Mechanical Code

Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

4101 :2-75-44

Rule Number

. 4101 :2-70-19

4101 :2-72-17

4101:2-72-48

4101 :2-72-69

4101 :2-72-75

4101 :2-72-87

4101 :2-72-94

4101 :2-73-04

41 01 :2-73-08

4101 :2-73-14

4101 :2-73-21

4101 :2-74-11

4101:2-75-14

No

Rule Title

Certification of the building department of the city of Campbell, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Chippewa Lake, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Lodi, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Newtown, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Ontario, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Seville, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Spencer, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Waynesville, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the city of Willowick Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Haskins, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Cyget, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of Medina county, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of Plymouth, Ohio.

Certification of the building department of the village of the village of Yankee Lake,

Ohio.

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-75-68 Certification of the building department of the village of Ashville, Ohio.

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-76-29 Certification of the building department of the village of Gloria Glens Park, Ohio.

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-76-39 Certification of the building department of the city of Greenfield, Ohio.

New Rule Original Filing No 4101:2-77-29 Certification of the building department of the village of New Holland, Ohio.

New Rule Original Filing No 4101 :2-77-30 Certification of the building department of the village of Baltimore, Ohio.

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-81-18 Certification of the building department of the village of Utica, Ohio.

New Rule Original Filing No 4101:2-81-37 Certification of the building department of the village of Ostrander, Ohio.

Department of Commerce • Board of Building Standards: Ohio Mechanical Code

Amendment Original Filing

Total Rules: 21 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007

Rule Type Action FYR?

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

5

. JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page2·1111312007
~""" i~' '~"',

FINAL AGENDA

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Title

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-15-01 Referenced standards.

6 Department of Commerce • Board of Building Standards: Ohio Plumbing Code

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :3-13-01 Referenced standards.

7 Department of Commerce • Board of Building Standards: Residential Code of Ohio

Total Rules: 5 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :8-1-03 Certified building department.

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :8-1-05 Approvals.

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :8-1-06 Construction documents.

New Rule Original Filing No 4101 :8-1-17 Unsafe buildings.

Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :8-43-01.2 Referenced standard list.

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 10/30/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

New Rule Revised Filing No 4101 :8-11-01 Energy efficiency.

8 Department of Commerce • Division of Real Estate

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 12/22/2006 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/17/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

New Rule Refiled Filing No 1301:5-7-03 Criteria for course approvals.

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 12/22/2006 Date of Refiled Filing: 11/1/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

New Rule Refiled Filing No 1301 :5-7-04 Distance education.

9 Department of Commerce • Elevators: Elevator Code

Total Rules: 10 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number

.JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page3·11/13/2007
/~

FINAL AGENDA

.~

JOINT COMMITTEE ON A~ENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

.-,

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101:5-1-02 Definitions.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 4101:5-1-03 Enforcement.

New Rule Original Filing No 4101 :5-1-03 Enforcement.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-1-04 Application for permit.

New Rule Original Filing No 4101:5-1-04 Application for permit.

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-1-05 Adjudication order.

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-1-06 Examination for certificate of competency.

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-1-07 Assessment fee.

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-3-02 Resolution of conflicts.

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-3-03 Special purpose personnel elevators.

10 Department of Development· Workforce Development

Total Rules: 4 Original Filing Date: 9/21/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/25/2007 Public Hearing: 10/29/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Rescission· Original Filing Yes 122:17-1-01 Worker guarantee program definitions.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 122:17-1-02 Worker guarantee program eligibility requirements.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 122:17-1-03 Worker guarantee program application process.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 122:17-1-04 Worker guarantee program annual report.

11 Department of Job and Family Services • Child Support

Total Rules: 15 Original Filing Date: 9/26/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/30/2007 Public Hearing: 10/31/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101:12-80-05 Collections and disbursements by child support payment central (CSPC).

New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :12-80-05 Collection and disbursement.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.1 Billing.

NeW Rule Original Filing No 5101:12-80-05.1 Collection at the child support enforcement agency.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.2 Collecting support payments.

New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :12-80-05.2 Date of collection.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.3 CSPC payment posting.

New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :12-80-05.3 Payment processing and disbursement.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.4 Child support payment central (CSPC) disbursements.

New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :12-80-05.4 Exception item processing and resolution.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.5 Exception processing.

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level' Columbus, Ohio 43215' (614) 466-4086' www.jcarr.state.oh.us' Page 4' 11/13/2007
FINAL AGENDA

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) . .

FINAL AGENDA

.--.,

New Rule Original Filing No 5-101:12-80-05.5 Check replacement.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101:12-80-05.6 Child support payment central (CSPC) recoupments.

New Rule Original Filing No 5101:12-80-05.6 Recoupment.

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101:12-80-05.7 Interstate cost recovery reporting.

12 Department of Job and Family Services· Division of Medical Assistance

Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 9/26/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/30/2007 Public Hearing: 10/31/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Original Filing Yes 5101 :3-2-07.2 Classification of hospitals.

Amendment Original Filing Yes 5101:3-2-07.8 Redetermination of prospective payment rates.

13 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Medical Assistance

Total Rules: 3 Original Filing Date: 9/25/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/29/2007 Public Hearing: 10/30/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Original Filing No 5101 :3-4-02.2 Site differential payments and place of service.

Amendment Original Filing Yes 5101 :3-4-08.1 Payment for prenatal visits.

Amendment Original Filing No 5101 :3-4-12 Immunizations.

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/25/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 10/30/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/29/2007 Public Hearing: 10/30/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number. Rule Title

Amendment Revised Filing No 5101 :3-1-60 Medicaid reimbursement.

14 Department of Job and Family Services· Division of Public Assistance

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/26/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/25/2007 Public Hearing: 10/17/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Refiled Filing Yes 5101:1-1-36 Income and eligibility verification system (IEVS) program.

15 Department of Job and Family Services· Division of Social Services

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 8/1/2007 . Date of Refiled Filing: 10/17/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/16/2007 Public Hearing: 9/5/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Refiled Filing Yes 5101 :2-9-02 Staffing requirements.

16 Department of Job and Family Services • ODJFS Practices

Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 9/27/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing:

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level' Columbus, Ohio 43215' (614) 466-4086' www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page5·11/13/2007
/"', ~, --,

FINAL AGENDA

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AbENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 - 1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

RuLe~voe Action .EY.81 Rule_Number

New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :9-6-29

Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :9-1 0-49

17 Department of Mental Health •

Total Rules: 5 Original Filing Date: 9/27/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number

Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-24-01

Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-29-03

Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-29-05

Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-29-28

Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-29-29

18 Department of Rehabilitation and Correction •

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/24/2007

Rule Type Action .EY.81 Rule Number

Amendment Original Filing No 5120-9-02

19 Qhio EnvironmentaLProtection Aaencv •

Rule Title

Earnings for the recovery of payments for erroneous aid to dependent children

(ADC), temporary assistance for needy families (TANF), Ohio works first (OWF)

and disability financial assistance (DFA).

Incentives for ADC, TANF, Ohio works first (OWF), and DA collections.

Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007

Rule Title

Certification definitions.

Behavioral health counseling and therapy service.

Pharmacologic management service.

Intensive home based treatment (IHBT) service.

Assertive community treatment (ACT) service.

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/28/2007 Public Hearing:

Rule Title

Use of force report and investigations.

Public Hearing: 6/8/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/22/2007 Public Hearing: 8/10/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/22/2007

3745-11 0-04

3745-11 0-05

3745-11 0-03

Date of Refiled Filing: 10/23/2007

Rule Number Rule Title

3745-110-01 Definitions.

RACT requirements and/or limitations for emissions of NOx from stationary

sources.

Compliance deadlines.

Compliance methods.

No

Original Filing Date: 5/1/2007

Action FYR?

Refiled Filing No

New Rule Refiled Filing

Total Rules: 4

Rule Type

New Rule

New Rule Refiled Filing No

New Rule Refiled Filing No

20 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/3/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/23/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Refiled Filing No 3745-31-01 Definitions.

21 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page6·11/13/2007
//.'........ c~ ~.

FINAL AGENDA

JOINTCOMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing:

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/16/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/22/2007 Public Hearing: 8/10/2007

3745-17-13

3745-17-12

Rule Title

Ambient air quality standards.

Measurement methods and procedures.

Compliance time schedules.

Non-degradation policy.

Control of visible particulate emissions from stationary sources.

Restriction of emission of fugitive dust.

Restrictions on particulate emissions and odors from incinerators.

Restrictions on particulate emissions from fuel burning equipment.

Restrictions on particulate emissions from industrial processes.

Additional restrictions on particulate emissions from specific air contaminant

sources in Cuyahoga county.

Additional restrictions on particulate emissions from specific air contaminant

sources in Jefferson county.

3745-17-14 Contingency plan requirements for Cuyahoga and Jefferson counties.

Date of Revised Filing: 10/16/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/16/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007

Rule Number Rule Title

3745-17-01 Definitions.

Rule Number

3745-17-02

3745-17-03

3745-17-04

3745-17-05

3745-17-07

3745-17-08

3745-17-09

3745-17-10

3745-17-11

Date of Refiled Filing: 10/23/2007

Rule Number Rule Title

3745-77-01 Definitions.

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007

~ule Type AQ1iQo. FYR?

Amendment Revised Filing Yes

23 Public Employees Retirement System·

Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 4/13/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 11/1/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Refiled Filing No 145-1-63 Guardianship and power of attorney.

Amendment Refiled Filing No 145-2-07 Purchase of additional service credit under section 145.201 of the Revised Code.

24 Public Employees Retirement System •

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/3/2007

Rule Type Action FYR?

Amendment Refiled Filing No

22 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency •

Total Rules: 12 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007

Rule Type Action FYR?

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Rescission Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Total Rules: 4 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing:

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page7·11/13/2007
......-.... ,~ -,

FINAL AGENDA

JOINT COMMITTEE ON A~ENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

Rule Title

Organization.

Board travel and expense reimbursement policy.

Appeal of staff membership determination.

Death benefit payment.

Rule Number

145-1-01

145-1-03

145-1-11

145-2-55

Rule Type Action FYR?

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing Yes

Amendment Original Filing No

Amendment Original Filing No

25 Public Employees Retirement System •

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 10/17/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007

Rule Type AQti.Qn FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Revised Filing Yes 145-1-02 Election of board members.

26 Public Utilities Commission of Ohio • Utilities

Date of Refiled Filing: 10/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/17/2007 Public Hearing:

Rule Number Rule Title

4901:1-7-02 General applicability.

4901:1-7-03 Toll presubscription.

4901 :1-7-14 Compensation for intrastate switched access traffic and carrier-to-carrier tariff.

Total Rules: 3 Original Filing Date: 9/5/2007

Rule Type Action FYR?

New Rule Refiled Filing No

New Rule Refiled Filing No

New Rule Refiled Filing No

27 Public Utilities Commission of Ohio • Utilities

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/5/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/17/2007 Public Hearing:

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

New Rule Refiled Filing No 4901:1-7-26 Competition safeguards.

28 School Employees Retirement System •

Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 9/27/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing:

Rule Type FYR? Rule Number Rule Tjtle

Amendment Original Filing No 3309-1-35 Health care.

Amendment Original Filing No 3309-1-53 Rollover distribution.

29 State Board of Emergency Medical Services •

Total Rules: 6

Rule Type

New Rule

New Rule

Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007

Action FYR? Rule Number

Original Filing No 4765-1-01

Original Filing No 4765-7-04

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007

Rule Title

Definitions.

Application for Accreditation.

Public Hearing: 10/17/2007

JCARR 77 South High Street - Concourse Level- Columbus, Ohio 43215 - (614) 466-4086 - www.jcarr.state.oh.us-Page8·11/13/2007
,.....---......

FINAL AGENDA

/..-...........

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

,~

FINAL AGENDA

New Rule Original Filing No 4765-7-05 Offsite locations.

New Rule Original Filing No 4765-7-06 Notification to the board.

New Rule Original Filing No 4765-7-08 Reinstatement of a certificate of accreditation or certificate of approval.

New Rule Original Filing No 4765-7-10 Reinstatement of revoked certificate of accreditation or certificate of approval.

Total Rules: 10 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 9/14/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/17/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-1-01 Definitions.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-01 Definitions.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-02 Accreditation of training programs.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-03 Provisional accreditation of training programs.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-04 Application for accreditation.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-05 Offsite locations.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-06 Notification to board.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-08 Reinstatement of certificate of accreditation.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-10 Validity of current certificates.

Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-12-05 Accreditation of training programs.

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 10/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/17/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

New Rule Revised Filing No 4765-7-02 Accreditation of Ohio EMS training programs.

30 State Racing Commission •

Total Rules: 7 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007

Rule Type Action FYR?

Rescission Original Filing Yes

New Rule Original Filing No

Rescission Original Filing Yes

New Rule Original Filing No

Rescission Original Filing Yes

Rescission Original Filing Yes

New Rule Original Filing No

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007

Rule Number Rule Title

3769-2-03 Procedure for adoption of rules.

3769-2-03 Procedure for adoption of rules.

3769-2-04 Public notice of commission meetings.

3769-2-04 Public notice of commission meetings.

3769-2-10 File list of officials.

3769-6-15 Moving and racing restrictions of claimed horse.

3769-6-15 Moving and racing restrictions of claimed horse.

Date of Revised Filing: 9/14/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007

JCARR 77 South High Street - Concourse Level- Columbus, Ohio 43215 - (614) 466-4086 - www.jcarr.state.oh.us - Page 9 - 11/13/2007
,-,-~-.... , /~

-- FINAL AGENDA

JOINT COMMITTEE ON A~ENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007

Rule Title

Ruled off.

Commission rules supersede.

Gifts forbidden.

Applicants for permit to conduct a horse race meeting.

Application for racing dates.

Permit to race.

Permits, agriculture societies, totalizator licenses.

License qualifications for trainer and assistant trainer and horseshoer.

License fees.

Numbering of mutuel windows and mutuel transactions.

Emergency substitute common pool wagering procedure.

Ohio thoroughbred race special account.

In hands of starter.

Rule Title

File list of officials.

Rule Number

3769-2-10

FYR?

No

Rule Type Action

New Rule Revised Filing

31 State Racing Commission •

Total Rules: 13 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-1-10

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-06

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-07

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-08

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-09

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-11

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-12

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-23

Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-24

Amendment Original Filing No 3769-3-07

Amendment Original Filing . No 3769-3-33

Amendment Original Filing No 3769-5-66

Amendment Original Filing No 3769-6-29

32 State Teachers Retirement System • Defined Benefits

Total Rules: 2

Rule Type

Amendment

Amendment

Original Filing Date: 9/21/2007

Action FYR? Rule Number

Original Filing No 3307:1-10-01

Original Filing No 3307:1-12-01

Rule Title

Cost-of-living.

Distributions.

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/25/2007 Public Hearing:

To Be Refiled

33 Attorney General • Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation

Total Rules: 3

Rule Type

Amendment

New Rule

Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Date of To Be Refiled: 11/9/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 10/22/2007

Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

To Be Refiled Yes 109:5-1-01 Procedure for requesting criminal records.

To Be Refiled No 109:5-1-03 Procedure for requesting and processing a search of the retained applicant

JCARR 77 South High Street - Concourse Level- Columbus, Ohio 43215 - (614) 466-4086 - www.jca".state.oh.us - Page 10 - 11/13/2007
/ ........,'''"',

FINAL AGENDA

,-..,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

fingerprint database.

New Rule To Be Refiled No 109:5-1-04 Operation and maintenance of the retained applicant fingerprint database.

34 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Social Services

Total Rules: 22 Original Filing Date: 9/13/2007 Date of To Be Refiled: 10/17/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 10/17/2007

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-01 Definitions.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-02 Exemptions.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-03 Procedures and registration.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-04 Application and fees for child day camp funding approval.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-05 Compliance review.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-06 Issuance and renewal.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-07 Complaint investigation.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-08 Denial and termination.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-09 Environmental health inspections.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-10 Camp personnel.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-11 Personnel training.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-12 Camp supervision.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-13 Camp program.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-14 Field trips.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-15 Health care.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-16 Medication.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-17 First aid supplies.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-18 Care of campers with disabilities or special health conditions.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-19 Admission'procedures.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-20 Camper's records.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-21 Safety.

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-22 Behavior management of campers.

35 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Social Services

Total Rules: 4 Original Filing Date: 9/13/2007 Date of To Be Refiled: 10/17/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 10/17/2007

Rule Type Action FYR'? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-23 Medical emergency procedures.

JCARR 77 South High Street - Concourse Level- Columbus, Ohio 43215 - (614) 466-4086 - www.jcarr.state.oh.us· Page 11 - 1111312007
FINAL AGENDA

,~

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AbENCY RULE REVIEW

11/13/2007 -1:30 P.M.

William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)

FINAL AGENDA

~.,....:;""""-

Amendment To Be Refited

Rescission To Be Refiled

New Rule To Be Refiled

Yes

Yes

No

5101 :2-18-24

5101 :2-18-25

5101 :2-18-25

Food preparation.

Vehicle safety and driver training.

Vehicle safety and driver training in approved child day camps.

Withdrawn

36 Department of Job and Family Services • Division of Medical Assistance

Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 10/16/2007 Date of Withdrawn Filing: 10/26/2007 Jurisdiction Ends:

Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

Amendment Withdrawn Filing No 5101:3-23-01 Disability medical assistance (DMA) program.

Public Hearing: 11/20/2007

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio 43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page12·11/13/2007
(

AppendixF

"Response to Comments" Summaries for the Draft and

Proposed Rule Revisions
I

"

(

CJiIEA\

Division of Air Pollution Control

Response to Comments

Draft Rule Language Comment Period

Rules: OAC Chapter 3745-17 (Particulate Matter Standards)

Agency Contact for this Package:

Division Contact: James A. Orlemann, DAPC (614-644-3592;

jim.orlemann@epa.state.oh.us)

Ohio EPA provided a 3D-day, "interested parties" comment period which ended on May

11, 2007. This document summarizes the comments and questions received during the

comment period.

Ohio EPA reviewed and considered all of the comments received during the public

comment period. By law, Ohio EPA has authority to consider specific issues related to

the protection of the environment and public health.

In responding to the comments, the responses have been organized by commenter. For

each commenter, each comment is either stated verbatim or summarized, followed by

the Agency's response.

A. Entity: Ohio Steel Group (Republic Engineered Products, Inc., WCI

Steel, Inc., Mittal Steel USA)

(

Comment:

Response:

In 1991, the Agency revised Chapter 3745-17 to achieve and

maintain the NAAQS for PM10. Those revisions were appealed

by the Ohio Steel Group. One of the issues raised in the Ohio

Steel Group's appeal remains unresolved, and that issue

concerns rule 3745-17-07 as it applies to the fugitive dust

emissions from BOF shop roof monitors. The Ohio Steel Group

believes the application of a 20% opacity limitation, as a 3-

minute average, is unreasonable and does not reflect the use of

RACT for the fugitive dust emissions from BOFs. The 20%

opacity limitation for BOF shop roof monitors should be based

upon a 6-minute average; and the Ohio Steel Group believes

the 5-year ruIe review for Chapter 3745-17 provides an

"excellent opportunity" for the Agency to address and resolve

this remaining appeal issue.

The Ohio Steel Group's appeal of Chapter 3745-17 has been

pending for 16 years. We do not agree with the contention that

20% opacity, as a 3-minute average, is an unreasonable

limitation for BOF shop roof monitors. We believe the limitation

is reasonable and is representative of RACT for the control of
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 2 of20

fugitive dust emissions from BOFs; and our position concerning (

this limitation has been expressed to the Ohio Steel Group on

numerous occasions. The 5-year rule review for Chapter 3745-

17 is not the appropriate mechanism for resolving this remaining

appeal issue. We believe the final resolution of this issue will

have to be accomplished through ERAC.

B. Entity: Ohio Manufacturer's Association and Ohio Chamber of

Commerce

Comment:

Response:

"The Ohio Manufacturer's Association and the Ohio Chamber of

Commerce are pleased to submit these comments in support of

Ohio's proposed amendments to OAC 3745-17-11. These

proposed amendments are primarily designed to clarify the

standards applicable to particulate emissions from surface

coating operations at affected sources. In summary,

we agree with Ohio EPA's practical approach for addressing

surface coating operations as provided in these proposed

amendments to OAC 3745-17-11. We urge Ohio EPA to adopt

these amendments as expeditiously as possible."

We appreciate the support for the proposed revisions to OAC

rule 3745-17-11. It is our intention to expeditiously proceed with

the promulgation of all the necessary revisions for Chapter

3745-17.

(

C. Entity: Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, LLC

Comment 1: "On April 11, 2007 the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

issued an "Interested Parties" notice containing draft language

that proposed a rule exemption for Martin Marietta Magnesia

Specialties, LLC ("Martin Marietta") from the requirements of

O.A.C. 3745-17-07(A) during the startup and shutdown of lime

producing kilns at Martin Marietta's Woodville, Ohio facility.

In accordance with the enclosed copies of prior submittals

regarding this matter on October 2, 2006; August 24, 2006;

March 21, 2006; December 15, 2006; and October 14, 2005;

Martin Marietta is submitting the following comments on the

proposed draft. Our experience has confirmed that the 600

degrees F operating temperature specification provided by the

manufacturer of our electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is applicable

during both shutdown and startup operations. Thus, Martin

Marietta requests that Ohio EPA add the following language to

the proposed rule: /

\
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 30f20

( "(iv) The shutdown of any kiln equipped with an electrostatic

precipitator (ESP), after the temperature of the exhaust gases

from the kiln has dropped below six hundred (600) degrees

Fahrenheit at the inlet of the ESP." "

Response 1: The October 14, 2005 document is a letter from April R. Bott of

Chester Willcox & Saxbe LLP, the law firm representing Martin

Marietta concerning the proposed revisions of OAC rule 3745-

17-07. In this letter, the company gives its initial

recommendations to Ohio EPA for the revisions that should be

made to the rule. The following is the company's suggested

wording for the exemption pertaining to an ESP:

"(ii) For any kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator, until

the kiln is operating in a steady-state condition using solid fuel.

Steady-state is present when a stable flame has been

established after solid fuel has been introduced into the kiln."

(

(

\.

No mention is made in this initial letter, or in the accompanying

technical support information, for a shutdown exemption for the

ESPs based upon temperature. In the affidavit provided by

George E. Williams, the facility's Process Engineering Manager,

he simply states the following: "Further, utilizing this ESP at

lower temperatures is not effective control since the resistivity of

lime dust at the lower temperature does not allow enough

particle charge to appropriately capture the emissions." One

page of the three pages provided from a document entitled

"Solutions. for Problem Dust Collectors," BHA gives a very brief

discussion of dust chemistry and resistivity as factors to

consider in the performance of an ESP. The discussion states:

"Dust collectibility changes when temperature fluctuates."

Nothing is specifically stated concerning the ESPs at Martin

Marietta's facility. Also, in the first page of a June 15, 1970 letter

from Buell Engineering Company, Inc. to Woodville Lime &

Chemical Company the prior owner of the facility, it is stated

that one of the "normal operating conditions" for one of the

existing kilns is 600 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the extent of

the technical support that is included in Martin Marietta's initial

request for a shutdown exemption for the ESPs based upon

temperature.

The December 15, 2005 document is a letter from Joe L. Green

of Martin Marietta that responds to the November 17, 2005

questions from the Ohio EPA concerning the company's

October 14, 2005 submission. Nothing in this letter addresses

the company's need for a shutdown exemption for the ESPs

based upon temperature.
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 4 of20

The March 21, 2006 document is an e-mail from Joe L. Green

that responds to the February 22, 2006 questions from the Ohio

EPA concerning the company's October 14, 2005 submission.

Nothing in this e-mail addresses the company's need for a

shutdown exemption for the ESPs based upon temperature.

The August 24, 2006 document is a letter from Joe L. Green

that responds to a June 6,2006 request from the Ohio EPA for

specific information concerning several issues. Nothing in this

letter addresses the company's need for a shutdown exemption

for the ESPs based upon temperature.

The October 2, 2006 document is a letter from Joe L. Green in

which comments are provided concerning a preliminary draft of

the proposed revisions to OAC rule 3745-17-07. One of the

recommendations in the letter is that Ohio EPA should consider

adding the. following language to specifically address the

shutdown of an ESP:

"(iv) The shutdown of any kiln equipped with an electrostatic

precipitator (ESP), after the temperature of the exhaust gases

from the kiln has dropped below six hundred (600) degrees

Fahrenheit at the inlet of the ESP."

This letter contains no information that supports the need for a

shutdown exemption for an ESP or that provides the basis for

the 600 degrees Fahrenheit temperature exemption level.

Although Martin Marietta has requested an exemption for the

shutdown of a kiln equipped with an ESP, the company has not

provided adequate information to support such a request.

When the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln drops

below 600 degrees, the efficiency of the ESP in removing

particulates from the gas stream may decrease; however, the

company has not provided any specific test data to support this

contention. Also, assuming there would be a decrease in the

efficiency of the ESP as the temperature drops, the company

has not provided any information that indicates such a decrease

in efficiency would cause the kiln to violate the opacity

limitations in OAC rule 3745-17-07. It is very likely that any

decrease in efficiency of the ESP would not cause opacity

violations because during the shutdown of the kiln the stone

feed and fuel firing have ceased, thereby dramatically reducing

the uncontrolled particulate emission rate from the kiln.

(
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 50f20

( Therefore, further revisions of OAC rule 3745-17-07 based upon

Comment 1 from Martin Marietta would not be appropriate.

Comment 2: "Martin Marietta is submitting the following comments on the

proposed rulemaking, based on recent questions about

apparent discrepancies between the Ohio EPA's definitions,

specifically the "maximum capacity of a source" specification,

and the terminology accepted by the USEPA under 40 CFR Part

63 AAAAA (Lime MACT) for using "representative operating

conditions." Therefore, we are enclosing copies of "Comments

of the National Lime Association (NLA)" regarding this subject

(as set forth on page 25) and the corresponding USEPA "Public

Comments and Responses" (showing acceptance of the NLA

suggestions on page 3-49) in August 2003. In addition, we

believe that a review of these documents may reveal other

inconsistencies that would warrant further revision of the

proposed rulemaking package, potentially reducing some of the

differences between the Ohio EPA requirements and USEPA

regulatory protocols."

(

Response 2: The relevance of this comment to OAC Chapter 3745-17, in

general, or to the proposed revisions of OAC Chapter 3745-17

is not apparent.

The following is the NLA's comment on the proposed MACT

regulations that is highlighted by Martin Marietta: "Performance

testing should be conducted under "representative" conditions

rather than under the "highest production level reasonably

expected to occur."" The USEPA's response to this comment,

which also is highlighted by Martin Marietta, is: 'We have

changed the requirement in the final rule to require testing under

representative Conditions, which is in agreement with the

language in the General Provisions."

In applying the MACT regulations and determining compliance

with those regulations, Ohio EPA would require that

performance tests for particulate emissions be conducted while

the kiln is operating at representative operating conditions. This

approach would not cause a conflict with the requirements of

OAC Chapter 3745-17 because the allowable particulate

emission rates under the MACT regulations are substantially

more stringent than the allowable particulate emission rates

under OAC rule 3745-17-11.

Therefore, Comment 2 from Martin Marietta does not

necessitate any further revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-17.
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007

D. Entity: Denison University

Page 60f20

Comment:

Response:

'We would like you to consider changing the start-up

temperature on baghouses found in Rule OAC 3745-17 -

Particulate Matter Standards. The current switch-over

temperature standard is too low which could lead to potential

safety problems or additional particulate emissions.

Mr. Charles Schmidt P.E. concurs and has written a letter that

provides data and the rationale for making this change. His

letter isatlached to this e-mail.

By allowing the baghouse to warm up a few extra hours, acids

will not form on the bags or other metal surfaces. This will keep

the equipment operating at peak efficiency. Mr. Schmidt has

calculated that two hours of additional start-up time would

release an additional 40 Ibs of particulate per year based on an

average of 4 starts per year. Damaged bags, on the other

hand, could potentially release an additional 11,529 Ibs of

particulate based upon 8000 tons of coal burned per year."

In Mr. Schmidt's letter he gives the following recommendation:

"The baghouse must be bypassed until the flue gas temperature

at the baghouse inlet is above 380 degrees F. The higher flue

gas is required to minimize the sulfuric acid formation in the

weave of the bags."

OAC rule 3745-17-07(A)(3)(a)(i), which specifies the 250

degrees Fahrenheit exemption threshold, was promulgated in

October of 1983. The 250 degrees Fahrenheit temperature is

intended to prevent damage to the control equipment as a result

of acid deposition, and the value was chosen only after much

consultation with USEPA. In the 23 years this exemption has

been in effect, there have been essentially no complaints or

documentation from the regulated community .that would

indicate the existing temperature level is unreasonably low and,

as a result, causes damage to the control equipment.

Therefore, there does not appear to be a need to increase the

temperature exemption level for all affected emissions units.

(

Nevertheless, the existing rule does state "that the Director may

incorporate a higher start-up temperature in the permit or

variance for such source for which an applicant demonstrates to

the satisfaction of the Director that the higher temperature is

needed for safety considerations or to prevent damage to the /

control equipment." In this case, Denison University has \.

recommended or requested a temperature exemption level of
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 70f20

( 380 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent damage to their baghouse

as a result of acid deposition; however, no information has been

provided to indicate that in complying with an exemption level of

250 degrees Fahrenheit the baghouse has suffered any kind of

damage. Absent such information, the Ohio EPA would

continue to believe that the 250 degrees Fahrenheit exemption

level is adequate to protect the baghouse from damage. If

Denison University has additional information to support its

position, it should be submitted to the Ohio EPA and it will be

reviewed and evaluated, but not as part of this 5-year rule

review for OAC Chapter 3745-17.

E. Entity: Office of Compliance Assistance and Pollution Prevention,

Ohio EPA

(

(

Comment 1:

Response 1:

Comment 2:

"3745-17-11 (A)(1 )(k)

This paragraph exempts processes using "hand-held cup spray

guns" and "other hand-held devices" from the particulate control

requirements. The use of these terms could lead to

considerable confusion and varied interpretations by the field

offices since the terms are undefined. Potentially, any manually

operated spray gun could be interpreted to be a "hand-held

device". As worded, this could potentially exclude all manual

spraying operations from the rule.

It is suggested that paragraph (A)(1 )(k) simply reference "handheld cup spray guns" and the ambiguous term "other hand-held

devices" be deleted but have its intent incorporated into the list

of methods in paragraph (A)(1 )(h) using elaborative examples,

i.e., spray cans, pads, swabs, or anything non-atomized."

The phrase "and other hand-held devices" admittedly is vague

and potentially could lead to arguments from the regulated

community that no manual spraying operations are subject to

the rule. Paragraph (A)(1 )(k) is not intended to exclude all

manual spraying operations from the requirements of OAC rule

3745-17-11; therefore, the phrase "and other hand-held

devices" will be deleted from paragraph (A)(1 )(k).

"3745-17-11 (A)(1 )(j)

It is not clear if the intent of this paragraph is to exempt all

coating processes that employ airless spray or to exempt only

the named examples of coating processes for sealers,

adhesives and deadeners. This leads to questions about

whether primers, topcoats, and c1earcoats are exempted too if
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 8 of20

applied by airless equipment. The synopsis states the amount (

of overspray from the airless spray application method is

considered to be negligible. Simply wording the exclusion as

"surface coating processes that employ airless spray application

equipment" would improve clarity."

Response 2: Surface coating processes that employ airless spray application

methods could be used for many different types of coatings.

Sealers, adhesives, and deadeners are mentioned as several

examples of such coatings. Airless spray application methods

are commonly used for these three types of coatings within

automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants. This is not

meant to be an exhaustive listing of the possible coatings.

Therefore, no changes to the wording of this paragraph are

necessary.

Comment 3: "3745-17-1 HC)(1)

This paragraph states that any surface coating process not

exempt shall be controlled by a dry particulate filter, waterwash,

or equivalent control device or devices. It does not state that

surface coating operations must take place in a booth,

enclosure, or hood so particluate emissions can be contained

and routed to such a control device.

OCAPP receives many calls from industry about regulations for

spray painting operations. One common question is "What are

the EPA requirements for a paint booth?". Aside from the

issues pertaining to de minimis, permit exemption, or PTIIPTO,

the OAC does not specify any design criteria for a booth,

enclosure, stack, or even state that a booth is required. How

then, is one to know a booth or enclosure is needed? The

proposed rule appears to be indirectly requiring a booth

because of the stated particulate control requirements.

The proposed requirements of paragraph (C)(1) do not contain

any exemptions for large painting operations done in a building

area or other non-booth type environment. Consider the case of

a business that fabricates and paints large steel structural

members. The large assemblies are painted in an open area on

the plant floor since constructing a large paint booth and

maneuvering the assemblies in and out is impractical. By

applying 6 gallons per day of VOC-compliant coatings via a

single, air-atomized spray gun, this coating operation is violating

the proposed rule by not having particulate controls. Are the

new proposed requirements intended to apply to this type of

coating operation?"

(
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 90f20

(

(

Response 3:

Comment 4:

The rule does not contain any specifications for an enclosure

that would be used as part of a control system for a surface

coating process. An enclosure would be viewed as an integral

part of any control system, as would, for example, the exhaust

fan. It is assumed that an adequately designed enclosure will

be installed for each type of control device so that the control

device will be able to function effectively in controlling the

particulate emissions from the surface coating process. It does

not appear to be necessary to include specifications for an

enclosure in the proposed rule. Decisions concerning the

design of an enclosure should be left to the manufacturer of the

control device and the owner/operator of the surface Goating

process.

For a surface coating process that coats very large items within

large buildings, it may not be technically feasible and/or

economically reasonable to install an enclosure (or hooding)

and control device for the control of the particulate emissions.

In such cases, an exemption from the requirements of GAe rule

3745-17-11 (e) would be necessary. To address this possibility,

which probably would be very rare, a new exemption will be

added to paragraph (A)(1). The new exemption will read as

follows:

"(I) Surface coating processes for which the owner or operator

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that, due to the

large size of the item(s) being coated, it is technically infeasible

and/or economically unreasonable (in terms of costeffectiveness) to employ an enclosure (or hooding) and control

device for the control of the particulate emissions."

"3745-17-11 (e)(2)

(c) This paragraph requires the owner or operator to conduct

periodic inspections of the control devices to determine

whether the devices are operating in accordance with the

manufacturer's recommendations, instructions, or operating

manuals. Since 'periodic' is not defined, this will create

uncertainly for the operator, inspector, and permit writer as to

what is required.

(d) This paragraph requires the owner or operator to document

inspections of the equipment. Since the documentation

requirements are not defined, this paragraph would also create

confusion as to what is required.
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 10 of 20

(e) This paragraph requires the owner or operator to make \

timely repairs of control devices. Again, 'timely' is an

ambiguous term that could mean different things to different

people.

OCAPP recognizes the intent of these provisions is to require

companies to maintain and repair control equipment, similar to

current permit terms and conditions. However, all of the above

paragraphs would promote regulatory inconsistency in permits

and inspection activities conducted by the district offices and

local air agencies unless the highlighted terms are defined in the

rule."

Response 4: The wording of paragraph (C)(2)(c) was drafted based upon the

assumption that the periodic inspections would be conducted in

accordance with the frequency recommended by the

manufacturer of the control device. To ensure that each control

device will be inspected at a reasonable frequency, the

assumption will be added as a requirement within the rule.

Therefore, the following wording will be added to the paragraph

after the first sentence:

"The periodic inspections of each control device shall be

performed at a frequency that is based upon the

recommendation of the manufacturer of the control device, and

the owner or operator shall maintain a copy of the

manufacturer's recommended inspection frequency."

In paragraph (C)(2)(d), it would be helpful to clarify what

documentation should be maintained for each inspection.

Therefore, the sentence will be revised to read as follows:

"The owner or operator shall document each inspection of a

control device by maintaining a record that includes the date of

the inspection, a description of each problem identified and the

date it was corrected, a description of the maintenance and

repairs performed, and the name of the person who performed

the inspection."

In paragraph (C)(2)(e), it would be difficult to define a time frame

within which all types of repairs must be completed. The

important concept in this paragraph is that any repairs should be

completed promptly. The word "timely" in this paragraph will be

changed to "expeditiously" to convey this concept more clearly.

The records required by revised paragraph (C)(2)(d) can be

reviewed by the field office inspector to determine whether or

notthe repairs are being completed expeditiously.

(

(
(

Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007

F. Entity: Dave Newsad

Page 11 of20

Comment 1: "Here are my observations and questions on the proposed

exemption (k).

As you know the proposed exemption states,

"Surface Coating processes that employ hand held cup spray

guns and other hand held devices"

First thing is the proposal does not include the word "only"

(note: did notice the similar proposed exemption under (h)

includes this term). SO,ifan operation is permitted and employs

other equipment such as an air spray gun I would assume the

intent is not to exempt the air spray gun portion of the process

from 17-11?"

Response 1: The assumption is correct. This paragraph would only exempt

hand held cup spray guns.

(

Comment 2: "Second, I noted "cup spray gun" and "other hand held devices"

are undefined in the regulation and I looked at the background

and synopsis and did not see this addressed.

With regard to "cup spray guns" I spent a little time seeing if

there is an industry definition for this term. I could not find one.

If there is one out there, I suggest adding one in the rule. So I hit

a couple of websites and found this

http://www.google.com/search?g=spray+cup+guns. From this it

looks to me like "cup spray guns" can run up to 2 quarts in

volume. I understand some people, such as the auto industry,

use some really small ones (4 oz volume etc.) for repair

activities and touch up activities. On the other hand it does not

look to me this proposed exemption is just limited to the auto

industry.

Also, the term "other hand held devices" seems pretty

ambiguous? What's the intent here?

Seems to me the proposed 5 gallon/day usage exemption (i)

ought to cover any very small emitters including the ones under

(k) and maybe just dropping (k) altogether would avoid these

issues."

(

Response 2: A cup spray gun consists simply of a spray gun that is attached

directly to a container that holds a small volume of coating, e.g.,
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 120f20

one quart. The spray gun and attached container are small

enough that they can be carried easily by hand. A hand held

cup spray gun is a commonly understood term for the coating

equipment manufacturers and the companies that employ such

equipment; therefore, it does not appear necessary to have a

definition for this term in this paragraph.

As mentioned in a previous response, the phrase "and other

hand-held devices'" admittedly is vague and potentially could

lead to arguments from the regulated community that no manual

spraying operations are subject to the rule. Therefore, the

phrase "and other hand-held devices" will be deleted from

paragraph (A)(1 )(k).

It is unlikely that the 5 gallons/day exemption would cover all the

processes that would be exempted under paragraph (k);

therefore, there would be a need to retain the exemption in

paragraph (k). Also, any surface coating process exempted

pursuant to paragraph (k) would not be required to maintain

records that demonstrate the coating usage is less than 5

gallons/day.

Comment 3: "Finally, suggest considering adding something in there about

keeping adequate records (not necessarily daily· records) on

coating usage to demonstrate the usage is maintained below

proposed 5 gallons/day under (i)."

(

Response 3: Any owner or operator that claims the 5 gallons/day usage

exemption will need to maintain records that demonstrate the

actual coating usage complies with the usage exemption. To

make this obligation clear, paragraph (i) will be revised to read

as follows:

"Surface coating processes that use less than five gallons of

coatings per day, provided the owner or operator maintains

coating usage records, coating purchase records, and/or

production records that clearly demonstrate the actual coating

usage is less than five gallons per day;"

G. Entity: Regional Air Pollution Control Agency

Comment 1: "General Comments: RAPCA strongly recommends Ohio EPA

take the opportunity during this 5-year rule review process to

revise Ch. 17 to address the changes needed in accordance

with the S.B. 265 requirements, as well as the PM2.5 nonattainment situation throughout the state of Ohio. The changes

to the law as a result of S.B. 265 require the state to establish

{
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 130(20

(

(

specific Best Available Technology (BAT) rules by August,

2009. RAPCA recommends Ohio EPA incorporate into the Ch.

17 rules more stringent requirements that are in line with the

BAT requirements that were used in permits for new and

modified sources prior to August, 2006. Specifically, RAPCA

proposes Ohio EPA incorporate the various BAT emission

limitations and restrictions that were included in the General

Permit terms and conditions created for ready mix concrete

batch plants; unpaved roadways & parking areas; paved

roadways & parking areas; and storage piles.

Additionally, Ohio EPA should take this opportunity to

incorporate BAT emission limitations and restrictions for other

particulate emission sources, such as, grinding operations, salt

bath processes, shot blasting, topsoil screens, tub grinders,

draw-benches and welding operations."

Response 1: These suggested revisions are beyond the scope of the 5-year

rule review process for Chapter 3745-17. The Ohio EPA has

not yet determined what control measures will be required to

achieve the PM2.5 NAAQS throughout the State. New rules will

be developed after the .necessary control measures for the

PM2.5 NAAQS have been defined. In addition, new rules will

be necessary to define the BAT requirements for new air

contaminant sources. Work on those rules has only recently

begun.

Comment 2: "17-02 (C): Revise the last sentence to "The standards are

attained , is less than or equal to one hundred and fifty

micrograms per cubic meter." This change will also make the

sentence more consistent with paragraphs (0), (E), and (F)."

Response 2: The second and last sentences in paragraphs (0), (E), and (F)

refer to an ambient air "concentration" in defining when the

standards are attained. The second and last sentence in

paragraph (C) does not. It refers to the "expected number of

days per calendar year" in defining when the standards are

attained; therefore, it would not be appropriate to revise the

paragraph to specify an ambient air concentration as

recommended.

Comment 3: "17-02 (0): Add per cubic meter to the last sentence."

Response 3: This change is not necessary because paragraph (0) will be

deleted. See Comment 2 and Response 2 under Entity J.
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 14 of 20

Comment 4: "17-02 (E): In October of 2006, the primary and secondary

twenty-four hour standards for PM2.5 were revised to thirty-five

micrograms per cubic centimeter. The rule needs to reflect this

change."

Response 4: The wording of this paragraph, which will become paragraph

(D), will be changed to reflect the fact that USEPA has revised

the standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35

micrograms per cubic meter.

Comment 5: "17-07 (A)(1 )(a) & (b): Reduce the opacity limit for point sources

from twenty percent to ten percent opacity for new installations

and/or modified emissions units.

17-07 (8)(1): Reduce the opacity limit for fugitive dust sources

from twenty percent to ten percent opacity for new installations

and/or modified emissions units.

17-07 (8)(11): Revise 17-07 such that, the opacity requirements

apply to all new installations and/or modified emissions units,

regardless of location. This would be accomplished by

removing the "Appendix A" restriction in the applicability in both

17-07 and 17-08.

17-08 (A)(1): Remove the "Appendix A" restriction for new

installations and/or modified emissions units, such that, the

restrictions on fugitive dust emissions applies to all areas in the

state, regardless of location."

Response 5: It appears the intent of these recommendations is to define new

opacity and RACM requirements for new air contaminant

sources. As explained in the response to the first comment,

these types of recommended changes for new air contaminant

sources go beyond the scope of the 5-year rule review process

for Chapter 3745-17. See Response 1.

Comment 6: "17-09: Add crematoriums to this rule and also to the definitions

in 17-01. Currently there is no specific rule that covers

crematoriums. However, we cite this rule in all crematorium

permits."

(

Response 6: OAC rule 3745-17-09 always has applied to crematoriums.

OAC rule 3745-17-01(8)(9) defines "incinerator" as "any

equipment used to burn solid refuse " OAC rule

37d45-1d7-~1 (8)(1

1

9) defines,"refuse:' as "adny m

t

attfer ~1'thiCt h i~t to be {

re uce In vo ume In or er 0 aCI I a e IS .

disposal." Clearly, human and animal remains would fall under
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 15 of 20

(

Comment 7:

the definition of "refuse." There undoubtedly are ways the

definitions could be revised to clarify in a more "politically

correct" manner that the particulate emissions from the

incineration of human and animal remains are regulated by

GAC rule 3745-17-09; however, such a clarification does not

appear to be necessary at this time. To date, there has not

been a problem in regulating crematoriums under GAC rule

3745-17-09.

"17-10: According to Figure 1, a derated source is allowed to

have a higher Ibs/mmBtu rating if the total heat input is derated

from the source. Revise Figure 1 such that when a source is

derated the allowable heat input is decreased."

(

Response 7: GAC rule 3745-17-10 states that the derated total heat input

would be used as the total heat input for purposes of

determining the allowable particulate emission rate from Figure

I. In addition, paragraph (3)(c) of that rule is very clear in stating

that if the Director approves a derated total heat input, the

"terms and conditions of any permit for equipment which

has been granted a derated total heat input value shall prohibit

the operation of such equipment at a level in excess of the

derated total heat input value." Therefore, the recommended

revision of this rule does not appear to be necessary.

Comment 8: "17-11 (A)(2): Clarify whether or not the emission restrictions, as

determined through either Table I or Figure II, take into account

control device efficiencies."

Response 8: Table I gives the allowable particulate emission rate as a

,function of the maximum process weight rate for the air

contaminant source. Figure II gives the allowable particulate

emission rate as a function of the uncontrolled mass rate of

emission for the air contaminant source or, if applicable, the

group of air contaminant sources. If a control device is

employed to meet the allowable particulate emission rate from

Table I or Figure II, whichever is applicable, the efficiency must

be adequate to comply with that emission rate while the source

is operating at its maximum capacity. It does not appear that

any clarification of the use of Table I or Figure II is necessary.

Comment 9: "17-11 (B)(2) & (B)(3): Remove the application of "curve P-2"

and "curve P-3" from Figure II. for newly installed and/or

modified emissions units after the effective date of this rule

revision."
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 16 of 20

Response 9: Implementation of this recommended change would cause the (

allowable particulate emission rates from OAC rule 3745-17-11

to become more stringent for new air contaminant sources

located in the counties specified in paragraphs (8)(2) and (8)(3).

As explained in the response to the first comment, these types

of recommended changes for new air contaminant sources go

beyond the scope of the 5-year rule review process for Chapter

3745-17. See Response 1.

H: Entity: FirstEnergy Corporation

Comment 1: Why is the definition for "particulate matter" being changed?

Response 1: The definition of "particulate matter" hasn't changed. We added

definitions for "PM2.5" and "PM10" and deleted the definition for

"total suspended particulates." OAC rule 3745-17-02 now only

refers to "PM2.5" and "PM10;" therefore, there no longer is a

need for a definition for "total suspended particulates."

Comment 2: Why has the definition of "particulate emissions" changed?

Response 2: This definition was changed only in format. "Appendix A" is now

included in the "Incorporation by reference" section, in

paragraph (C)(2)(i). That paragraph refers to the current

effective date of the CFR.

I. Entity: Ford Motor Company

(

Comment: "Given the announced plans to shut down CCP by the end of

2009, Ford Motor Company withdraws our comments regarding

OAC 3745-17-12(1) filed by E-mail May 10, 2007 and instead

requests that the proposed rules be retained with minor

amendment to reflect current (and anticipated based on our

current plans) operations at CCP. Given our recent

discussions, we believe that this approach (retaining rules

(1)(50) and (51) and making minimal regulatory change to the

other paragraphs) will provide adequate flexibility for CCP over

the next couple of years.

We have attached marked-up versions of draft rules 3745-17-12

and 3745-17-04 for consideration in the current rules update

process. The suggested changes are shown in green font with

double underline for additions and double strikethrough for

deletions in the attached files.

(
(

Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007

3745-17-12(1)

Page 17 of20

(

(7) Sources F024, P091, & P092 added since part of their

emissions were rerouted to A-Unit Baghouse when KOH

Collector No.5 was shutdown.

(7) P044 has been removed.

(7)(a) Sources F024, P091, & P092 added since part of their

emissions are ducted to A-Unit Baghouse.

(7)(a) A unit baghouse allowable concentration changed from

0.011 to 0.010 grain/acf to be consistent with limits in paragraph

(4) for F024, P091, and P092. Stack test data supports this

capability for the baghouse.

(9) Added "associated with cupola Nos. 1 and 7" for clarity.

(21) P148 (mold conveyor) added, "casting" added to clearly

describe P149 (casting shakeout), and "muller" replaced with

"preparation" to match Title V description of source P158.

(30) "Castings cooler" replaced with "casting cooling" to be

consistent with Title V equipment terminology.

(44) P099 (core curing oven) has been removed.

(48) Added tapping operations associated with P901 and

P902 since these sources also use stack G-36.

3745-17-04(8)

(6) a, e, f, and g The effective dates were adjusted for the

sections of 3745-17-12(1) for which changes are proposed."

Response: All of the additional rule revisions recommended by the Ford

Motor Company are acceptable and will be added to OAC rules

3745-17-04 and 3745-17-12(1).

/

i

'.

J. Entity: USEPA, Region 5

Comment 1: "-01 - paragraphs (B)(15) and (B)(16) are somewhat confusing,

especially to those of us that are used to designations being

something else. I suggest the following wording, for (B)(15) as

an example: (15) "PM2.5" means particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5

micrometers as measured either by a reference method that is

based on 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L and designated in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 53 or by an equivalent method

designated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53." (The wording

in bold print is the recommended new wording.)

Response 1: The proposed wording changes are acceptable; therefore,

paragraphs (B)(15) and (B)(16) will be revised accordingly.
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 18 of 20

Comment 2: "-02(D) - We rescinded the annual PM10 standard, and Ohio

may wish to rescind the annual standard from the State rule."

I

\

Response 2: Because USEPA has rescinded the annual ambient air quality

standard for PM10, paragraph (D) will be deleted, and proposed

paragraphs (E) and (F) will be changed to paragraphs (D) and

(E), respectively.

Comment 3: "-02(E) - The 24-hour standard for PM2.5 is 35 ug/m3, not 65

ug/m3."

Response 3: This revision will be made to what will become paragraph (D).

See Comment 4 and Response 4 for Entity G.

Comment 4: "-03(A) - Ambient PM2.5 is reported at local conditions, not

standard conditions. The provision for adjustment to standard

conditions applies only to PM10."

Response 4: This difference in the measurement procedures for PM2.5 and

PM10 requires a change in the wording of the second sentence

in paragraph (A). That sentence will be revised to read as

follows:

"Such measurements for PM10 shall be corrected to standard

conditions for purposes of comparing measurements with the

ambient air quality standards set forth in rule 3745-17-02 of the

Administrative Code."

The new wording in the sentence is shown in bold print.

Comment 5: "-03(B)(10)(c) - I suspect that you need to retain the reference to

the 15th edition. I'm not sure that subsequent editions have the

proper test method; they may not have the method at aiL"

Response 5: The 20th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Wastewater is now referenced in paragraph (C)(2)(t)

of rule 3745-17-01. Total dissolved solids is a very common

test for wastewater; therefore, this test procedure would be

included in any updated editions of the reference book.

Because the edition number is cited in rule 3745-17-01, it is no

longer necessary to cite that number in paragraph (B)(10)(c) of

rule 3745-17-03.

Comment 6: "-07(A)(3)U) - I have of course not reviewed the justification for

opacity exemptions for Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties. I

am consulting someone here that is more knowledgeable on the

subject, and I will provide additional comments soon."

(

(
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 190'20

(

(

Response 6: If USEPA has comments on the proposed opacity exemptions,

they can be submitted after the proposed rulemaking for

Chapter 3745-17 is issued.

Comment 7: "-11 - The surface coating provisions seem like a reasonable

approach for this type of source."

Response 7: (No response is necessary for this comment.)

Comment 8: "-12 - I have no comments on the particular provisions for Ford.

We have been having separate discussions regarding Ford. I

encourage Ohio to obtain the information needed to address

whether the revisions might interfere with attainment. I will

continue to engage in discussions regarding this issue, and I

encourage Ohio to continue to pursue resolution of this issue

and to incorporate the results into 3745-17-12 in this rulemaking

if possible."

Response 8: The Ford Motor Company has modified its comments on the

proposed revisions to OAC rules 3745-17-04 and 3745-17-12.

See the comments and response for the Ford Motor Company

[Entity I.] The modified comments eliminate the need for a

demonstration that the rule revisions will not jeopardize the

PM10 attainment demonstration for Cuyahoga County.

Comment 9: "-13 - I have no comments other than to note that the

acceptability of the justification will largely depend on the

acceptability of the revised modeling analysis, along with a

demonstration that the result that applies for PM10 (Le.,

noninterference with attainment) also applies for PM2.5."

(

Response 9: A modeling analysis has been performed that demonstrates that

the proposed, revised emission limitations for Wheeling -

Pittsburgh Steel Corporation do not jeopardize the PM10

attainment demonstration for Jefferson County. That modeling

demonstration will be provided to USEPA for review.

Concerning PM2.5 emissions, all the significant sources of

PM2.5 emissions that are currently cited in paragraph (C) for the

Steubenville facility have been permanently shut down. Also,

several of the significant sources of PM2.5 emissions that are

currently cited in paragraph (0) for the Mingo Junction facility

have been permanently shut down; several other significant

sources cited in the paragraph have revised allowable emission

limitations that are more stringent than the existing limitations;

and only two sources cited in the paragraph have revised

allowable emission limitations that are less stringent than the
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Draft Rule Language

September 12, 2007 Page 200(20

existing limitations. Therefore, the proposed revisions for

paragraphs (C) and (D) will not exacerbate the PM2.5

nonattainment problem for Jefferson County. Nevertheless,

more detailed information will be provided to USEPA to

demonstrate the impact of the proposed rule revisions on the

PM2.5 ambient air quality.

Comment 10: "-14 - As noted above, we no longer have an annual average

PM10 standard. This raises the question whether to retain a

contingency measure trigger based on annual PM10

concentrations. Call me or email me if you would like to discuss

this question further."

Response 10: Because the annual PM10 standard has been rescinded by

USEPA, paragraph (C) of rule 3745-17-14 will be revised to

delete the references to the annual average ambient air

concentration as a possible "trigger" for implementation of the

contingency measures required in paragraph (A) of the rule.

(
( Division of Air Pollution Control

Response to Comments

Proposed Rule Language Comment Period

Rules: OAC Chapter 3745-17 (Particulate Matter Standards)

Agency Contact for this Package:

Division Contact: James A. Orlemann, DAPC (614-644-3592;

jim.orlemann@epa.state.oh.us)

Ohio EPA provided a 3Q,-day, comment period for the proposed rules which ended on

October 19, 2007. This document summarizes the comments received during the

comment period.

Ohio EPA reviewed and considered all of the comments received during the public

comment period. By law, Ohio EPA has authority to consider specific issues related to

the protection of the environment and public health.

Each comment is stated verbatim, followed by the Agency's response.

A. Entity: Environmental Committee of the Ohio Electric Utilities

Comment 1: Clarify OAC 3745-17-03(C)

The current language in OAC 3745-17-03(C) is potentially confusing

regarding the Ohio SIP requirements for existing sources. Read in a vacuum, it

could convey a misleading impression as to the scope and breadth of the

requirements to install continuous opacity monitors ("COMs"). Ohio EPA can

clarify these requirements, either by revising lherule or providing a "comment"

explaining the rule and reference to Appendix P.

Appendix P, as referenced in OAC 3745-17-03(C), applies to regulatory

programs in a state SIP adopted pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(b). 40 CFR 51.165

Permit Requirements or, more specifically, 40 CFR 51.165(b)(1), dictates the

minimum terms that the rules of a state preconstruction review permit program

must require in all new major stationary source or major modification permits

issued under the state's program. Appendix P literally states that any new major

stationary source or any source subject to a major modification applying for and

obtaining a preconstruction permit from a state permit program must install and

operate a COM if it meets the applicability requirements laid out in the Appendix.

Any existing source, new minor source, or source not meeting the applicability

requirements in Appendix P does not have an obligation to install and operate a

COM, either under the Appendix or the Ohio SIP.
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Proposed Rule Language

November 13, 2007 Page 2 of3

When first proposed in 1985-1986, U.S. EPA intended Appendix P to (

apply to existing sources. The Appendix originally referenced 40 CFR 51.19(e)

which, at that time, made COMs a requirement for sources meeting Appendix P's

applicability section in the state. However, in the November 7,1986 rulemaking,

51 FR 40656, U.S. EPA removed the reference to 40 CFR 51.19(e) and changed

it to 40 CFR 51.165(b) instead. Hence, the Appendix as referenced in the

current Ohio SIP, as of 1994, only applies to new or modified sources. Prior

existing sources are not "subject to" Appendix P.

Ohio EPA should consider revising the current language (specifically

referencing the limitation to new major sources or major modifications and

additional applicability criteria in Appendix P) or add a comment to clarify this

question of applicability. This clarification will not result in the use of fewer COMs

in the utility sector, since most of these operations still have an obligation to

install and operate COMs under 40 CFR Part 75. However, the requirements for

COM installation, certification, exemptions, etc. under 40 CFR Part 75 are more

up to date than the historic requirements of Appendix P, and this clarification will

avoid any potential misinterpretation or conflict between these existing programs.

Existing utility units are currently required to comply with, and only with, the Part

75 requirements. The Ohio rules should reflect that.

Response 1:

As stated in rule 3745-17-03(C)(1), any emissions unit that is subject to 40

CFR Part 51, Appendix P, must operate and maintain a continuous opacity

monitoring system. Rule 3745-17-01 clarifies that the version of Appendix P

cited in rule 3745-17-03 is the version that was amended on November 7, 1986

(at 51 FR 40675). That version of Appendix P "sets forth the minimum

requirements for continuous emission monitoring that each State Implementation

Plan must include in order to be approved under the provisions of 40 CFR

51.165(b)." 40 CFR 51.165(b) pertains to "any new major stationary source or

major modification." In addition, 40 CFR 51.214 requires existing sources to

meet the requirements of Appendix P. 40 CFR 51.214(a) states the following:

"The plan must contain legally enforceable procedures to: (1) Require stationary

sources subject to emission standards as part of an applicable plan to install,

calibrate, maintain, and operate equipment for continuously monitoring and

recording emissions; and (2) Provide other information as specified in appendix P

of this part." Appendix P is not applicable only new sources as indicated in the

comment; therefore, no revisions to the wording in OAC rule 3745-17-03 are

necessary. (The applicability of Appendix P to both new and existing sources

also was confirmed by USEPA, Region 5.)

Comment 2: Revise OAC 3745-17-10

The second clarification Ohio EPA should make is the inclusion of an

explicit "start up/shut down" exemption for PM emissions. Such an exemption is

consistent with the requirements for new and modified sources under 40 CFR

(

(
Rule Package: Chapter 3745-17 (5-year rule review)

Response to Comments - Proposed Rule Language

November 13, 2007 Page 3 0(3

(

60.8, and existing sources have been required to demonstrate compliance under

the existing Ohio SIP requirements during "representative normal operating

conditions" using the same Reference Method testing requirements for these

limitations. Such tests cannot be performed during startup/shutdown. The Ohio

SIP should make this clarification explicitly. OAC 3745-17-07(A)(3) currently

articulates this exemption for sources subject to the opacity requirements used

as indicators of good performance for the particulate emission control equipment.

Ohio EPA should incorporate this language into OAC 3745-17-10.

Under Ohio's current SIP, the only method of measuring compliance with

the PM limits is the prescribed Reference Method 5 stack test, set out in OAC

3745-17-03. The Reference Method prohibits the performance of a stack test

during start up or shutdown. However, additional methods have been approved

by U.S. EPA and, in the future, the installation of other measuring techniques or

devices may become more prevalent. Such alternative devices or methods may,

in fact, be capable of taking measurements or gathering data during start

up/shutdown despite the inapplicability of that data, much as COMs do currently.

In that circumstance, the Ohio SIP should be clear that such data are not

indicative of compliance, as the PM limits do not apply during these time periods.

Ohio EPA should take the current language in OAC 3745-17-07(A)(3) and

repeat it in OAC 3745-17-10. This is consistent with the usage and application of

the current Reference Method used to determine compliance with the Ohio SIP

limits, as well as 40 CFR 60.8. It would avoid confusion about the use of any

data collected by future devices and make the installation of alternative

techniques less daunting or risky.

Response 2:

The Ohio EPA does not require emission tests to be performed during

startup or shutdown conditions. Such conditions would not be representative of

the normal operating mode for an emissions unit. Compliance demonstrations

typically are performed while an emissions unit is operating at or near its

maximum capacity so that the emission test results reflect the worst case

emission rates. This has been the Agency's practice for decades. If continuous

particulate emission monitors are used in the future for direct compliance

purposes, we would not expect our consideration of startup and shutdown

conditions to change. Therefore, at this time, we do not see a need to add

wording to the rule to clarify how compliance demonstrations should be

performed and how startup and shutdown should be considered. Nor do we see

a need to clarify how continuous emission monitoring data from startup or

shutdown periods should be evaluated in determining the compliance status of

an emissions unit. We do not believe there is or has been a problem that would

warrant such clarifying wording.

12/05/07