Article V 

Hearing Transcripts 

-40 -
BEFORE THE OHIO 

IN RE: 

AMENDMENT TO OAC RULES 

3 74 5-31-01 THROUGH 3 74 5-31-05, 

3745-31-07, 3745-31-10, 

3 74 5-31-20, 3 74 5-31-22, AND 

3745-31-29 THROUGH 3745-31-33. 

RESCISSION TO OAC RULES 

AND PROPOSING NEW OAC RULES 

TO 3745-31-06, 3745-31-08 

AND 3 74 5-31-09. 

AMENDMENT OF OAC RULE 

3745-15-03. 

RESCISSION OF OAC RULES 

3 74 5-35-01 THROUGH 

3745-35-08. 

BEFORE: 

MARY McCARRON, MODERATOR 

Frida y Morning Sessio n 

August 10th, 2007 

10:00a.m. 

50 West Town Stree t Room 7 00 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

Newark, Ohio 

(740) 345-8556 

Main Office 

8036 Smoke Road 

Pataskala, Ohio 43062 

(740) 927-3338 

(800) 852-6163 

Fax (740) 927-3436 

e-mail: FraleyCooper@earthlink.net 

Columbus, Ohio 

(614) 228-0018 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

Page 2 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: My name i s Mary McCarron. 

I'm th e Publi c Involvemen t Manager wit h ou r Publi c 

Interes t Center . 

I want t o thank you fo r takin g th e tim e toda y 

t o atten d ou r rule s hearing . The purpos e o f th e 

hearin g toda y i s t o obtai n comments fro m any 

intereste d perso n regardin g Ohio EPA's propose d rules . 

Ohio EPA Divisio n o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l i s 

proposin g changes t o th e permit-to-instal l and 

permit-to-operat e o r PTIO program. 

Thi s include s amendment o f th e followin g OAC 

rules : 3745-31-01 throug h 3745-31-05, 3745-31-07, 

3745-31-10, 3745-31-20, 3745-31-22, and 3745-31-29 

throug h 3745-31-33. 

Rescissio n o f th e followin g existin g OAC 

rule s and proposin g new OAC rule s i n thei r plac e fo r 

3745-31-06, 3745-31-08 and 3745-31-09; amendment o f 

OAC rul e 3745-15-03 whic h satisfie s requirement s o f 

Sectio n 119.032 o f th e Ohio Revise d Code, whic h i s th e 

five-yea r review ; and rescissio n o f th e followin g OAC 

rules : 3745-35-01 throug h 3745-35-08. 

The amendments ar e bein g propose d t o 

implement th e permit-to-instal l and operat e (PTIO) 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 3 

program. The PTIO program combines th e curren t PTI 

a nd PTO programs. Rathe r tha n requirin g a sourc e t o 

appl y fo r a PTI , whic h i s issue d wit h bot h 

installatio n and operatio n terms, and the n appl y fo r a 

PTO withi n a yea r o f construction , th e new program 

wil l requir e one applicatio n fo r bot h a PTI and a PTO 

a nd bot h installatio n and operatio n requirement s wil l 

be issue d under one document. 

I n addition , Ohio EPA Divisio n o f Ai r 

Pollutio n Contro l i s proposin g additiona l amendments 

t o OAC Rul e 3 74 5-31-01 and amendment o f OAC Rul e 

3745-77-01. The amendments ar e bein g propose d t o 

addres s recen t changes i n correspondin g federa l 

regulation s whic h affec t how ethano l facilitie s ar e 

define d as a major source . 

These rule s have been file d wit h th e Join t 

Committee on Agency Rul e Review. Copie s ar e availabl e 

f o r publi c revie w a t Ohio EPA's Columbus offic e and 

may be obtaine d by contactin g Jennife r Hunte r wit h 

Ohio EPA's Divisio n o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l a t 

(614) 644-3696. 

A l l intereste d person s ar e entitle d t o atten d 

o r be represente d and t o presen t ora l and/or writte n 

comments concernin g th e propose d rules . Al l writte n 

and ora l comments receive d as par t o f th e officia l 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614)228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 4 

recor d wil l be considere d by th e directo r o f Ohio EPA 

befor e a fina l decisio n i s made. 

Due t o a hig h degree o f interes t i n thes e 

rule s associate d wit h PTIO, Ohio EPA has extende d th e 

comment perio d by two weeks. I n addition , Ohio EPA 

plan s t o withdra w thes e rule s fro m JCARR on Monday, 

August 13t h wit h th e intentio n o f refilin g them a t a 

late r date . 

To be include d i n th e officia l record , 

writte n comments must be receive d by Ohio EPA by th e 

clos e o f business , Friday , Augus t 24th , 2007. These 

comments may be fille d wit h me toda y o r e-maile d t o 

j ennifer.hunter@epa.state.oh.us . Al l writte n comments 

submitte d fo r th e recor d receiv e th e same 

consideratio n as ora l testimon y give n today . 

Jennifer' s contac t informatio n i s als o on th e 

agenda that' s up front . 

Writte n statement s submitte d afte r August 

24t h may be considere d as tim e and circumstance s 

permit , bu t wouldn' t be par t o f th e officia l recor d 

f o r thi s hearing . 

I f you do wis h t o presen t ora l testimon y a t 

t h e hearin g toda y and haven' t alread y signe d i n a t th e 

registratio n table , pleas e do so a t thi s time . The 

shee t i s up front . I'l l cal l peopl e i n th e orde r tha t 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 5 

the y signe d in . 

I f you don' t want t o pu t anythin g on th e 

recor d and I cal l you r name, jus t say , "Pass. " 

There's no cross-examinatio n o f speaker s o r 

o f Ohio EPA representative s i n publi c hearing s o f thi s 

type . Thi s give s you th e opportunit y t o provid e 

comments on th e officia l record . Therefore , we won't 

be abl e t o answer any question s durin g th e hearing . 

I f you do have any comments tha t ar e questions , pleas e 

stat e them durin g th e hearing . However, members o f 

t h e pane l may ask you a clarifyin g question s t o ensur e 

tha t you r testimon y i s as clea r as possible . 

I'l l go ahead and rea d th e names o f thos e who 

have registere d fo r th e hearin g so far . Again , i f you 

don' t want t o testif y and I cal l you r name, jus t say, 

"Pass. " 

When I cal l you r name, i f you do want t o 

testify , pleas e stat e you r name and spel l i t fo r th e 

cour t reporter . 

The firs t perso n t o sig n i n i s Ric k Sahli . 

MR. SAHLI: Yes. 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Would you lik e t o 

testify ? 

MR. SAHLI: Yes. 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Okay. I f you could , 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

2 3 

24 

25 

Page 6 

stat e you r name and spel l i t and the n procee d wit h 

you r testimony . 

MR. SAHLI: Thank you, Ms. McCarron . 

My name i s Richar d Sahli , spelle d S-a-h-l-i . 

I

 1

m an attorne y representin g Lega l and Safet y Employer 

Research , Inc . It' s a nonprofi t organizatio n tha t 

researche s environmentall y hazardou s facilitie s acros s 

t h e country . 

LASER has examined Ohio ethano l plant s i n 

Coshocton , Lima, Sout h Bloomingburg , Leipsic , Newark, 

Lancaste r and Crestline ; has worked wit h loca l 

citizen s i n thes e communitie s t o limi t th e ai r 

pollutant s from thes e plants ; and has require d 

substantia l expertis e regardin g th e ai r pollutio n 

impact s o f ethano l plants . 

My comments thi s mornin g ar e limite d t o th e 

increas e i n th e major sourc e threshol d fo r ethano l 

plant s i n thi s rule s proposal . 

Because o f LASER'S concer n fo r th e publi c 

health , we are , o f course , opposed t o th e unjustifie d 

increas e i n th e major sourc e threshol d fo r th e ethano l 

industr y i n thi s rule s package , and we urg e th e 

Stricklan d Administratio n t o rejec t thi s rollbac k 

adopte d by th e anti-environmen t an anti-scienc e 

administratio n o f George W. Bush. 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 7 

The rul e change would undeniabl y rela x th e 

applicatio n o f importan t ai r pollutio n protection s fo r 

an industr y tha t i s increasingl y addin g t o th e ai r 

pollutio n problems o f Ohio. 

The bi g questio n raise d by thi s proposa l i s 

why i s Govern Stricklan d rubberstampin g a George Bush 

environmenta l rollbac k tha t increase s healt h hazard s 

f o r Ohioans? 

Does our new governo r reall y want t o follo w 

George W. Bush and Bob Taf t int o disreput e on 

environmenta l polic y and tak e Ohio on a rac e t o th e 

botto m restrictin g th e protection s give n it s citizen s 

t o favo r thi s heavil y subsidize d industry . 

I t i s undispute d tha t increasin g th e major 

sourc e threshol d fo r ethano l plant s whil e ignorin g 

thei r fugitiv e emission s wil l increas e ai r pollutio n 

i n Ohio. 

Ethano l plant s emi t larg e quantitie s o f 

particulat e matter , nitrou s oxides , carbo n monoxide, 

a nd volatil e organi c compounds whic h wil l increas e due 

t o thi s propose d rul e change. 

Each of thes e pollutant s cause s lun g ailment s 

suc h as asthma o r worse. 

Ver y few rul e changes i n th e las t thre e 

decades would brazenl y increas e Ohio' s ai r pollutio n 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 8 

a nd lun g diseas e lik e thi s rul e change surel y will . 

There i s no lawfu l justificatio n fo r thi s 

backsliding . The onl y justificatio n offere d i n th e US 

EPA rule-makin g orde r i s a vague desir e t o trea t th e 

ethano l beverag e and fue l industrie s equally . Thi s 

superficia l and fals e rational e appear s t o have been 

take n directl y fro m th e Kar l Rove playbook . 

The two industrie s ar e significantl y 

differen t wit h one radicall y expandin g whil e th e othe r 

h as been stati c fo r decades and use s substantiall y 

differen t processes . 

Under th e Clea n Ai r Act , thi s rational e 

should , i f anything , lea d t o beverag e ethano l bein g 

more tightl y regulate d rathe r tha n justifyin g 

backslidin g fo r th e fue l industry . 

I t i s als o manifes t tha t ther e i s no vali d 

economic justificatio n fo r th e rul e fo r th e simpl e 

fac t tha t th e ethano l industr y has grown by leap s and 

bounds ove r th e las t few year s a t th e curren t 

permittin g threshold . There i s no economic need fo r 

increasin g th e existin g threshold , as i t i s obviousl y 

n o t a barrie r t o th e industry' s growth . 

The federa l rul e i s unde r appea l i n federa l 

cour t and we believ e th e chances o f tha t appea l 

succeedin g ar e strong . There ar e thre e compellin g 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 9 

reason s why th e federa l rul e wil l likel y be struc k 

down and thi s propose d rul e change wil l be voide d as a 

result . 

First , ther e i s no legal , technica l o r 

scientifi c justificatio n fo r no t considerin g ethano l 

plant s tha t produc e toxi c solvent s throug h a chemica l 

proces s fo r sal e i n an industria l market t o be 

anythin g othe r tha n a chemica l proces s plant . 

Incredibly , th e federa l rule-makin g orde r 

does no t even attemp t a lega l definitio n o f th e term 

"chemica l proces s plant 1 1 consisten t wit h th e Clea n Ai r 

A c t and als o does no t even compare th e new exempt 

ethano l plant s wit h othe r chemica l proces s plant s t o 

justif y th e disparat e treatment . 

I n contrast , th e productio n of ethano l i s a 

basi c chemica l proces s tha t meets th e common 

dictionar y definitio n fo r chemica l proces s plants . 

Fue l ethano l competes i n th e same market wit h 

industria l chemical s fo r use as gasolin e additive s and 

canno t be distinguishe d from thes e othe r chemica l 

proces s plants . 

I n contrast , fue l ethano l does no t compete 

wit h corn-base d agricultura l product s lik e cor n syru p 

o r whiskey . 

The propose d rule' s remova l of ethano l fue l 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 10 

productio n fro m th e chemica l productio n categor y and 

effectivel y categorizin g i t as a foo d productio n 

proces s canno t be reconcile d wit h fue l ethanol 1 s 

productio n process , market use , o r wit h th e plai n 

languag e o f th e ter m "chemica l proces s plant. " 

Congres s used th e common and ver y broa d 

definitio n o f "chemica l proces s plants " i n adoptin g 

t h e Clea n Ai r Act . And sinc e th e propose d rul e does 

n o t provid e a basi s fo r singlin g ou t ethanol , i t i s 

inconsisten t wit h Congress' s intent . Federa l and 

stat e agencies , therefore , have no discretio n t o 

exclud e thes e plant s from th e common definitio n of the 

term. 

Second, th e federa l rule-makin g orde r 

completel y ignore s th e effect s o f th e increas e i n ai r 

pollutio n i n clea r violatio n o f th e basi c federa l 

rule-makin g doctrin e o f informe d decision-makin g based 

on a complet e record . 

Whil e federa l court s recogniz e tha t a cos t 

benefi t analysi s o f a rule' s advantage s versu s it s 

disadvantage s i s fundamenta l t o lawfu l and informe d 

decision-making , US EPA has provide d no suc h analysi s 

f o r thi s rule . 

The US EPA rule-makin g orde r simpl y ignore d 

t h e increase d healt h risk s cause d by th e increas e i n 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 11 

a i r pollutio n directl y resultin g fro m th e rul e change 

whil e indicatin g no counterbalancin g justificatio n fo r 

thos e increase d risks . 

The supportin g rational e i s so obviousl y 

underdevelope d i n th e rule-makin g orde r tha t one must 

wonder whether US EPA was tryin g t o legall y suppor t 

t h e rul e a t all . 

Third , thi s rul e change constitute s 

impermissibl e backslidin g i n Ohio' s Stat e 

Implementatio n Pla n prohibite d unde r Section s 110 and 

193 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , as thes e increase d emission s 

c an affec t non-attainmen t area s i n Ohio . 

Thi s and th e previou s irregularitie s I have 

cite d wil l cause thi s rul e t o be voide d under stat e 

rule-makin g requirement s applicabl e t o Ohio EPA. 

I n short , and als o i n conclusion , th e 

propose d rul e i s completel y inconsisten t wit h th e 

Clea n Ai r Ac t and federa l rule-makin g requirements , 

b u t i t i s completel y consisten t wit h th e tainte d Bush 

legac y o r regressive , corporate-controlle d 

environmenta l policy , it s contempt fo r lega l norms, 

and it s anti-scientifi c decision-making . 

I f you you ar e to o caught up i n th e rac e t o 

t h e bottom t o rejec t thi s rul e entirely , we urg e th e 

Stricklan d Administratio n to , a t a minimum, withdra w 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 12 

thi s rul e unti l th e federa l appea l i s decided . 

Why woul d you o r anyone follo w George Bush 

ove r th e clif f when th e federa l court s have overturne d 

Bush's environmenta l policie s ofte n and wit h stron g 

rebuk e as i n th e recen t globa l warming/carbo n dioxid e 

decisio n by th e Supreme Court ? 

That conclude s by comments. 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Thank you. 

May I submi t a copy o f th e comments fo r th e 

records , please ? 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Yes, please . 

MR. SAHLI: Thank you, Mary. 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Larr y Antosch ? 

MR. ANTOSCH: Yes. 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Would you lik e t o submit 

testimony ? 

MR. ANTOSCH: Yes. 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Okay. I f you can , stat e 

you r name and spel l i t fo r th e cour t reporter . 

MR. ANTOSCH: It' s Larr y Antosch , 

A-n-t-o-s-c-h . 

Good morning . I'm here . I'm th e Directo r of 

Environmenta l Polic y wit h th e Ohi o Farm Burea u and am 

her e toda y t o expres s ou r suppor t fo r th e change i n 

definition s under Rul e 3745-77-01. 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 13 

Ohio Farm Bureau bein g th e larges t farm 

organizatio n under th e Stat e o f Ohio , we have members 

i n al l o f Ohio's 88 counties . Our members produc e 

virtuall y ever y kin d of agricultura l commodity. 

And as a result , th e Ohi o Farm Bureau i s 

intereste d i n Ohio' s environmenta l policie s and th e 

potentia l impact t o sustainin g a viabl e agbioresourc e 

industr y i n thi s state . 

Ohio Farm Bureau policie s suppor t th e 

development o f programs tha t ar e scientificall y based , 

economicall y sound and, whenever possible , ar e 

delivere d i n a flexibl e and voluntar y manner. 

Regardin g biofuel s specially , our policie s 

suppor t th e research , development and use o f fue l 

alternative s and enhancements o f ag product s suc h as 

biofuel s and renewables ; encourag e th e use o f 

agriculturall y base d biofuel s and renewable s t o 

benefi t th e environmen t and enhance nationa l security ; 

suppor t expeditin g th e permittin g proces s fo r 

renewabl e fue l plants ; encourag e th e use of ethanol , 

biodiese l and othe r biofuel s i n al l vehicle s as 

distributio n systems improve; and suppor t th e 

constructio n o f biofue l productio n plant s i n Ohio due 

t o availabilit y o f cor n and livestock . 

The propose d amendments wil l alig n Ohio's ai r 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 14 

pollutio n rule s wit h th e recentl y revise d federa l 

rule s and t o hel p wit h th e implementatio n o f th e 

federa l Clea n Ai r Act . 

Consistenc y betwee n stat e and federa l 

regulation s wil l hel p expedit e th e permittin g proces s 

f o r futur e ethano l productio n facilitie s constructe d 

i n Ohio . 

As a result , th e propose d amendments ar e 

consisten t wit h Ohi o Farm Burea u policie s and we 

suppor t th e adopte d -- th e propose d change s and thei r 

adoptio n int o Ohio . 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Thank you . 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Staci e Cline ? 

MS. CLINE: Pass . 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Okay. Jef f Miller ? 

MR. MILLER: Pass . 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Okay. Tren t Dougherty ? 

MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes . 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Okay. 

MR. DOUGHERTY: It' s Tren t Dougherty , 

D-o-u-g-h-e-r-t-y , staf f attorne y wit h th e Ohi o 

Environmenta l Council . 

The Ohi o Environmenta l Counci l represent s 

approximatel y 115 environmenta l conservatio n 

organization s and thousand s o f individua l members 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614)228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740)345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 15 

throughou t th e Stat e o f Ohio. 

We ar e opposed t o th e lowerin g o f th e 

threshol d fo r major sourc e ethano l plan t facilitie s 

under th e propose d rul e as a paten t carv e out fo r one 

industry . And we see thi s as havin g resident s of 

rura l area s where thes e facilitie s wil l be locate d t o 

bea r th e brun t o f vas t amounts o f ai r pollutio n fo r 

t h e creatio n of biofuel s tha t we used , from what we 

perceive , mainl y i n th e cities . 

We believ e tha t lowerin g thi s threshol d and 

creatin g more pollutio n i n thes e area s i s no t onl y a 

detrimen t t o attainmen t and non-attainmen t area s tha t 

we see currently , bu t coul d creat e non-attainmen t 

area s where i n th e pas t -- thes e rura l area s where th e 

a i r has been, fo r al l intent s and purposes , fairl y 

clean . 

I reiterat e Mr. Sahli' s urg e t o Governo r 

Stricklan d t o no t follo w what i s a bea r minimum tha t 

t h e federa l standard s provide , no t onl y i s i t a bea r 

minimum, bu t a lac k of science-base d rule s tha t th e 

Feds have promulgate d that' s currentl y under appeal . 

We fee l tha t Ohio can and shoul d provid e th e 

protection s t o thes e rura l resident s as the y do wit h 

thos e i n th e citie s i n whic h othe r majo r source s ar e 

located . Thank you. 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 16 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: Thank you. Anne Cook? 

MS. COOK: No thank you. 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: We'l l go of f th e recor d 

f o r about fiv e minute s unti l 10:30. We'l l go back on 

t h e recor d i n about fiv e minutes . 

(Shor t brea k i n proceedings. ) 

MEDIATOR McCARRON: We're goin g t o go back on 

t h e recor d reall y quickly . The tim e i s 10:31. 

Seein g no furthe r request s fo r testimony , I 

remin d you tha t writte n testimon y i s due Augus t 24th , 

2007. Again , Jennifer' s contac t informatio n i s on our 

agenda fo r today . 

Thanks fo r attendin g and have a good day. 

Thereupon, a t 10:31 a.m. on Friday , Augus t 

10th , 2007, th e hearin g was concluded . 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614)228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740)345-8556 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 17 

CERTIFICAT E 

STATE OF OHIO 

SS : 

COUNTY OF LICKING 

I , Michell e K. Douridas , a Registere d 

Professiona l Reporte r and Notar y Publi c i n and fo r th e 

Stat e o f Ohio, dul y commissioned and qualified , do 

hereb y certif y tha t thi s hearin g was by me reduce d t o 

stenotype ; tha t th e foregoin g i s a tru e and correc t 

transcrip t o f th e hearing ; tha t th e hearin g was take n 

a t th e tim e and plac e i n th e captio n specifie d and was 

complete d withou t adjournment ; and tha t I am i n no way 

relate d t o o r employed by any attorne y o r part y 

hereto , o r financiall y intereste d i n th e action , and I 

am not , no r i s th e cour t reportin g fir m wit h whic h I 

am affiliated , unde r a contrac t as define d i n Civi l 

Rul e 28(D) . 

hand and affixe d my sea l o f offic e a t Pataskala , Ohio, 

on thi s 14t h day o f August , 2007. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunt o se t my 

MICHELLE K. DOURIDAS, RPR 

NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF OHIO 

My Commission Expires : Jul y 16th , 2008. 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614)228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740)345-8556 
OHIO EPA, taken on August 10, 2007 

Page 1 

able 5:8 

about 16:4,5 

across 6:7 

Act 8:12 9:12 

10:8 11:11,18 

14:3 

action 17:8 

adding 7:3 

addition 3:9 4:5 

additional 3:10 

additives 9:19 

address 3:13 

adjournment 

17:7 

administration 

6:23,25 11:25 

adopted 6:24 

14:10 

adopting 10:7 

adoption 14:11 

advantages 10:20 

affect 3:14 11:12 

affiliated 17:9 

affixed 17:11 

after 4:18 

ag 13:15 

Again 5:14 16:11 

agbioresource 

13:7 

agencies 10:11 

Agency 3:17 

agenda 4:17 

16:12 

agricultural 9:23 

13:4 

agriculturally 

13:17 

ahead 5:13 

ailments 7:22 

air 2:10 3:9,20 

6:12,14 7:2,3 

7:16,25 8:12 

9:11 10:8,15 

11:1,11,18 

13:25 14:3 15:7 

15:15 

align 13:25 

already 4:23 

alternatives 

13:15 

amendment 1:4,9 

2:13,19 3:11 

amendments 

2:24 3:10,12 

13:25 14:8 

amounts 15:7 

analysis 10:20,22 

and/or 3:23 

Anne 16:1 

answer 5:8 

anti-environme... 

6:24 

anti-science 6:24 

anti-scientific 

11:22 

Antosch 12:13,14 

12:17,20,20 

anyone 12:2 

anything 5:2 8:13 

9:8 

appeal 8:23,24 

12:1 15:21 

appears 8:6 

applicable 11:15 

application 3:6 

7:2 

apply 3:3,4 

approximately 

14:24 

areas 11:12 15:6 

15:11,12,14,14 

associated 4:4 

asthma 7:23 

attainment 15:12 

attempt 9:10 

attend 2:7 3:22 

attending 16:13 

attorney 6:5 

14:21 17:8 

August 1:14 4:7 

4:11,18 16:10 

16:15 17:12 

availability 13:24 

available 3:17 

A-n-t-o-s-c-h 

12:21 

a.ml:15 16:15 

B 

back 16:4,7 

backsliding 8:3 

8:15 11:9 

barrier 8:22 

based 10:17 

13:10,17 

basic 9:16 10:16 

basis 10:9 

bear 15:7,18,19 

before 1:1,19 4:2 

being 2:24 3:12 

8:13 13:1 

believe 8:24 

15:10 

benefit 10:20 

13:18 

between 14:4 

beverage 8:5,13 

big 7:5 

biodiesel 13:21 

biofuel 13:23 

biofuels 13:13,16 

13:17,21 15:8 

Bloomingburg 

6:10 

Bob 7:10 

both 3:3,6,7 

bottom 7:12 

11:24 

bounds 8:19 

brazenly 7:25 

break 16:6 

broad 10:6 

brunt 15:7 

Bureau 12:23 

13:1,5,9 14:9 

Bush 6:25 7:6,10 

11:19 12:2 

Bush's 12:4 

business 4:11 

C 17:1,1 

call 4:25 5:3,15 

5:17 

caption 17:7 

carbon 7:19 

carve 15:4 

categorizing 10:2 

category 10:1 

caught 11:23 

cause 11:14 

caused 10:25 

causes 7:22 

Center 2:5 

certify 17:5 

chances 8:24 

change 7:1,21 8:1 

9:2 11:1,8 

12:24 

changes 211 

3:13 7:24 14:10 

chemical 9:6,8,11 

9:13,16,17,20 

10:1,5,7 

chemicals 9:19 

circumstances 

4:19 

cited 11:14 

cities 15:9,24 

citizens 6:12 7:12 

Civil 17:9 

clarifying 5:11 

clean 8:12 9:11 

10:8 11:11,18 

14:3 15:16 

clear 5:12 10:16 

cliff 12:3 

Cline 14:13,14 

close 4:11 

Code 2:21 

Columbus 1:16 

3:18 

combines 3:1 

comment 4:5 

comments 2:8 

3:24,25 4:10,12 

4:13 5:7,9 6:16 

12:7,9 

Commission 

17:17 

commissioned 

17:5 

Committee 3:17 

commodity 13:4 

common 9:16 

10:6,12 

communities 

6:12 

compare 9:12 

compelling 8:25 

compete 9:22 

competes 9:18 

complete 10:18 

completed 17:7 

completely 10:15 

11:17,19 

compounds 7:20 

concern 6:19 

concerning 3:24 

concluded 16:16 

concludes 12:7 

conclusion 11:16 

Congress 10:6 

Congress's 10:10 

conservation 

14:24 

consideration 

4:15 

considered 4:1 

4:19 

considering 9:5 

Consistency 14:4 

consistent 9:11 

11:19 14:9 

constitutes 11:8 

constructed 14:6 

construction 3:5 

13:23 

contact 4:16 

16:11 

contacting 3:19 

contempt 11:21 

contract 17:9 

contrast 9:15,22 

Control 2:10 

3:10,20 

Cook 16:1,2 

Copies 3:17 

copy 12:9 

corn 9:23 13:24 

corn-based 9:23 

corporate-cont... 

11:20 

correct 17:6 

corresponding 

3:13 

Coshocton 6:10 

cost 10:19 

Council 14:22,23 

counterbalanci... 

11:2 

counties 13:3 

country 6:8 

COUNTY 17:3 

course 6:20 

court 5:19 8:24 

12:6,19 17:9 

courts 10:19 12:3 

create 15:13 

creating 15:11 

creation 15:8 

Crestline 6:11 

cross-examinat... 

5:4 

current 3:1 8:19 

currently 15:13 

15:21 

D 

date 4:8 

day 16:13 17:12 

decades 7:25 

8:10 

decided 12:1 

decision 4:2 12:6 

decision-making 

10:17,22 11:22 

defined 3:15 17:9 

definition 9:10 

9:17 10:7,12 

definitions 12:25 

degree 4:3 

delivered 13:12 

desire 8:4 

detriment 15:12 

development 

13:10,14 

dictionary 9:17 

different 8:9,11 

dioxide 12:5 

directly 8:7 11:1 

director 4:1 

12:22 

disadvantages 

10:21 

discretion 10:11 

disease 8:1 

disparate 9:14 

disrepute 7:10 

distinguished 

9:20 

distribution 

13:22 

Division 2:10 3:9 

3:20 

doctrine 10:17 

document 3:8 

Dougherty 14:17 

14:18,20,20 

Douridas 17:4,14 

down 9:2 

due 4:3 7:20 

13:23 16:10 

duly 17:5 

during 5:8,10 

D-o-u-g-h-e-r-t-y 

14:21 

E 

E 17:1,1 

Each 7:22 

economic 8:17,20 

economically 

13:11 

effectively 10:2 

effects 10:15 

emissions 7:16 

11:11 

emit 7:18 

employed 17:8 

Employer 6:5 

encourage 13:16 

13:20 

enhance 13:18 

enhancements 

13:15 

ensure 5:11 

entirely 11:24 

entitled 3:22 

environment 

13:18 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
OHIO EPA, taken on August 10, 2007 

Page 2 

environmental 

7:7,11 11:21 

12:4,23 13:6 

14:22,23,24 

environmentally 

6:7 

EPA 1:1 2:10 3:9 

4:1,4,5,10 5:5 

8:4 10:22,24 

11:6,15 

EPA's 2:9 3:18 

3:20 

equally 8:5 

ethanol 3:14 6:9 

6:15,17,21 7:15 

7:18 8:5,13,18 

9:5,13,15,18,22 

9:25 10:9 13:20 

14:6 15:3 

ethanol's 10:3 

even 9:10,12 

every 13:4 

examined 6:9 

exclude 10:12 

exempt 9:12 

existing 2:17 8:21 

expanding 8:9 

expedite 14:5 

expediting 13:19 

expertise 6:14 

Expires 17:17 

express 12:24 

extended 4:4 

e-mailed 4:12 

F17:l 

facilities 3:14 6:7 

14:6 15:3,6 

fact 8:18 

fairly 15:15 

false 8:6 

far 5:14 

farm 12:23 13:1 

13:1,5,9 14:9 

favor 7:13 

federal 3:13 8:23 

8:23 9:1,9 

10:10,14,16,19 

11:18 12:1,3 

14:1,3,4 15:19 

Feds 15:21 

feel 15:22 

few 7:24 8:19 

filed 3:16 

filled 4:12 

final 4:2 

financially 17:8 

firm 17:9 

first 5:20 9:4 

five 16:4,5 

five-year 2:22 

flexible 13:12 

follow 7:9 12:2 

15:18 

following 2.13,17 

2:22 

food 10:2 

foregoing 17:6 

Friday 1:14 4:11 

16:15 

from2:8 4:6 6:13 

8:7 9:20 10:1 

10:12 11:1 15:8 

front 4:17,25 

fuel 8:5,15 9:18 

9:22,25 10:3 

13:14,20 

fugitive 7:16 

fundamental 

10:21 

further 16:9 

future 14:6 

gasoline 9:19 

George 6:25 7:6 

7:10 12:2 

given 4:15 7:12 

gives 5:6 

global 12:5 

go 5:13 16:3,4,7 

going 16:7 

good 12:22 16:13 

Govern 7:6 

governor 7:9 

15:17 

grown 8:18 

growth 8:22 

H 

hand 17:11 

having 15:5 

hazardous 6:7 

hazards 7:7 

health 6:20 7:7 

10:25 

hearing 2:7,8 

4:21,23 5:8,10 

5:14 16:16 17:5 

17:6,6 

hearings 5:5 

heavily 7:13 

help 14:2,5 

hereto 17:8 

hereunto 17:11 

high 4:3 

Hunter 3:19 

I 

ignored 10:24 

ignores 10:15 

ignoring 7:15 

impact 13:7 

impacts 6:15 

impermissible 

11:9 

implement 2:25 

implementation 

11:10 14:2 

important 7:2 

improve 13:22 

Inc 6:6 

included 4:9 

includes 2:13 

inconsistent 

10:10 11:17 

increase 6:17,21 

7:16,20,25 

10:15,25 

increased 10:25 

11:3,11 

increases 7:7 

increasing 7:14 

8:21 

increasingly 7:3 

Incredibly 9:9 

indicating 11:2 

individual 14:25 

industrial 9:7,19 

industries 8:5,8 

industry 6:22 7:3 

7:13 8:15,18 

13:8 15:5 

industry's 8:22 

information 4:16 

16:11 

informed 10:17 

10:21 

installation 3:4,7 

intent 10:10 

intention 4:7 

intents 15:15 

interest 2:5 4:3 

interested 2:9 

3:22 13:6 17:8 

Involvement 2:4 

irregularities 

11:13 

issued 3:3,8 

JCARR 4:6 

Jeff 14:15 

Jennifer 3:19 

Jennifer's 4:16 

16:11 

jennifer.hunter... 

4:13 

Joint 3:16 

July 17:17 

just 5:3,15 

justification 8:2 

8:3,17 9:5 11:2 

justify 9:14 

justifying 8:14 

K 

K 17:4,14 

Karl 8:7 

kind 13:4 

lack 15:20 

Lancaster 6:11 

language 10:5 

large 7:18 

largest 13:1 

Larry 12:13,20 

LASER 6:9 

LASER'S 6:19 

last 7:24 8:19 

later 4:8 

lawful 8:2 10:21 

lead 8:13 

leaps 8:18 

legacy 11:20 

legal 6:5 9:4,10 

11:21 

legally 11:6 

Leipsic 6:10 

LICKING 17:3 

like 5:22 8:1 9:23 

12:15 

likely 9:1 

Lima 6:10 

limit 6:12 

limited 6:16 

livestock 13:24 

local 6:11 

located 15:6,25 

lowering 15:2,10 

lung 7:22 8:1 

M 

made 4:2 

mainly 15:9 

major 3:15 6:17 

6:21 7:14 15:3 

15:24 

Manager 2:4 

manifest 8:16 

manner 13:12 

market 9:7,18 

10:4 

Mary 1:20 2:3 

12:12 

matter 7:19 

may 3:19 4:12,19 

5:11 12:9 

McCARRON 

1:20 2:3,3 5:22 

5:25 6:3 12:8 

12:11,13,15,18 

14:12,13,15,17 

14:19 16:1,3,7 

MEDIATOR 2:3 

5:22,25 12:8,11 

12:13,15,18 

14:12,13,15,17 

14:19 16:1,3,7 

meets 9:16 

members 5:10 

13:2,3 14:25 

Michelle 17:4,14 

Miller 14:15,16 

minimum 11:25 

15:18,20 

minutes 16:4,5 

MODERATOR 

1:20 

Monday 4:6 

monoxide 7:19 

more 8:14 15:11 

morning 1:14 

6:16 12:22 

must 4:10 11:5 

N 

name 2:3 5:3,15 

5:17,18 6:1,4 

12:19 

names 5:13 

national 13:18 

need 8:20 

new 1:7 2:18 3:5 

7:9 9:12 

Newark 6:10 

nitrous 7:19 

nonprofit 6:6 

non-attainment 

11:12 15:12,13 

norms 11:21 

Notary 17:4,15 

O 

OAC 1:4,7,7,9,11 

2:13,17,18,20 

2:22 3:11,11 

obtain 2:8 

obtained 3:19 

obviously 8:21 

11:4 

off 16:3 

offered 8:3 

office 3:18 17:11 

official 3:25 4:9 

4:20 5:7 

often 12:4 

Ohio 1:1,16 2:9 

2:10,21 3:9,18 

3:20 4:1,4,5,10 

5:5 6:9 7:4,11 

7:17 11:12,15 

12:23 13:1,2,5 

13:9,23 14:7,9 

14:11,21,23 

15:1,22 17:2,5 

17:11,15 

Ohioans 7:8 

Ohio's 7:25 11:9 

13:3,6,25 

Okay 5:25 12:18 

14:15,17,19 

one 3:6,8 8:9 11:5 

15:4 

only 8:3 15:11,19 

operate 2:25 

operation 3:4,7 

opportunity 5:6 

opposed 6:20 

15:2 

oral 3:23,25 4:15 

4:22 

order 4:25 8:4 

9:9 10:14,24 

11:5 

organic 7:20 

organization 6:6 

13:2 

organizations 

14:25 

other 8:9 9:8,13 

9:20 13:21 

15:24 

out 10:9 15:4 

over 8:19 12:3 

overturned 12:3 

oxides 7:19 

package 6:22 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
OHIO EPA, taken on August 10, 2007 

Page 3 

panel 5:11 13:19 14:5 rationale 8:6,12 researches 6:7 set 17:11 systems 13:22 

part 3:25 4:20 processes 8:11 11:4 residents 15:5,23 sheet 4:25 S-a-h-M 6:4 

particulate 7:19 produce 9:6 13:3 RE 1:3 restricting 7:12 short 11:16 16:6 

party 17:8 production 9:15 read 5:13 result 9:3 13:5 sign 5:20 T 

Pass 5:3,16 14:14 10:1,1,2,4 really 7:9 16:8 14:8 signed 4:23 5:1 T 17:1,1 

14:16 13:23 14:6 reasons 9:1 resulting 11:1 significantly 8:8 table 4:24 

past 15:14 products 9:23 rebuke 12:5 review 2:22 3:17 simple 8:17 Taft7:10 

Pataskala 17:11 13:15 receive 4:14 3:18 simply 10:24 tainted 11:19 

patent 15:4 Professional 17:4 received 3:25 revised 2:21 14:1 since 10:8 take 7:11 

people 4:25 program2:12 3:1 4:10 Richard 6:4 singling 10:9 taken 8:7 17:6 

perceive 15:9 3:1,5 recent 3:13 12:5 Rick 5:20 solvents 9:6 taking 2:6 

period 4:5 programs 3:2 recently 14:1 risks 10:25 11:3 sound 13:11 technical 9:4 

permit 4:20 13:10 recognize 10:19 rollback 6:23 7:7 source 3:2,15 term9:10 10:5,13 

permitting 8:20 prohibited 11:10 reconciled 10:3 Room 1:15 6:17,21 7:15 terms 3:4 

13:19 14:5 promulgated record 4:1,9,14 Rove 8:7 15:3 testify 5:15,18,23 

permit-to-install 15:21 4:20 5:3,7 RPR 17:14 sources 15:24 testimony 4:15 

2:11,25 proposal 6:18 7:5 10:18 16:3,5,8 rubberstamping South 6:10 4:22 5:12 6:2 

permit-to-oper... proposed 2:9,24 records 12:10 7:6 speakers 5:4 12:16 16:9,10 

2:12 3:12,24 7:21 reduced 17:5 rule 1:9 2:20 3:11 specially 13:13 thank2:6 6:3 

person 2:9 5:20 9:2,25 10:8 refiling 4:7 3:11,177:1,21 specified 17:7 12:8,12 14:12 

persons 3:22 11:17 13:25 regarding 2:9 7:24 8:1,17,23 spell 5:18 6:1 15:25 16:1,2 

place 2:18 17:7 14:8,10 15:4 6:14 13:13 9:1,2 10:8,23 12:19 Thanks 16:13 

plain 10:4 proposing 1:7 registered 5:14 11:1,7,8,14,17 spelled 6:4 their 2:18 7:16 

Plan 11:10 2:11,183:10 17:4 11:24 12:1,25 SS 17:2 14:10 

plans 4:6 protections 7:2 registration 4:24 15:4 17:10 Stacie 14:13 Third 11:8 

plant 9:8,11 10:5 7:12 15:23 regressive 11:20 rules 1:4,7,7,11 staff 14:21 thousands 14:25 

15:3 provide 5:6 10:9 regulated 8:14 2:7,9,14,18,18 standards 15:19 three 7:24 8:25 

plants 6:9,13,15 15:19,22 regulations 3:14 2:23 3:16,24 state 5:10,18 6:1 threshold 6:17,21 

6:18 7:15,18 provided 10:22 14:5 4:4,6 6:18,22 10:11 11:9,14 7:15 8:20,21 

9:6,13,13,17,21 PTI 3:1,3,6 reiterate 15:17 14:1,2 15:20 12:18 13:2,8 15:3,10 

10:7,12 13:20 PTIO 2:12,25 3:1 reject 6:23 11:24 rule's 9:25 10:20 14:4 15:1 17:2 through 1:4,6,11 

13:23 4:4 related 17:8 rule-making 8:4 17:5 2:14,16,23 9:6 

playbook8:7 PTO 3:2,5,6 relax 7:1 9:9 10:14,17,24 statements 4:18 throughout 15:1 

please 4:24 5:9 public 2:4,4 3:18 remind 16:10 11:5,15,18 static 8:10 tightly 8:14 

5:18 12:10,11 5:5 6:19 17:4 removal 9:25 rural 15:6,14,23 stenotype 17:6 time 2:6 4:19,24 

policies 12:4 13:6 PUBLIC-STA... renewable 13:20 Street 1:15 16:8 17:7 

13:9,13 14:9 17:15 renewables 13:16 S Strickland 6:23 today 2:6,8 4:12 

policy 7:11 11:21 purpose 2:7 13:17 Safety 6:5 7:6 11:25 15:18 4:15,23 12:24 

12:23 purposes 15:15 reporter 5:19 Sahli 5:20,21,24 strong 8:25 12:4 16:12 

pollutants 6:13 put 5:2 12:19 17:4 6:3,4 12:12 struck 9:1 Town 1:15 

7:22 P-R-O-C-E-E-... reporting 17:9 Sahli's 15:17 submit 12:9,15 toxic 9:6 

pollution 2:10 2:1 representatives sale 9:7 submitted 4:14 transcript 17:6 

3:10,20 6:14 5:5 same 4:14 9:18 4:18 treat 8:4 

7:2,4,16,25 Q represented 3:23 satisfies 2:20 subsidized 7:13 treatment 9:14 

10:16 11:1 14:1 qualified 17:5 representing 6:5 science-based substantial 6:14 Trent 14:17,20 

15:7,11 quantities 7:18 represents 14:23 15:20 substantially true 17:6 

possible 5:12 question 7:5 requests 16:9 scientific 9:5 8:10 trying 11:6 

13:11 questions 5:8,9 require 3:6 scientifically succeeding 8:25 two 4:5 8:8 

potential 13:7 5:11 required 6:13 13:10 superficial 8:6 type 5:6 

present 3:23 4:22 quickly 16:8 requirements seal 17:11 support 11:6 

previou U s 11:13 2:20 3:7 11:15 Second 10:14 12:24 13:9,14 U 

problems 7:4 R 11:18 Section 2:21 13:19,22 14:10 undeniably 7:1 

proceed 6:1 R17:l requiring 3:2 Sections 11:10 supporting 11:4 under 3:8 8:12,23 

proceedings 16:6 race 7:11 11:23 rescission 1:7,11 security 13:18 Supreme 12:6 11:10,14 12:25 

process 9:7,8,11 radically 8:9 2:17,22 see 15:5,13 surely 8:1 13:2 15:4,21 

9:13,16,17,21 raised 7:5 research 6:6 Seeing 16:9 sustaining 13:7 17:9 

10:3,4,5,7 rather 3:2 8:14 13:14 Session 1:14 syrup 9:23 underdeveloped 

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 
OHIO EPA, taken on August 10, 2007 

Page 4 

11:5 

undisputed 7.14 

unjustified 6:20 

until 12:1 16:4 

urge 6:22 11:24 

15:17 

use 9:19 10:4 

13:14,16,20 

used 10:6 15:8 

uses 8:10 

1 

vague 8:4 

valid 8:16 

vast 15:7 

vehicles 13:21 

versus 10:20 

very 7:24 10:6 

viable 13:7 

violation 10:16 

virtually 13:4 

voided 9:2 11:14 

volatile 7:20 

voluntary 13:12 

W 

W6:25 7:10 

want 2:6 5:2,15 

5:17 7:9 

warming/carbon 

12:5 

way 17:7 

weeks 4:5 

West 1:15 

We'll 16:3,4 

We're 16:7 

WHEREOF 

17:11 

while 7:15 8:9 

10:19 11:2 

whiskey 9:24 

wish 4:22 

withdraw 4:6 

11:25 

WITNESS 17:11 

wonder 11:6 

worked 6:11 

worse 7:23 

wouldn't 4:20 

written 3:23,24 

4:10,13,18 

16:10 

year 3:5 

years 8:19 

10th 1:14 16:16 

10:00 1:15 

10:30 16:4 

10:31 16:8,15 

110 11:10 

115 14:24 

119.032 2:21 

13th 4:7 

14th 17:12 

16th 17:17 

193 11:11 

2007 1:144:11 

16:11,16 17:12 

2008 17:17 

24th 4:11,19 

16:10 

28(D) 17:10 

50 1:15 

3745-15-03 1:10 

2:20 

3745-31-01 1:4 

2:143:11 

3745-31-05 1:4 

2:14 

3745-31-06 1:8 

2:19 

3745-31-07 1:5 

2:14 

3745-31-08 1:8 

2:19 

3745-31-09 1:8 

2:19 

3745-31-10 1:5 

2:15 

3745-31-20 1:5 

2:15 

3745-31-22 1:5 

2:15 

3745-31-29 1:6 

2:15 

3745-31-33 1:6 

2:16 

3745-35-01 1:11 

2:23 

3745-35-08 1:12 

2:23 

3745-77-013:12 

12:25 

43215 1:16 

614 3:21 

644-3696 3:21 

700 1:15 

88 13:3 

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

Response to Comments 

-42 -
OfeEFA 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Response to Comments 

Draft Rule Language Comment Period 

Rule: OA C Chapter 3745-35, various rules of OA C Chapter 3745-31 and OA C 

rule 3745-15-03 - Implementation of PTIO Program 

Agency Contact for this Package 

Division Contact: Jennifer Hunter, Division of Air Pollution Control, 614-657-6789, 

Jennifer.hunter@epa.state.oh.us 

Ohio EPA provided a 30 day comment period, followed by a 17 day comment period 

extension, which ended on April 30, 2007. This document summarizes the comments 

and questions received during the associated comment period. 

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

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

ofthe environment and public health. 

In an effort to help you review this document, the questions are grouped by topic and 

organized in a consistent format. The name of the commenter follows the comment in 

parentheses. 

General/Overall Concerns 

Comment 1: Dominion appreciates the opportunity to comment on the 

above- referenced proposed PTIO program for Non-Title V 

facilities. Dominion facilities at East Ohio Gas (EOG) and 

Dominion Transmission, Inc (DTI) will benefit from this new 

program. We support Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency's (OEPA) efforts to consolidate the Permit-to-lnstall 

and Permit-to-Operate programs for Non-Title V facilities. By 

issuing one permit that covers both the construction and 

operation phases of a project, Ohio EP A will eliminate the 

need for us to prepare and submit two permit applications for 

the same facility. Additionally, eliminating quarterly deviation 

reports and replacing them with one annual Compliance and 

Deviation Report (CDR) will save us from submitting three 

deviation reports annually. These changes, along with 

extension of the lifetime of the permit to 10 years rather than 

5, will reduce the staff time and paperwork necessary for 

permitting our Non-Title V facilities. We strongly support 

these proposed rule changes. 

(Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 2 of 51 

By combining the PTI and PT O into one permit, the PTIO 

program appears to alleviate the confusing and often 

overlooked requirement for companies to submit a PT O 

application after having received a PTI. OCAP P believes the 

PTIO process will be much easier to explain to small 

businesses and will eliminate nearly redundant permit 

applications. 

(Rick Carleski, Ohio EPA Office of Compliance 

Assistance and Pollution Prevention) 

Response 1: Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC), 

appreciates your support. 

Comment 2: The distinction between major sources and minor sources of 

regulated air pollutants is important. This distinction reflects 

a balance struck by Congress in the Clean Air Act with 

regard to principles of federalism. It also reflects a common 

sense policy choice by Congress to manage resource 

burdens based on relative amounts of emissions. The Clean 

Air Act purposefully preserves a larger degree of state 

discretion and autonomy with respect to the regulation of 

minor sources - particularly the procedural and 

administrative aspects of the regulation of minor sources -

than for major sources. This is evident in statements made 

by one of the main sponsors of the 1977 Amendments 

during the congressional debates, where he said the states 

should retain the primary responsibility for regulating minor 

sources: 

By the fact that the Federal Government 

has withdrawn from the field of 

regulation of certain kinds of land userelated activities, and certain kinds of 

minor emitting sources, and certain 

kinds of small businesses does not in 

any way suggest that decisions 

regarding these facilities and sources 

can be ignored. Air quality-related land 

use decisions, regulation of small 

sources, vapor recovery from moderate 

to small-sized service stations all 

continue to be tools in the State and 

local air pollution control bag. That they 

cannot be imposed by the Federal 

Government is only a recognition that 

the manner by which they are imposed, 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 3 of 51 

the pace at which they are imposed, and 

degree to which they are imposed 

should be made as a part of a local 

balancing judgment. 

123 Cong. Rec. 26841 (1977) (comments of Sen. 

Muskie). This is how Ohio EP A has historically 

managed the air program. 

The proposed PTIO program, by definition, applies only to 

minor sources. The permitting regimes for minor sources 

and major sources, by Ohio statutory law (consistent with 

federal statutory and regulatory law), are mutually exclusive. 

S ee OR C Section 3704.036(A) 1. The Commenters support 

permitting procedures for minor sources that maximize 

simplicity and ease of administration, while providing 

transparency, consistency, and predictability of government 

action. The minor source permitting regime should be more 

streamlined and flexible than the federally-mandated (Title 

V) and New Source Review permitting procedures for major 

sources. We support the elimination of needless paperwork 

and unnecessary duplication of efforts. A minor source 

permitting process should not add new substantive 

requirements on a case-by-case basis. A minor source 

permitting program should not "federalize" policy preferences 

that derive from Ohio law authority and that are not 

mandated by the federal Clean Air Act. 

The Commenters are mindful of Ohio EPA' s backlog of 

permit-to-operate (PTO) initial and renewal applications, and 

the inordinate resources that go into the separate processing 

of permit-to-install (PTI) and PT O applications. We can 

support a unified, single permit covering construction and 

operation of minor sources, provided the program is 

designed in a proper manner that does not misallocate 

resources, impose unreasonable burdens, or put existing 

and potential new business investment in Ohio at a 

competitive disadvantage. 

While we support the concept of a PTIO, if the program is 

properly designed, we think the recent Interested Party 

proposal for the PTIO program fails to accomplish the public 

1

 Title V only applies to "major sources," with two exceptions: (1) sources meeting the definition 

of an "affected source" under Title IV of the Act [Acid Rain Program] and (2) sources in categories 

specifically designated by the Administrator of US EPA [currently, certain incinerators]. See 

3745-77-02(B). 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 4 of 51 

interest benefits it could and should accomplish. We think 

Ohio EP A has the opportunity to provide greater simplicity, 

clarity, and ease of administration of the minor source 

permitting program, in a manner that will help to modernize 

and improve Ohio's economy in environmentally beneficial 

ways. We think greater transparency, consistency, and 

predictability of the permitting process will not only serve the 

economic interests of Ohio, but will also improve public 

understanding and participation in the permitting process. 

We offer below some general and specific recommendations 

for improving the Interested Party proposal. 

In addition to our encouragement of first principles to guide 

the design of the PTIO proposal (simplicity, clarity, ease of 

administration, flexibility, transparency, consistency, 

predictability), we have found certain legal, technical, and 

policy oversights or weaknesses in the Interested Party 

proposal. We address these in detail in our comments 

below. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 2: Ohio EPA, DAP C appreciates your thorough review of the 

draft rules for implementing the PTIO program. We also 

appreciate your support for a more streamlined and flexible 

program. DAP C has taken great care in developing the PTIO 

program to achieve a more streamlined and flexible 

approach to permitting minor sources in Ohio. We have 

spent many years reviewing various options and developing 

what we feel is the best approach for Ohio. The remaining 

comments from this commenter, along with our responses, 

can be found throughout the body ofthis document. 

Comment 3: Development and implementation of the PTIO program will 

affect tens of thousands of permitted sources in Ohio and 

should be afforded greater process. 

The Commenters participated in Ohio EPA' s public 

information processes that accompanied the New Source 

Review Reform rulemakings. We found that process of 

dialogue and debate helpful to all involved. We would like to 

see a similar process implemented here. New Source 

Review permitting affects only a handful of sources each 

year; the PTIO program will affect upwards of 70,000, based 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 5 of 51 

on estimates Ohio EP A has made of the number of 

permitted sources in Ohio. Most of those 70,000+ sources 

are at small facilities without the benefit or support of fulltime environmental management staffs. Thus, it is even 

more important that Ohio EP A reach out to the people and 

facilities that are ultimately going to be most directly affected 

by the new permit program. We encourage Ohio EP A not to 

rush this new program but to allow for a full and robust 

discussion of it with the regulated community. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 3: We have taken additional steps to involve the public and 

various stakeholders throughout the development and 

implementation process, beyond that which is required for 

rulemaking under the Ohio Revised Code (ORC). In 2003, 

we provided information and a comment process for 

participants of the Permit Processing Efficiency Committee 

(PPEC), the Permit Advisory Group (PAG) and the general 

public. We received significant feedback from numerous 

organizations, businesses and individuals that can be found 

in the December 11, 2003 report entitled "Systematic 

Permitting Reorganization and Integration Team Report." 

(http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/permits/ptioreport.pdf) This 

feedback was used as we continued the process of 

developing the PTIO program. We developed a webpage 

and listserv devoted to keeping the public current on the 

progress of the PTIO program 

(http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/permits/ptio.html). In May 

of 2005 we developed flow charts and process descriptions 

which we made available for comment that described the 

draft procedures for processing PTIOs. In January 2006, 

we provided a Fact Sheet identifying key points of the 

program and methods of public participation 

(http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/permits/PTIOfactsheet01-

2006.pdf). In February 2006 drafts of the PTIO application 

and instructions as well as the Permit Evaluation Report 

(PER) form, instructions and internal review guidance were 

available for comment. Also in February 2006, we provided 

a pre-draft of the rules for implementing the PTIO program. 

We again received feedback from numerous stakeholders 

during this process. We are now in the official rulemaking 

phase of the PTIO program and will follow all the procedural 

requirements mandated by the OR C to continue to afford 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 6 of 51 

individuals an opportunity to participate in this important 

process. 

Comment 4: Throughout chapter, references are to "the Director, at his 

discretion." The references should either read, "at his or her 

discretion" or should be rewritten to be [gender] neutral. For 

instance, OA C 3745-31-03(A)(3) could be written as follows: 

(3) Discretionary Exemptions. 

The following actions may be exempted at the 

Director's discretion: 

(a) the installation and operation of 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 4: We will review the rules prior to proposal to incorporate 

gender neutrality. 

Rule 3745-15-03, "Submission of emission information" 

Comments: Based on the language of the proposed regulation, the 

Commenter interprets the intent to be exclude registered 

sources (under OA C rule 3745-31 [including grandfathered 

sources] and categorically exempted sources including 

PBR s and general permits) from all the requirements under 

proposed paragraphs C D and E. In a nutshell, if a facility 

had only registered and exempted sources no reporting is 

required under the proposed changes and, if a facility does 

have "permitted sources" (PTI or PT O issued), the report is 

not required to include the registered or exempted sources 

(PBR and general permits) issued to the facility. If this is 

incorrect Commenter suggests adding language to clarify the 

intent. 

(Dave Newsad, Shaw Environmental & Infastructure) 

Response 5: We do not believe the additional language is necessary. 

Paragraph (B) clearly identifies that the periodic reporting 

required under the draft rule is only applicable to sources 

issued a PTI, FEPTIO or PTIO. Paragraph (C)(1) and (D)(1) 

further states that the permits identified above must require 

such reports (as a term and condition of the permit itself). 

Sources that are grandfathered as "registered" sources or 

sources with older PTIs or PTO s that do not have such 

requirements identified in their permits will not be required to 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 7 of 51 

submit such reports until such time that they are 

subsequently issued a permit that contains the requirement 

explicitly. Sources that are exempt under OA C rule 3745-

31-03, including sources operating under a permit-by-rule 

(PBR) will also not be required to submit these reports 

unless the rule language for the exemption or PB R 

specifically identifies such a report must be submitted. 

General Permits are not considered "exempted sources." 

General permits are a form of PTI or PTIO that is issued to 

the source granting permission to install and/or operate. 

Again, sources with older general PTIs or general PTOs that 

do not have such requirements identified in their permits will 

not be required to submit such reports until such time that 

they are subsequently issued a general permit, or other 

permit, that contains the requirement explicitly. 

Comment 6: The public also loses an opportunity to be updated on a 

quarterly basis on the emission control and compliance in 

light of the move to annual reporting. This again is contrary 

to a transparent sense of governess if a community must 

wait until the end of the year to be fully informed of the 

activities that carry the potential to endanger their health and 

quality of life. Again, reliance on a complaint process that 

takes a minimum of six months for an investigation is 

obviously not the answer. The main issue is not to be 

informed in order to gather information to sue the regulated 

party or the regulating agency, but to ensure that the health 

and safety of a community is being properly protected. 

(Trent A. Dougherty, Ohio Environmental Council) 

Response 6: We have proposed the PTIO program require an annual 

Permit Evaluation Report (PER" that would benefit all 

stakeholders by improving compliance assurance. Permit 

holders would use the PE R to report a facilities ability to 

meet the obligations of their permit, prompting assistance 

and/or possible enforcement action from Ohio EPA. There 

would be a greater responsibility among permitted facilities 

to self report problems. Additionally, Ohio EP A staff would 

conduct regulatory oversight through review of PE R data 

and compliance inspections. 

Currently, not all permits require quarterly deviation and 

semi- annual reports. Although there would be a reduced 

reporting frequency for those companies that have quarterly 

deviation and semi-annual reporting requirements, it is 

anticipated that the companies would be much more diligent 

about both the timely submission of the PE R and the 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 8 of 51 

accuracy of the information contained in the reports. 

Currently, many companies are inundated with producing 

quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reports and tracking 

these reports; Ohio EP A is equally tasked with tracking and 

reviewing these reports. The current system is complex and 

confusing to many companies, resulting in many reports 

being completed inaccurately or omitted altogether. A s a 

result, the current reporting system is not an effective system 

for tracking a facility's ability to meet the obligations of their 

permit. It would be much easier for Ohio EP A to review and 

track the submission of the PER s than the several different 

types of reports that are currently required. As a result, Ohio 

E P A expects to find at least as many, and probably more, 

violations through PE R reporting than with the current 

process. 

An additional benefit of the PE R is increased communication 

with the regulated community. There currently is no system 

to ensure that smaller facilities will report changes in 

ownership, business shutdowns or shutdowns of emissions 

units. The PE R would achieve this on an annual basis. This 

would improve the accuracy of data that is passed along to 

the public. 

In fact, it is envisioned that compliance oversight of minor 

sources would increase once the PE R requirement is 

implemented. Assuring compliance is achieved in many 

ways including on-site visits, compliance inspections, 

complaint investigations, correspondence with the facility 

and the review of reports. Implementation of the PE R would 

consolidate the review of reports and over the long term, 

should free up resources and staff time to conduct other 

"hands-on" compliance oversight activities and establish a 

greater Ohio EP A presence in the field. A greater Ohio EP A 

presence in the field would increase the chance that a facility 

would be inspected and would likely result in a higher 

percentage of facilities operating in compliance with permit 

requirements. 

It is important to note that the change in reporting frequency 

(from quarterly to annual) would not change the frequency of 

the monitoring and recordkeeping required in the permit. 

This is an important point to note since the frequency of 

monitoring an emissions unit (air contaminant source) has a 

much greater effect on actual emission levels than does the 

frequency of reporting for that emissions unit. Therefore, 

documentation of a facilities ability to meet the obligations of 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 9 of 51 

their permit would continue to be available for review and 

inspection, in addition to reporting under the PER . 

Since the change to annual PE R reporting is not expected to 

impact emissions, and a greater Ohio EP A presence in the 

field would likely increase compliance with permit 

requirements, the proposed change ensures that the air is 

kept clean and human health is protected. 

Additionally, the annual report will only be applicable to 

minor sources. Sources which require more frequent 

reporting under OA C rules or the federal programs will 

continue to report at the frequency required under those 

regulations. For example, OA C rule 3745-15-06 requires 

companies to report malfunctions of equipment used to 

control air pollution. This reporting requirement remains in 

effect and requires a company to report malfunctions quickly 

with a follow-up written report concerning the malfunction. 

Finally, the switch to annual reporting will not hamper Ohio 

EPA' s ability to pursue enforcement. The length of time 

between the occurrence of a violation and when it is reported 

on the PE R would be well within the time frame in which 

Ohio EP A can pursue enforcement. 

Comment 7: PTIO Reports are too much like Title V. 

The PTIO program includes a proposal for periodic reporting 

that is similar in nature to Title V deviation reporting. 

According to proposed OA C 3745-15-03(B), PTIs, FEPTIOs 

and PTIO sources that subsequently become subject to Title 

V are subject to quarterly deviation reports virtually 

indistinguishable from Title V reports. PTIO sources are 

required to submit a Permit Evaluation Report, which is 

basically a deviation report that is submitted on an annual 

basis, and which requires an "affirmation" of truth and 

completeness. 

The requirement to conduct a permit evaluation and to 

submit a report - be it a deviation report or a permit 

evaluation report - is a new requirement for the vast majority 

of permitted sources in Ohio that carries significant burdens 

and liabilities and that makes Ohio less competitive in 

attracting new investments and jobs. Certification of 

compliance such as that found in the proposal carries 

significant legal obligations and liabilities. Whereas the Title 

V program requires that compliance certifications be based 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 10 of 51 

on "reasonable inquiry," in the PTIO proposal, no standard is 

identified. Thus, in some respects, the burden of the PTIO 

certification is more onerous, as it arguably requires absolute 

affirmation of truth and completeness. OR C Section 

3704.05(H) makes it unlawful to "[f]alsify any plans, 

specifications, data, reports, records, or other information 

required to be kept or submitted to the Director by this 

chapter or rules adopted under it." The requirement to 

submit a permit evaluation report imposes a very substantial 

new liability regime where none has existed before or been 

necessary in over 35 years of successful minor source air 

permitting in Ohio. 

Title V permits require compliance certification, but by 

definition, Title V sources are major sources of emissions 

with greater resources available to them. Holding minor 

sources to this same type of standard - even if it is less 

frequent than under Title V -imposes undue burden on 

minor source operators - many of which are small 

businesses that do not have professional staff resources or 

the ability to outsource an unprecedented paperwork burden. 

This burden will impose significant new costs on Ohio 

businesses - costs that other states do not impose on minor 

sources. Worse, the resources spent to develop this 

paperwork will have no practical effect in reducing air 

emissions in the state. We encourage Ohio EP A to delete 

the proposed requirements in OA C 3745-15-03 related to 

quarterly and annual reports by minor PTIO sources. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 7: Under existing Ohio law, OR C 3704.03(1) provides that the 

Director of environmental protection may require the person 

responsible for any air contaminant source to operate 

monitoring devices, maintain records, and file periodic 

reports containing any pertinent information the Director 

prescribes. Current day permits (both PTI and PTO) issued 

by the agency include a requirement for quarterly reporting 

of deviations. As noted by the commenter, there are many 

sources that do not have this current reporting obligation 

because their PTI was issued prior to Ohio EP A initiating the 

quarterly reporting terms in permits and due to the backlog 

of PTO s (also discussed in this document) requiring 

issuance. Without implementation of the PTIO program, 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 11 of 51 

DAP C would continue to work on the backlog of PTOs that 

continue to require issuance. Each of those PTOs , and any 

P TO renewed under the current program, would include a 

requirement for quarterly deviation reporting. As mentioned 

above, Ohio EP A believes we can improve the reporting 

process for minor sources by instituting the PE R report 

process. We note, as noted by other commenters, that 

periodic reporting of a facility's ability to meet the obligations 

of their permit is an important tool for both Ohio EP A and 

citizens to be aware of potential issues that could endanger 

the health and quality of life of Ohio's citizens. 

The PE R is a consolidated collection of information about 

the emissions units at a facility for a given year. Facilities 

would be provided with a form for reporting, developed by 

Ohio EPA, to ease the burden over the current process. As 

you may be aware, Ohio EP A does not currently require any 

particular format in reporting the status of a facility's ability to 

meet the obligations of their permit. This has advantages 

and disadvantages. The advantage is that permittees are left 

to develop internal tracking and reporting systems to best 

suit their needs and mesh with their internal procedures and 

practices. The disadvantage is that many permittees that 

would fall into the PTIO population have limited resources 

and staff to dedicate to ensuring proper records are kept and 

adequate information is provided regarding permit 

requirements. Ohio EP A envisions that a structured reporting 

regime would lend consistency in reporting, and a better 

understanding of permittee record keeping and reporting 

obligations. 

The requirement for annual PE R reporting begins after a 

PTIO is issued. Thus, existing minor sources would become 

subject to the PE R requirements as the renewal permits are 

processed and issued as a PTIO. Therefore, if an emissions 

unit does not have a PTIO, the permittee would not be 

required to submit a PER . Under Ohio rules, most existing 

PTO s are still active and effective, even though Ohio EP A 

has not renewed them. Companies must continue to comply 

with their existing PTOs because they applied to renew the 

permits. 

The PE R is not a "line-by-line" compliance report as is 

required in Title V annual compliance certifications whereby 

Title V permit holders must certify compliance with each term 

and condition in the permit. Additionally, the PER , unlike the 

authority granted for the Title V annual certification of 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 12 of 51 

compliance, does not provide a mechanism for subjecting 

the signatory of the report to criminal penalties for 

falsification of reports. The PE R does not add any legal 

liability to the entity that does not already exist under current 

law. 

The PE R also provides an avenue for reporting any other 

pertinent information that may be useful to Ohio EPA. It is an 

opportunity for the permittee to report process 

improvements, issues and projects. It can open the door for 

discussion and understanding between Ohio EP A and the 

facility concerning regulated operations. We believe better 

understanding of facility operations and projects would result 

in greater compliance rates. 

Rule 3745-15-03 (B) 

Comment 8: OA C 3745-15-03 is being revised to include reporting 

schedules for PTIOs. It might lead to confusion since this 

very important requirement is not contained in the same 

chapter as the other PTIO requirements. DAP C should 

consider incorporating these requirements into Chapter 31. 

(Rick Carleski, Ohio EPA Office of Compliance 

Assistance and Pollution Prevention) 

Response 8: We have decided to retain this requirement in OA C rule 

3745-15-03. The authority is based both on the OR C and 

the first paragraph of OA C rule 3745-15-03. Each permit 

issued under OA C Chapter 3745-31 will cite the requirement 

contained in OA C rule 3745-15-03. 

Rule 3745-15-03 (D) 

Comment 9: 15-03(D)(1) - Check reference of (A)(2), there is no (A)(2). Is 

(B)(2) the correct reference? 

(Christopher Clinefelter, RAPCA) 

Erroneously references a non-existent paragraph (A)(2). 

The correct reference should be (B)(2). 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 9: We will make the correction in the proposed rule. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 13 of 51 

Comment 10: It is unclear to me if the intent is that (Any Credible Evidence 

(ACE)) is to be utilized in reviewing operations for submitting 

reports under the PER . As you know, previous legal 

decisions have specified that sources regulated under 

certain federal regulations (Parts 51, 52, 60, and 61- SIPs, 

NSPS , NESHAP s etc) and permitted by a state under a SIP 

are required to be reviewed for compliance under AC E in 

addition to terms and conditions of a permit. If it is the intent 

that AC E be utilized in preparing and submitting report I 

suggest adding language clarifying this so that regulated 

facilities are aware of this, understand this concept and 

consider its applicability. 

(Dave Newsad, Shaw Environmental & Infastructure) 

Response 10: It is not the intention of Ohio EP A to apply the AC E concept 

to PTIO. 40 CF R Part 70 and the associated compliance 

certification provisions require Title V permittees to annually 

evaluate compliance with the permit terms and the 

compliance status of the source relative to any credible 

evidence that indicates non-compliance. The commenter is 

correct that AC E can be applied to a number of federal 

regulations (Parts 51, 52, 60, and 61- SIPs, NSPS , 

NESHAP s etc). Although some minor (i.e., non-title V) 

sources are subject to regulations identified above, the PE R 

is not equivalent to the Compliance Certification and AC E 

does not apply to this activity. The PE R specifically focuses 

on the existing permit requirements and any deviations 

identified through evaluation of the data based on the 

established permit requirements. 

Comment 11: The language outlining the Permit Evaluation Report (PER) 

implies that only an annual report is required. A single 

annual report will be a benefit to small businesses. However, 

it is our understanding that the annual PE R cannot override 

any quarterly reporting schedule already specified in an OA C 

rule, NSP S or NESHA P requirement or other requirement. 

For example, OA C 3745-21-09(B) requires quarterly 

reporting for some coating lines. For such a coating line 

PTIO, will the company be required to continue submitting 

these quarterly reports in addition to the annual PER ? The 

proposed rule language does not make this clear. The PE R 

will be used to update Ohio EP A on equipment that has 

been removed/shutdown or newly installed. This will be 

beneficial in keeping the company's files current and may 

serve to avoid future enforcement actions for installing 

equipment without a permit. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 14 of 51 

(Rick Carleski, Ohio EPA Office of Compliance 

Assistance and Pollution Prevention) 

Response 11: Yes , any other state or federal rule based reporting required 

at a greater frequency than annual will still be required in the 

future. We are developing a mechanism for the PE R report 

that will enable sources submitting the annual report to also 

submit any other report required at the same time together. 

However, Ohio EP A does not have the authority to extend 

the reporting frequency for other reports currently required to 

be submitted more frequently. 

Rule-3745-31-01, "Definitions" 

Rule 3745-31-01 (P) 

Comment 12: The cross reference is incorrect. It should read "paragraph 

(000)(4) of this rule." 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 12: We will make the correction in the proposed rule. 

Rule 3745-31-01 (NN) 

Comment 13: This rule states that "express permit-to-install" or "express 

PTIO" means a registration status permit-to-install or 

registration status PTIO that is registered for express 

processing and issuance pursuant to paragraph (F) of rule 

3745-31-05 of the Administrative Code and pursuant to the 

division (A) of section 3704.037 of the Revised Code." The 

references to "registration status" within this definition are 

confusing. As Commenters understand the rule proposal, 

upon implementation, no new registration status permits will 

be issued. Sources currently on registration status will 

remain on registration status indefinitely, until such time as 

the Director may request that they submit a PTIO application 

and are issued a PTIO. The term "registration status" thus 

has no meaning and is confusing in the context of express 

PTIs and PTIOs, because, as Commenters understand the 

rule, express PTI and PTIO permits will actually be issued. 

Nothing will be on "registration" anymore. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 15 of 51 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 13: We believe the commenter is referring to registration status 

PTOs when discussing "registration status permits." OA C 

rule 3745-31-05 historically, and currently, also refers to 

registration status PTIs. Registration status PTIs have 

always been PTIs that are placed on a "rush list" for 

expedited processing so permission to install could occur 

quickly under certain circumstances. Currently OR C 

3704.03.7 requires a tiered PTI and PT O system that 

includes at least "exemptions, registration status, permits-byrule and general permits." With the implementation of PTIO, 

registration of certain sources for operating purposes will no 

longer be necessary (rendered redundant). However, we 

feel it is still important to retain "rush" processing, now 

termed "express" processing of PTIs and PTIOs, which has 

historically been termed "registration status" PTIs. In order 

to remain consistent with the language of the OR C but more 

accurately describe the express PTI/PTIO process as 

"express", we have removed the terminology in OA C rule 

3745-31-05 for "registration" PTIs and replaced it with 

"express" processing terminology. The definition included in 

O A C rule 3745-31-01 preserves the consistency with the 

O R C terminology and historical use of registration status PTI 

terminology. 

Rule 3745-31-01 (WW ) 

Comment 14: The definition of "potential to emit" should not be modified 

Ohio EP A has proposed adding language to Ohio EPA' s 

current definition of "potential to emit" in OA C 3745-31-

01 (WW ) to incorporate additional language that appears in 

the OA C Chapter 3745-35 definition of "potential to emit." 

Ohio EP A explains that "[b]oth definitions have been 

approved as part of Ohio's state implementation plan, one to 

address new source review, and the other to address 

federally enforceable state operating permits (FESOP)." 

See Ohio EPA' s Synopsis of Changes that accompanied the 

PTIO proposal (hereinafter "Ohio EPA' s Synopsis"). Yet, in 

the very next sentence, Ohio EP A acknowledges that 

"FESOP s will not be issued under the PTIO program, rather 

FEPTIOs (Federally Enforceable Permit-to-install and 

operate) will be issued." In light of the fact that FESOP s will 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 16 of 51 

no longer be a issued by Ohio EPA, the Commenters see no 

reason for incorporating language from the Chapter 3745-35 

definition of potential to emit that was meant to address such 

permits. The Commenters urge Ohio EP A to leave the 

current OA C Chapter 3745-31 definition as is. The addition 

of extra language that appeared in the OA C Chapter 3745-

35 PT O rules does nothing to clarify or improve the existing 

O A C 3745-31 definition, which is consistent with U S EP A 

policy and is federally approved as part of Ohio's SIP. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 14: We believe the definition of potential-to-emit that has been 

drafted will be re-approved by USEP A as part of the SIP 

under normal procedures that occur after a rule is amended. 

In our synopsis we do state "FESOP s will not be issued 

under the PTIO program, rather FEPTIOs (Federally 

Enforceable Permit-to-install and operate) will be issued." 

This is because the PT O program is being incorporated into 

the PTI program as the "PTIO" program. Permission to 

operate is still required under the OR C under the PTIO 

program just as it was under the PT O program. Accordingly, 

the FESO P program is being incorporated into the new 

program as the "FEPTIO" program and the same definition 

for potential-to-emit that was used during the FESO P 

process will be used during the FEPTIO process. Federal 

enforceability of these types of permits will remain 

unchanged in the future. Permission to operate under what 

was previously called a federally enforceable "PTO" is now 

being granted under the federally enforceable "PTIO" 

program. We are not eliminating FESOP s as the commenter 

implies but rather giving it new terminology consistent with 

the new program. 

Rule 3745-31-01 (BBBBBBM2) 

Comment 15: This section references editions of publications that are not 

yet in print, such as the July 1, 2007 Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 17 of 51 

Response 15: At the time of proposal and prior to the effective date of 

these amendments, July 1, 2007 editions will be in print. 

Rule 3745-31-02, "Applicability, requirements, and obligations" 

Rule 3745-31-02 (A) 

Comment 16: Implementation of PTIO program 

Proposed OA C 3745-31 -02(A)(1) states: 

Except as provided in rule 3745-31-03 of the 

Administrative Code, no person shall cause, 

permit, or allow the: 

(a) Installation and operation of a new source 

without first obtaining a permit-to-install or 

PTIO from the Director; or 

(b) Modification and operation of a new source 

without first obtaining a permit-to-install or 

PTIO from the Director; .... 

We believe the proposed rule attempts to accomplish too 

much in these two sentences, resulting in confusion. The 

foregoing provisions are meant to address installation, 

modification and operation of both major (Title V) and minor 

(PTO) sources, some of which will require both a PTI and a 

Title V operating permit, others of which will require only a 

PTIO. Nothing in proposed OA C 3745-31-02 explains when 

a PTI is required versus when a PTIO is required, and the 

language quoted above indicates that obtaining either a PTI 

or a PTIO is sufficient authority to install or modify and 

operate a source. This does not accurately or sufficiently 

identify the different permitting obligations for major and 

minor sources. For example, the reference to "obtaining a 

PTI" in the foregoing provisions should only be applicable to 

major sources, which would also need a Title V operating 

permit (or the submittal of a timely Title V permit application) 

to be authorized to "operate." The foregoing provision does 

not make this clear. 

Moreover, as currently proposed, OA C 3745-31-02(A) could 

be interpreted to make it illegal for sources in operation 

today in accordance with a PT O or a pending PT O 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 18 of 51 

application to continue to operate after the effective date of 

the proposed rule without first obtaining a PTIO, as nothing 

in the proposed rule text addresses the transition between 

today's system and the PTIO program. In other words, 

nowhere do the proposed revisions to OA C 3745-31-02(A) 

address the operation of existing "new sources" (Le., 

sources built after January 1, 1974 that are in operation 

today) that are not Title V sources. The only reference to 

operation of such sources is in paragraphs (a) and (b), 

above, which would make it illegal to operate any sources 

built or modified after January 1, 1974 without first obtaining 

a PTIO. Thus, if the rule is finalized in its current form, on 

the effective date of the rule, virtually every source in Ohio 

would be in violation of this requirement. We do not believe 

this is Ohio EPA' s intent. 

The rule proposal also adds paragraph (A)(1)(c), which 

comes from the current OA C 3745-35-05 and is intended to 

cover pre-1974 sources that were grandfathered from the 

PTI program. We believe that the proposed language in 

(A)(1)(c) is too broad and ill-defines the authority the Director 

has with respect to such sources. Rather than the vague, 

all-encompassing language proposed, we suggest that the 

rule identify what can be contained in such PTIOs with 

greater specificity. 

We suggest that the following revisions, based on the 

current language of OA C 3745-31-02, will address the 

foregoing concerns (our proposed additions are 

CAPITALIZED and deletions are striken: 

(A) AFTE R TH E EFFECTIV E DATE O F THIS RULE , 

A N D EXCEP T A S PROVIDE D IN RUL E 3745-31-03 

O F TH E ADMINISTRATIVE CODE , 

(1) no person shall cause, permit, or allow the 

installation of a new source of air pollutants AT 

A MAJO R SOURC E A S DEFINED IN OA C 

3745-77-01, or cause, permit, or allow the 

modification of an air contaminant source 

SUC H THAT TH E FACILITY AT WHICH TH E 

SOURC E IS LOCATE D BECOME S A MAJO R 

SOURC E A S DEFINE D IN OA C 3745-77-01, 

without first obtaining a permit-to-install (PTI) 

from the Director. SOURCE S SUBJEC T TO 

T H E REQUIREMENT S O F PARAGRAP H 

3745-31-02(A)(1) SHALL ALS O B E SUBJEC T 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 19 of 51 

TO TH E REQUIREMEN T TO APPL Y FO R 

A N D OBTAIN A N OPERATIN G PERMIT 

PURSUAN T TO OA C CHAPTE R 3745-77. A 

PTI ISSUED PURSUAN T TO THIS 

PARAGRAP H AUTHORIZES A NE W 

SOURC E TO OPERAT E A S PROVIDE D IN 

O R C 3704.03(F)(2). 

(2) WHER E PARAGRAP H 3745-31-02(A)(1) 

IS NOT APPLICABLE , no person shall cause, 

permit, or allow the installation AN D 

SUBSEQUEN T OPERATIO N of a new source 

of air pollutants, or cause, permit, or allow the 

modification AN D SUBSEQUEN T 

OPERATIO N of an air contaminant source 

without first obtaining a permit-to-install AN D 

OPERAT E (PTIO) from the Director. 

(3) no person shall cause, permit, or allow the 

operation of any air contaminant source not 

defined as a new source under rule 3745-31-

01 of the Administrative Code and not subject 

to Chapter 3745-77 of the Administrative Code 

without first obtaining authority to operate 

through issuance of a PTIO from the Director, 

IN ACCORDANC E WITH PARAGRAP H (B) 

O F THIS SECTION , which may SHALL ONL Y 

include: 

(a) A N IDENTIFICATION OF ALL 

APPLICABL E EMISSIONS 

LIMITATIONS AN D OTHE R 

REQUIREMENT S FOUN D IN RULE S 

REGULATIN G AIR POLLUTION 

ADMINISTERE D B Y TH E OHIO 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO N 

AGENCY , ALON G WITH AN Y 

MONITORING, RECORDKEEPIN G 

A N D REPORTIN G OBLIGATIONS 

EXPRESSL Y CONTAINE D IN SUC H 

RULES ; AN D 

(a) Requirements for equipping the air 

contaminant source with instrumentation 

and sensing devices to monitor and 

record—emission—data and—other 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 20 of 51 

information about the operation of the 

air contaminant source; and 

(b) IN TH E EVEN T THAT APPLICABL E 

RULE S DO NOT PROVID E TESTING 

F O R DEMONSTRATIN G 

COMPLIANCE , requirements for 

performance tests that demonstrate that 

the source is in compliance with 

applicable emission limitations and other 

applicable laws, at the applicant's 

expense, in accordance with methods 

prescribed by the Ohio environmental 

protection agency. The Ohio 

environmental protection agency, or its 

representatives may observe, 

participate in, or conduct any 

performance test required. 

(B) TRANSITION TO PTIO PROGRA M 

An owner or operator NOT SUBJEC T TO CHAPTE R 

3745-77 O F TH E ADMINISTRATIVE COD E who, 

UPO N TH E EFFECTIV E DATE O F THIS RULE , 

currently holds a permit-to-install and/or permit-tooperate for an air contaminant source that was issued 

prior to the effective date of this rule may be issued IS 

HEREB Y AUTHORIZE D TO CONTINU E TO 

OPERAT E PURSUAN T TO SUC H PERMIT-TOINSTALL O R PERMIT-TO-OPERATE , WHICH 

SHALL, A S O F TH E EFFECTIV E DATE O F THIS 

RULE , B E CONSIDERE D A PTIO AN D SUBJEC T TO 

T H E REQUIREMENT S O F PTIOS UNDE R THIS 

CHAPTER . TH E OWNE R O R OPERATO R OF 

SUC H A N AIR CONTAMINAN T SOURC E SHALL 

APPL Y FO R a PTIO for the same air contaminant 

source UPO N REQUES T BY TH E DIRECTOR . Upon 

final issuance of the PTIO, any permit-to-install and/or 

permit-to-operate for the air contaminant source will 

be superseded by the issuance of the PTIO. The 

superseded permits will cease to be IN EFFEC T AN D 

enforceable. 

(C) A PERMIT APPLICAN T MA Y REQUES T ONE , 

T WO O R MOR E SEPARAT E PTIOS FO R A SINGLE 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 21 of 51 

PLAN T SITE, AN D TH E DIRECTO R SHALL HONO R 

A LL SUC H REQUESTS . 

The suggested revisions to Ohio EPA' s proposed paragraph 

O A C 3745-31-02(A)(2), shown above as Commenters' 

proposed OA C 3745-31-02(B), would treat existing PTIs and 

PTOs like PTIOs upon the effective date of the rules, thus 

authorizing continued operation of sources under current 

permits until such time as a PTIO can be issued. This is 

particularly important in the context of FESOP s that were 

taken to avoid the applicability of one or more additional 

requirements. VVithout the inclusion of such a provision, 

nothing in the proposed rules expressly authorizes continued 

operation of sources currently in existence between the 

effective date of the PTIO program and the issuance of 

PTIOs. Additionally, without such a provision, adoption of 

the PTIO program would not eliminate the current PT O 

backlog, as Ohio EP A would still need to issue permits to 

those many thousands of sources with pending PT O 

applications. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 16: We agree that the language in subparagraph (A)(1) should 

be clarified and we will be proposing the following: 

(1) Except as provided in rule 3745-31-03 of the 

Administrative Code, no person shall cause, permit, 

or allow: 

(a) installation or modification of any new 

source that is part of a facility, as defined in 

Chapter 3745-77 of the Administrative Code, 

and that is required to obtain a Title V permit 

under Chapter 3745-77 of the Administrative 

Code, without first obtaining a permit-to-install 

from the Director; or 

(b) installation or modification, and subsequent 

operation of any new source that is not part of 

a facility, as defined in Chapter 3745-77 of the 

Administrative Code, and that is not required to 

obtain a Title V permit under Chapter 3745-77 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 22 of 51 

of the Administrative Code, without first 

obtaining a PTIO from the Director; or 

[comment: paragraph (A)(1)(b) of this 

rule is not intended to prohibit any new 

source, as defined in rule 3745-31-01 of 

the Administrative Code, currently 

operating under an effective permit-toinstall or permit-to-operate from 

continuing operation in accordance with 

said permits. Nor is it intended to 

prohibit any new source currently 

operating under an expired permit-tooperate, where a timely and complete 

application for renewal is pending in 

accordance with division (C) of section 

119.06 of the revised code, from 

continuing operation in accordance with 

the expired permit-to-operate until such 

time as a PTIO is issued.] 

(c) operation of any air contaminant source not 

defined as a new source under rule 3745-31-

01 of the Administrative Code, that is not part 

of a facility, as defined in Chapter 3745-77 of 

the Administrative Code, and that is not 

required to obtain a Title V permit under 

Chapter 3745-77 of the Administrative Code, 

without first obtaining authority to operate 

through issuance of a PTIO from the Director, 

which may include 

We are not proposing any additional changes to paragraph 

(A)(1)(c) as requested by the commenter. This language 

was taken from OA C rule 3745-35-05 and it is not Ohio 

EPA' s intent at this time to change the current requirements 

for operation of sources, including pre-1974 sources. The 

purpose of this rulemaking is to combine our current SIP 

approved permitting processes into the PTIO program. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (A)(1)(c) 

Comment 17: It appears to me the proposed revision to OA C rule 3745-31-

02 (A)(1)(c) needs to be amended to recognize the new 

language proposed to be added for "grandfathered" 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 23 of 51 

registration sources as proposed under 3745-31-08. It does 

not appear to me this proposed section currently 

acknowledges this and it appears to me this is needed to 

cover authorization to operate grandfathered registration 

sources under this regulation. 

(Dave Newsad, Shaw Environmental & Infastructure) 

Response 17: We agree and will amend the language as such: 

(c) Operation of any air contaminant source, except 

as provided in rule 3745-31-08 of the Administrative 

Code, not defined as a new source under rule 3745-

31-01 of the Administrative Code and not subject to 

Chapter 3745-77 of the Administrative Code without 

first obtaining authority to operate through issuance of 

a PTIO from the Director, which may include: 

(i) Requirements for and 

(ii) Requirements required. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (A)(2) 

Comment 18: This provision allows for the conversion of existing PTI or 

P TO to a PTIO. However, the proposed rule language does 

not make it clear whether a PTIO application is needed to 

initiate this conversion process. Does DAP C intend to 

require an application for every PTIO, or can existing 

pending PTO applications be used? (Perhaps this is an 

implementation question for later policy development). If 

DAP C elects to require PTIO applications to replace 

unprocessed PT O applications, some kind of notice should 

be sent to the company to alert them of this requirement. 

Since the PTIO application is different from the PT O 

application, some outreach efforts should be coordinated to 

help the regulated community understand the new PTIO 

application. 

(Rick Carleski, Ohio EPA Office of Compliance 

Assistance and Pollution Prevention) 

Response 18: Ohio EPA' s intention is that as existing PTO s expire, renewal 

PTIOs would be issued. If a PTI has been issued but a PTO 

has not yet been issued, then a renewal PTIO would be 

issued. If a source has a PTI issued and a pending PT O 

application that was submitted previously and warrants 

updating due to the age of the pending application, Ohio 

E P A may request supplemental information from the 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 24 of 51 

permittee. This is consistent with the current process for 

issuing PTO s for sources that have spent a significant time 

on the PT O backlog. Whether supplemental information 

would be needed will have to be evaluated on a case-bycase basis by the field office who would work with the 

permittee. 

In more rare cases, Ohio EP A and/or a permittee that 

currently holds a valid PTI and PT O for a source may desire 

to have them re-issued as a PTIO when approved by Ohio 

EPA. In those cases, we agree an updated application "may" 

be necessary and will add language to this paragraph 

accordingly. For example, if a company specifically requests 

migration into the PTIO program prior to expiration of 

existing permit, then Ohio EP A can issue a renewal PTIO 

but it may be necessary or the permittee to submit a PTIO 

application. In those cases, Ohio EP A would notify the 

permittee on a case-by-case basis that an application is 

necessary. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (B)(1)(c) 

Comment 19: For clarification, add "TV" in front of permit in the first 

sentence. 

(Christopher Clinefelter, RAPCA) 

Response 19: The use of "permit" is not specific to Title V in this reference. 

It can either be the permit (Title V) required under 

subparagraph (B)(1)(a) or permit (PTI) required under 

subparagraph (B)(1)(b). 

Rule 3745-31-02 (B)(2) 

Comment 20: Proposed requirements for sources transitioning between 

major (i.e., Title V) and minor source status improperly 

subject sources to two sets of requirements 

Proposed OA C 3745-31-02(B)(2) states: 

The following is applicable to an owner or operator 

who currently holds a Title V permit where a change 

eliminates the applicability of Chapter 3745-77 of the 

Administrative Code but the change does not exempt 

the owner or operator from requirements to obtain a 

PTIO. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 25 of 51 

(a) The owner or operator shall submit the 

required application and obtain a PTIO or 

Federally Enforceable PTIO (FEPTIO) from the 

Director, as required under this chapter. 

(b) Final issuance of any permit required under 

paragraph (B)(2)(a) of this rule does not 

release the owner or operator from the 

requirements contained in Chapter 3745-77 of 

the Administrative Code or the owner or 

operator's Title V permit, unless expressly 

identified as such in rule or a federally 

enforceable permit. 

Proposed paragraph (B)(2)(b), read literally, would mean 

that the source in question could be subject to both the 

requirements of a PTIO and a Title V permit, despite the fact 

that the two permitting programs are mutually exclusive. 

Ohio EPA' s Synopsis explains that this language is 

necessary because: 

Ohio EP A currently does not have the authority 

to supersede Title V permit terms & conditions. 

Obtaining a PTIO or FEPTIO does not relieve 

the permittee from the requirements of their 

Title V permit. Any rulemaking that would 

include this would be incorporated into Chapter 

3745-77 or in the terms & conditions of the 

Title V permit. 

However, there is no need for a PTIO to supersede anything. 

When a source no longer meets the definition of a "major 

source" for purposes of Title V and has applied for and 

obtained a PTIO, it is no longer subject to the Title V permit 

program. Paragraph (B)(2)(b) is not objectionable if the 

intent behind it was that any obligations applicable to the 

source for the period of time during which it was a Title V 

source are fulfilled, even though the source is no longer a 

"Title V" source. In particular, we believe that the only Title V 

requirements that could continue to be applicable to a 

source that has become minor would be recordkeeping and 

reporting obligations, such as quarterly deviation reports and 

an annual compliance certification covering those days of a 

given year during which the source was subject to Title V. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 26 of 51 

Additionally, the reference to a FEPTIO in paragraph 

(B)(2)(a) should be deleted. As we discuss below, there is 

no reason for FEPTIOs to exist. See Section 9, below. 

Given the foregoing, we propose the following revisions to 

paragraph (B)(2): 

The following is applicable to an owner or operator 

who currently holds a Title V permit where a change 

eliminates the applicability of Chapter 3745-77 of the 

Administrative Code but the change does not exempt 

the owner or operator from requirements to obtain a 

PTIO. 

(a) The owner or operator shall submit the 

required application and obtain a PTIO or 

Federally Enforcoablo PTIO (FEPTIO) from the 

Director, as required under this chapter, 

WITHIN TWELV E MONTH S AFTE R SUC H 

CHANG E OCCURS . 

(b) Final issuance of any permit required under 

paragraph (B)(2)(a) of this rule does not release the 

owner or operator from tbe AN Y REPORTIN G O R 

RECORDKEEPIN G requirements contained in 

Chapter 3745-77 of the Administrative Code or the 

owner or operator's Title V permit FO R TH E PERIOD 

O F TIME DURING WHICH TH E SOURC E WA S A 

TITLE V SOURCE., unless expressly identified as 

such in rule or a federally enforceable permit. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 20: Ohio EP A does not currently have a mechanism to revoke a 

Title V permit prior to expiration for reasons other than those 

identified in OA C rule 3745-77-08(D)(1)(d). We recognize 

this is a shortcoming of the Title V program and we are 

actively working on a mechanism to correct the deficiency. 

We have developed procedures to remove all requirements 

in a Title V permit except certain reporting requirements, as 

noted by the commenter, when a source is no longer subject 

to the Title V program due to a change that takes it below 

the threshold levels. The draft paragraph (B)(2)(b) simply 

states that we do not have the authority to release the owner 

of the requirements under Chapter 77 through the 

PTIO/FEPTIO program. However, specific language was 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 27 of 51 

added to this paragraph (i.e., "unless expressly identified as 

such in rule or a federally enforceable permit") to allow us to 

continue to work on the mechanism to correct this 

deficiency. Until such time, sources always have the option 

to continue operation under the Title V program until their 

current Title V permit expires and at that time transition into 

the PTIO/FEPTIO program. 

Please see response #14 in reference to the FEPTIO 

program. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (C) 

Comment 21: Once permanently shutdown, will this relieve the company 

from TV reporting requirements if written so in the general 

terms & conditions? 

(Christopher Clinefelter, RAPCA) 

Response 21: This paragraph is specifically in reference to a PTI or PTIO 

only. Any authority to do such an activity for a Title V source 

would have to be addressed through the Title V program 

and/or rules. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (D) 

Comment 22: Under what circumstances can we be sure that a company 

may in the future violate applicable law? 

(Christopher Clinefelter, RAPCA) 

Response 22: For example, if a new applicable requirement is promulgated 

and the sources current operations for which it is exempted 

would violate the future applicable law (e.g., a MACT), the 

source may no long be able to be exempt. 

Comment 23: Proposed OA C 3745-31-02(D) is too broad 

Proposed OA C 3745-31 -02(D) states: 

If, in the Director's judgment, based on a 

review of mass emission test data, visible 

emission readings, emission factors, mass 

balance data, source inspection information, or 

other pertinent information, an air contaminant 

source exempted under rule 3745-31-03 of the 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 28 of 51 

Administrative Code, has violated, may 

presently be violating, or may in the future 

violate applicable law, the Director shall notify 

the owner or operator of the source in writing 

that the source is no longer exempt pursuant to 

rule 3745-31-03 of the Administrative Code. 

The owner or operator may contest the 

withdrawal of exemption by filing with the 

hearing clerk, within thirty days of receipt of the 

written notification, a request for adjudication 

hearing. At the close of hearing procedures, 

the Director shall restore the exemption if the 

owner or operator has demonstrated that the 

source has not violated, is not presently 

violating, and will not in the future violate 

applicable law. Nothing in this paragraph shall 

be construed as to abrogate the responsibility 

of the source to comply with all other 

applicable requirements or law of other political 

subdivisions of the State of Ohio or with the 

Clean Air Act. 

As proposed, OA C 3745-31-02(D) gives the Director broad 

authority to revoke permit exemptions and in so doing, to 

revoke an owner or operator's authority to operate, without 

adequate procedural due process. Ohio EPA, in its 

Synopsis, claims that this provision simply incorporates the 

requirements of to-be-deleted OA C 3745-35-05(A)(2) and 

(A)(3). However, the ability to revoke an owner or operator's 

authority to operate in OA C 3745-35-05(A)(2) and (3) was 

limited to the four exemptions identified in 3745-35-05(A)(1) 

- namely, comfort ventilating systems, incinerators located 

at dwellings, residential fossil-fuel fired boilers and heaters, 

and gasoline storage tanks, grain dryers and storage silos at 

farms, all of which are also exempt under OA C 3745-31-03. 

By substituting a reference to OA C 3745-31-03 for OA C 

3745-35-05(A)(2) and (3) in the text, above, Ohio EP A has 

significantly expanded the scope of the former provision and 

is not just incorporating requirements in the existing PT O 

rules. 

Moreover, such unilateral revocation by the Director of 

permit exemptions established by rule violates Chapter 119 

ofthe Ohio. See OR C Section 119.03, which establishes the 

mechanism that must be followed to modify or rescind a rule. 

Because the exemptions in OA C 3745-31-03 are established 

by rule, an action by the Director to eliminate any such 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 29 of 51 

exemption where it would otherwise be applicable based on 

the rule text is an unlawful attempt to supersede the rule on 

a case-by-case basis, without following the procedural 

requirements in Chapter 119. 

Even if the proposed provision were legally supportable, it is 

unreasonable, requiring a demonstration that the source "will 

not in the future violate applicable law" in order to restore a 

permit exemption. Rather than revoking permit exemptions 

and later restoring them on the basis of such unreasonable 

criteria, the rules should instead provide for an expeditious 

hearing first, to be followed by revocation where appropriate. 

Additionally, as the proposed rule is drafted, it does not 

address the timeframe for an owner or operator to apply for 

and obtain a PTI/PTIO following the revocation of a permit 

exemption. Without such a provision, this rule would make it 

unlawful for a source to operate in the interim. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, we suggest the deletion of 

proposed OA C 3745-31-02(D). To the extent that this 

language was intended to incorporate language in OA C 

3745-35-05, we point out that the Chapter 3745-35 

exemptions and many more already existed in OA C 3745-

31-03, without such a provision. Adequate enforcement 

mechanisms exist to address sources that violate the 

requirements of rule-based exemptions without the need for 

Ohio EP A to revoke rule-based exemptions in the foregoing 

unreasonable and unlawful manner. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 23: This language is verbatim from OA C rule 3745-35-05(A)(3). 

It was not Ohio EPA s intent as part of this rulemaking to 

change the fundamental requirements of obtaining and 

maintaining the authority to operate in Ohio as it has existed 

for a number of years. As such we have made every attempt 

to transfer the language from OA C Chapter 35, and its 

original intent, into OA C Chapter 31. Under OR C 3704.03, 

the Director has the authority to develop programs for the 

prevention, control, and abatement of air pollution, including 

development of rules requiring operational permits to 

achieve this goal. The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure 

that sources exempt from the requirements of obtaining 

permits continue to operate within the confines of applicable 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 30 of 51 

law, and if it is evidenced that they are in violation of an 

applicable law, ensure that the source is notified and 

provided an opportunity to contest any allegations of the 

Ohio EP A otherwise. We believe due process is accounted 

for in this historical rule language. It is consistent with the 

requirements in OR C 3704.03(G) that affords the Director 

the authority to revoke a permit due to violations, providing 

due notice of the reason... 

"No application shall be denied or permit revoked or 

modified without a written order stating the findings 

upon which denial, revocation, or modification is 

based. A copy of the order shall be sent to the 

applicant or permit holder by certified mail." 

While we agree the original language in OA C rule 3745-35-

05(A)(3) was only applicable to the listed exemptions in OA C 

rule 3745-05(A)(1), we believe the provisions should be 

extended to all sources and activities that are now explicitly 

identified for exemption from BOT H installation and 

operation under OA C rule 3745-31-03. These exemptions 

were not specifically listed in the original OA C rule 3745-35-

05(A)(3) although they were referenced as exempt from 

obtaining operational permits through OA C rule 3745-35-

02(A)(2). 

We believe this provision is still consistent with the Director's 

authority to develop programs for the prevention, control, 

and abatement of air pollution, including development of 

rules for operational permits to achieve this goal. Any 

source or activity, not just a small subset, that has been 

exempted from obtaining an installation and operational 

permit that later operates in a manner that violates the 

original exemption and/or applicable law, should not be 

afforded the ability to continue operating under the violated 

exemption, but rather be required to obtain the appropriate 

permit granting authority to operate consistent with the ORC . 

Rule 3745-31-02 (G) 

Comment 24: OA C 3745-31-02(G) should provide a Permit Shield 

As proposed, OA C 3745-31-02(G) states that "[t]he approval 

to construct and/or operate under this chapter shall not 

relieve any owner or operator of a stationary source of the 

responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of this 

chapter and any other requirements under local, state or 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 31 of 51 

federal law." In other words, there is no "permit shield" for 

compliance with permit terms that both the permit holder and 

the agency believe to be accurate and proper at the time of 

permit issuance. We propose that Ohio EP A replace this 

paragraph with language similar to that used in Title V: 

"Compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit 

shall be deemed compliance with the applicable 

requirements identified and addressed in this permit as of 

the date of permit issuance." A minor source should at a 

minimum be afforded the same protections that Title V 

sources have. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 24: We do not believe it would be appropriate to apply a Title V 

type permit shield to the state only program, nor do we 

anticipate we have the authority under the Ohio Revised 

Code. Such a provision, as suggested by the commentor, 

which would find "compliance with the terms and conditions 

of the permit shall be deemed compliance with the 

applicable requirements identified and addressed in this 

permit as of the date of permit issuance," is more narrowly 

applied under the Clean Air Act. 

With respect to Title V, it is intended to provide "sources with 

greater certainty as to their legal obligations under the 

Act to provide that compliance with the permit shall be 

deemed compliance with all other applicable provisions of 

the Act, if the applicable requirements of such provisions are 

included in the permit, or if the permitting authority, in acting 

on the permit, determines that such other provisions (which 

shall be referred to in such determinations) are not 

applicable. This determination or a concise summary 

thereof must be included in the permit." Further, USEP A 

"intends to prohibit use of the shield in cases where the 

source initiates changes that result in requirements 

becoming applicable to the source beyond those contained 

in the permit (until such changes are later incorporated into 

the permit). Sources seeking to obtain or renew a part 70 

permit cannot be shielded from enforcement actions alleging 

violations of any applicable requirements (including orders 

and consent decrees) that occurred before, or at the time of, 

permit issuance. In addition, sources may not be shielded 

from requests for information pursuant to section 114 of the 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 32 of 51 

Act." And lastly, USEP A does not extend the shield to 

permit actions which are not afforded public comment during 

the permitting process. 

In practice, if Ohio EP A changes a regulation, or if a federal 

regulation is changed or newly promulgated that is 

applicable to the source, we would modify the affected 

permits. In accordance with the paragraph the commenter 

referenced, it remains the responsibility of the permittee to 

be in compliance with all applicable requirements regardless 

of whether it is expressly identified in a minor source state 

permit. Ohio EP A does not have the authority to deem a 

source in compliance with a requirement, especially a Clean 

Air Act requirement, that is identified in a permit and then 

subsequently changed through a regulatory process, but the 

change is not yet addressed in the permit. Also, the 

commenter's wording doesn't address applicable 

requirements that should have been included in the permit, 

but, for some reason, were not. Furthermore, Ohio EPA' s 

public participation process for minor sources differs from 

the public participation process for major sources, and at a 

minimum, any permit shield considerations would likely be 

consistent with the federal permit shield considerations, in 

that a public comment process would have to be afforded to 

all actions given a permit shield. W e do not believe the 

regulated community would find this acceptable given the 

controversial nature of the Title V permit shield. Numerous 

regulated entities have expressed disappointment in the 

application of the permit shield under Title V and if any true 

"shield" is really provided as it is implemented within that 

program. 

A s we have noted before, it is not Ohio EPA' s intent as part 

of this rulemaking to change the fundamentals of our 

operating and installation programs, but rather to combine 

them to increase efficiency in the Agency and ease the 

regulatory burden, while maintaining the goals ofthe Director 

in protecting the environment. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 33 of 51 

Rule 3745-31-03, "Exemptions" 

Rule 3745-31-03(A)(5) 

Comment 25: This much needed addition clarifies that de minimis sources 

are exempt from Chapter 31 permitting requirements. 

(Rick Carleski, Ohio EPA Office of Compliance 

Assistance and Pollution Prevention) 

Response 25: We agree. 

Rule 3745-31-05, "Criteria for decision bv the Director" 

Rule 3745-31-05(A) 

Comment 26: BAT terms should be clearly identified in PTIOs and should 

not be revisited upon PTIO renewal 

In the current permitting system, in effect since 1974, BAT is 

established in a PTI at the time of installation or modification 

of a source. Because PTIs have been deemed to live 

forever, those BAT determinations have lived forever and 

have not been subject to modification unless the source itself 

was being modified or the owner/operator applied for a 

correction or revision of the determination. Commenters 

want to ensure that as part of the transition from a "lives 

forever" PTI to a 10-year or shorter PTIO, past BAT 

determinations are not revisited every time a PTIO is 

renewed. We believe the rules should include a statement 

that PTIO renewal does not authorize the Director to alter 

BAT terms, except as requested by the permitee. 

Proposed OA C 3745-31-05(A)(3) states that "[a]ny previous 

BAT determination shall be complied with during operation of 

the air contaminant source until a modification results in a 

new determination of BAT for the air contaminant source." 

Ohio EPA' s Synopsis explains this new requirement as 

"[ajdding last sentence to clarify requirement to continue to 

comply with existing BAT until a 'modification' as defined in 

O A C 3745-31-01 triggers the need for a new determination. 

This is not a change from current requirements." 

Commenters wish to point out that this explanation would 

prohibit any type of permit hygiene that would not meet the 

definition of a modification. This is not reasonable. In the 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 34 of 51 

past, many things have been labeled BAT that were not 

technically part of the BAT determination and that didn't 

meet the legal requirements of BAT. The PTIO rules should 

not prohibit the removal of such permit terms upon issuance 

of a PTIO where a "modification" has not occurred - if 

anything, the rules should encourage such permit 

improvements. The permitee should be able to propose 

equivalent alternative BAT, or to correct past BAT 

determinations, which the Director should approve to the 

fullest extent permissible under applicable statutes and 

regulations. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 26: We do not intend for this language to "prohibit any type of 

permit hygiene that would not meet the definition of a 

modification." Making corrections to a previously determined 

B AT should not be prohibited by this language. We agree 

the permitee should be able to propose equivalent 

alternative BAT, or to correct past BAT determinations, 

which the Director should approve to the fullest extent 

permissible under applicable statutes and regulations. 

These types of changes would simply become a new BAT 

determination that must be complied within during operation 

until another new BAT determination is required. We also 

agree that renewal of a PTIO does not trigger the ability to 

re-evaluate BAT requirements. 

We agree that using the terminology "until a modification" 

could be interpreted to limit this. We will amend the 

language. 

Rule 3745-31-05(B) 

Comment 27: Conditional PTIOs 

O R C Section 3704.03(G) expressly requires that the Director 

adopt rules to provide for the issuance of conditional 

operating permits, in recognition of the fact that a source that 

is constructed or modified in accordance with installation 

permit requirements may need "to make adjustments or 

modifications necessary to enable the new air contaminant 

source to comply with applicable emission standards and 

other rules." We appreciate Ohio EPA' s attempts to create a 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 35 of 51 

useful mechanism for meeting this statutory directive. 

However, we continue to have concerns with the approach 

Ohio EP A has included in the proposed rules. For instance, 

the proposal requires a source that obtains a PTIO and 

discovers problems upon startup to apply for and obtain a 

Conditional PTIO, yet it doesn't address the timing for 

issuance of such a Conditional PTIO or the status of the 

source during the pendency of that application. If the source 

will be considered in violation until Ohio EP A issues a 

Conditional PTIO, and if the issuance of a Conditional PTIO 

takes as long as a regular PTIO, the proposal does little to 

address the immediate concerns of permittees who discover 

that they cannot meet installation permit limits or other terms 

established in advance of reliable, post-shakedown 

operating data. 

We believe a better approach is to provide that all permits 

include a six month shakedown period. The shakedown 

period should accommodate debugging and provide real 

world data on source and control equipment performance. 

Any terms or limits relating to process unit or control device 

operating parameters should be initially established or 

adjusted as appropriate only after a representative period of 

normal operation. Tentative limits or requirements can be 

established in an addendum to the permit, such that the 

permit itself need not be reopened. If, at end of the sixmonth shakedown period, the facility still can't comply with 

the initial permit limits, a conditional PTIO, containing a 

compliance plan, shall be issued. 

This approach is consistent with what some other states do. 

See, for example, Michigan R. 336.1201, which authorizes 

"trial operation" of equipment until the Michigan DE Q acts on 

the permit to operate. Such trial operation would indicate 

whether operational limits could be achieved or whether the 

operating permit would require different requirements or a 

compliance plan. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 27: We realize this is a difficulty with the current system and 

future system. Under current day PTIs, operational terms 

are incorporated as required by OR C 3704.03(F)(2): 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 36 of 51 

"Installation permits shall include the authorization to 

operate sources installed and operated in accordance 

with terms and conditions of the installation permits 

for a period not to exceed one year from 

commencement of operation, which authorization 

shall constitute an operating permit under division (G) 

of this section and rules adopted under it". 

The same concern you state is applicable today and it will be 

under PTIO. Language for conditional PTOs exists under 

the current rules and is being transferred into the new 

system as required under OR C 3704.03(G). 

The current method of writing permits does not normally 

require that the terms be modified from the original PTI after 

the "shake-down" period. In fact, the current PTIs often 

function as the first PT O for the initial operating period. If 

changes are necessary after the "shakedown" period, then in 

many cases an administrative modification of the permit 

would be processed. For instance, sometimes stack testing 

shows that an allowable emission limitation in the permit 

should be changed. Under the existing system, Ohio EP A 

would process an administrative modification to correct the 

limitation. In the future, Ohio EP A would process an 

administrative modification of the PTIO to change the 

limitation. The current modification procedures used to 

address "shakedown" after a PTI is issued would also be 

used under the PTIO program. 

Rule 3745-31-05(0 

Comment 28: Strike "PTIO and/or" from the 4th line [of subparagraph (1)]. 

(Christopher Clinefelter, RAPCA) 

Response 28: We believe it is still appropriate to retain "PTIO" in this case. 

Please see the response #29 for more discussion. 

Comment 29: Under this paragraph, wouldn't synthetic minor emission unit 

terms issued in a PTIO ultimately make the PTIO a FEPTIO? 

(Christopher Clinefelter, RAPCA) 

There is no need for a "Federally Enforceable" PTIO. 

Proposed OA C 3745-31-05(C) references a mechanism for 

issuing a "federally enforceable permit to install and 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 37 of 51 

operate," or FEPTIO. We believe that there is no need for 

such a permit. According to U S EPA' s December 20, 1999 

memorandum entitled "Third Extension of January 25, 1995 

Potential to Emit Transition Policy," authored by John S. 

Seitz and Eric V. Schaeffer, "[t]he state-enforceable 

provision of the [January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit] 

transition policy, which allows a source to rely on a 

practically enforceable, state-enforceable limit to restrict its 

PTE, will remain in effect until EP A has completed its 

rulemaking on the term 'potential to emit.'" This guidance 

followed a series of federal court rulings which found that 

state-enforceable limits are sufficient to limit potential to emit 

if they are practically enforceable. As the Seitz/Schaeffer 

memo acknowledges, US EP A is supposed to undertake 

rulemaking to clarify this, but has not done so to date. In the 

absence of such rulemaking, this policy has been the law 

since 1995. Consequently, Commenters urge Ohio EP A to 

delete all references to FEPTIOs , as there is no need for 

Ohio EP A to ever issue a FEPTIO - a state and practically 

enforceable PTIO accomplishes the same thing. 

If the "federally enforceable" PTIO is to remain in the 

proposal, Ohio EP A should clarify what types of permit terms 

are sufficient to satisfy this requirement. As the proposal is 

currently worded, in order to be federally enforceable, a 

limitation on the potential to emit of an air contaminant 

source or stationary source must specify both a short term 

limit on emissions and a short term production or operation 

limit. See OA C 3745-31-05(C)(2)(b). However, where there 

are continuous emission monitors in place, US EP A has 

indicated that the use of those monitors, together with an 

emission limit, will suffice. 

Regardless of whether the final rules provide for a FEPTIO 

or not, PTIs and PTIOs issued pursuant to these rules 

should clearly identify which terms are federally enforceable 

and which are state-only. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 29: There may be cases where synthetic minor terms and 

conditions would not be incorporated into a FEPTIO but 

rather into a PTIO. For example, when special terms and 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 38 of 51 

conditions are necessary to avoid a state-only requirement 

that is not required to be federally enforceable. We should 

retain the option to incorporate such requirements in a PTIO. 

Ohio's current FESO P program is an approved part of our 

SIP. We intend to transfer that same program into the PTIO 

program as an FEPTIO (see response #14 for additional 

discussion) and re-submitting for SIP approval. In the future, 

if USEP A undertakes rulemaking to clarify federal vs. state 

and practical enforceability, Ohio EP A will amend their rules 

as appropriate. 

As to the question of Ohio EP A clarifying what types of 

permit terms are sufficient to satisfy the requirements, again 

we intend to transfer the currently SIP approved FESO P 

program into the FEPTIO program without making change. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to combine our permitting 

processes but not to re-evaluate and/or re-negotiate the 

procedures for issuing federally enforceable state permits 

with USEPA . 

Rule 3745-31-05(D) 

Comment 30: Strike "or FEPTIO" from the last line, as a state only 

enforceable limitation can't be federally enforceable. 

(Christopher Clinefelter, RAPCA) 

Response 30: State-only enforceable requirements can be included in an 

FEPTIO if they are designated as such in the permit. 

Rule 3745-31-05(F)(1) 

Comment 31: OA C 3745-31-05(F)(1)(a) and (b) are redundant. Delete (a). 

Additionally, in paragraph (F)(1)(d), the rule should clarify 

that the 5 ton emission threshold for express PTIO status is 

per pollutant, and not 5 tons total. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 31: We do not believe subparagraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b) are 

redundant. The procedure is to first apply for the PTI or 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 39 of 51 

PTIO as required ((1)(a)) and second the application must 

be "complete" ((1)(b)). 

As to the question regarding the 5 ton threshold, we will 

clarify the language to read "less than five tons per pollutant 

per each year for..." 

Rule 3745-31-06, "Completeness determinations, processing requirements, 

public participation, public notice, and issuance" 

Comment 32: First, one of the goals of the PTIO process should be to 

shorten the time it takes to apply for a permit and obtain 

approval to construct a manufacturing process with one or 

more emissions units. The time frames allowed by the 

proposed rule to apply for and obtain an approved PTIO, if 

taken to each endpoint, add up to 300-330 days (60 days for 

completeness determination, 30 days to request that the 

completeness determination be completed, 180 days to 

issue the PTIO, and 30-60 days for the public 

notice/comment period). This is unacceptable for most types 

of permit applications (the exception might be a permit for a 

major source). OEP A should have a "tiered" approach to 

PTIO approval, such as: 1. Express-entire process should 

take 30-60 days. 2. Non-Major-entire process should take 

60-90 days. 3. Major-entire process should take 180-270 

days. If timing is an issue because of manpower, OEP A 

needs the capacity to temporarily utilize/hire/pay for 

additional resources to avoid a lengthy approval process. 

The cost of the application/approval process should be 

borne by the user (applicant) via a user fee-the more lengthy 

and complex the application, the higher the user fee the 

applicant should pay (for a timely review). A user fee could 

be developed, say $50/hr, or a base fee could be charged, 

based on type of application-$500 for Express, $1500 for 

Non-Major, and $5,000 for Major, for example. 

(Stephen J. Evans, Modine Manufacturing Company) 

Response 32: All the timeframes discussed by the commenter are 

mandated by the ORC . Ohio EP A has not lengthened the 

processing times for permits under the PTIO program. W e 

currently strive to issue all permits within 180 days. There 

are cases where an application is deficient and it is 

necessary for additional information to be collected from the 

applicant. At that point the applicant is in control of how 

much time is taken to complete the application so that Ohio 

E P A can continue to process the permit. Ohio EP A does not 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 40 of 51 

have the authority to control how quickly the applicant 

responds. 

We appreciate the concerns of the commenter and the ideas 

expressed for improving permit processing. We have 

actively worked with various stakeholders and developed 

various workgroups to continually find ways to improve our 

processes. The PTIO is one such process. Our hope is that 

implementation of the PTIO program will help to reduce the 

permitting burden and processing burden felt by both the 

DAP C and the regulated community. 

Comment 33: While we support the concepts reported to be addressed by 

this rule package such as increased compliance, and 

understand the desire for clearer and better streamlined 

permitting, we wish to stress that the end result cannot be a 

compromise of the basic requirements and mandates of the 

Clean Air Act. 

A major aspect of the Clean Air Act is public participation. 

Currently, there are two opportunities for the community to 

comment on non- Title V permits. Many things can change 

concerning a facility between the times when a facility is in 

preconstruction to when it begins operation. Many of these 

changes could be characterized by the Agency as 

"Administrative Modifications" or even a Revision to the 

permit that would not require new permits. Such changes 

and contingencies could be communicated to and fully 

addressed by the impacted community and public during the 

P TO notice and comment period/ public hearing. It appears 

now, with only one permit and one comment period that the 

public would have to foresee all contingencies that may 

occur from the point of construction until operation. Also, 

any "Administrative Modifications" or Revisions can be dealt 

with between the Agency and the regulated party, outside of 

the public process. This is contrary to the theory of a 

transparent government that the new Administration has 

ensured us was an important part of proper regulation. 

In the Agency's PTIO Question and Answer document, the 

OEP A states that if the public has any issues concerning a 

facility granted a PTIO after issuance of the permit or after 

operation, they may use the verified complaint process and 

the Agency will investigate. Much of what is accomplished by 

public comment and public hearings is in the form of 

education. The regulated party, the community, and the 

regulators educate and are educated by each other on the 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 41 of 51 

important environmental, social and economic impacts ofthe 

operation of a facility. This education either clears up any 

misconceptions or provides the opportunity to remedy a 

problem outside of the legal process and before it actually 

jeopardizes health or quality of life. However, under this 

PTIO system, the education and understanding is lost but for 

one comment period held before the facility is installed. 

Also, relying on a complaint process is an inadequate 

replacement for public participation. Complaints are for 

enforcement of regulations or enforcement of permits. 

Public participation in the form of comments or hearing 

during the final issuance of a permit can address concerns in 

permits that can be amended before the facility is in 

operation, thus limiting the need for citizens to "complain." 

Therefore, reliance on complaints is inadequate to supplant 

public participation. 

We encourage the OEP A to revisit the public participation 

sections of this rule package or at least clarify how the 

proposed rule protects the public and keeps communities 

fully informed and involved. Also, in this and further 

rulemakings promulgated under the guise of streamlining the 

permitting process, the OEP A must guarantee that speed of 

permitting not supersede monitoring, emission control and 

protection of human and environmental health. 

(Trent A. Dougherty, Ohio Environmental Council) 

Response 33: We agree that speed of permitting should not supersede 

monitoring, emission control and protection of human and 

environmental health and have made every attempt to 

preserve this, if not increase it, through the PTIO proposal. 

Under the proposed PTIO permit system, the permit 

issuance and public notice system would remain nearly 

identical to the current PTI system. It is important to note, as 

mandated by OR C 3704.03(F), all PTIs must contain 

operating requirements that afford the applicant the ability to 

operate for one year under the PTI. Under the proposed 

PTIO system, the terms and conditions regarding the 

installation and operation of an emissions unit are contained 

within a single permit. The public notice would be advertised 

in the local paper and would offer a 30-day public comment 

period. In addition, a public meeting may also be scheduled 

before a final action is taken on the permit. During this public 

comment period, the public may comment on the entire 

permit (both the installation and operation terms and 

conditions of a permit) at the same time. This should result in 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 42 of 51 

a more comprehensive review and early identification of all 

issues before a source is built. Citizens would continue to 

have the opportunity to provide factual information that could 

affect the PTIO terms and conditions. If any concerns arise 

after construction and operation of a source, citizens should 

contact Ohio EPA, and our staff will investigate the 

concerns. If warranted, appropriate enforcement actions 

would be taken to address any compliance issues. This 

complaint investigation process exists now for facilities with 

final permits, and would not change under the PTIO 

program. 

It is Ohio EPA' s intention to fully and fairly evaluate public 

interest in any environmental permit intended to be issued to 

a facility. The purpose of the public comment period is to 

notify, inform and involve the public in such environmental 

matters. Therefore, it is important for the public to 

communicate (either orally or in writing) to the Agency during 

the public comment period so the Agency can accurately 

evaluate public interest. Elevated public interest in a facility 

is an indication that a public meeting should be scheduled. 

Comment 34: Express PTIO process is not very express. 

The proposed rules provide for an "express PTI" and 

"express PTIO," which are meant to replace the current 

"registration status" permits. These express permits appear 

to be no different than a regular PTI or PTIO with the 

exception that an express PTI or PTIO applicant may 

commence construction 60 days after submitting an 

application. In all other respects, the express PTIs and 

express PTIOs appear subject to the same timing obligations 

as regular PTI/PTIO applications (e.g., the Director has 180 

days to issue an express PTIO). Moreover, the proposal 

only addresses installation and does not clarify whether 

express PTIO applicants may also commence operation 

while awaiting the issuance of an express permit. 

(Commenters believe that operation should be allowed if the 

source has completed construction and the Director has not 

yet acted upon the permit application.) It is imperative that 

the rules provide absolute clarity in terms of which pre-permit 

issuance actions are permissible and which are not. In 

addition, there is a need for a much shorter processing 

period for express permits. Commenters believe that 90 

days should be more than sufficient time to issue an express 

permit to these most minor of sources. Allowing half a year 

for the agency to finalize a permit for these small sources in 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 43 of 51 

today's competitive global economy sends a message that 

Ohio's bureaucracy is inefficient. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 34: The purpose of this rulemaking is to combine our permitting 

processes into the PTIO process. W e have made no 

changes to the current process regarding the express 

processing of permits. We will continue to strive to process 

express permits as quickly as possible. As mentioned 

previously, we have actively worked with various 

stakeholders and developed various workgroups to 

continually find ways to improve our processes. The PTIO is 

one such process. Our hope is that implementation of the 

PTIO program will help to reduce the permitting burden and 

processing burden felt by both the DAP C and the regulated 

community and we should all see the benefits in the future. 

We will also continue to identify methods to improve 

efficiency and develop those in the future. 

While we appreciate the commenter's desire to begin 

operation of the source if the source has completed 

construction and the Director has not yet acted upon the 

permit application, this would not be approvable. 

Rule 3745-31-06(E)(6) 

Comment 35: PTIO Renewal 

All PTIOs should clearly identify those terms that constitute 

the "installation" portion of the permit (which will survive as a 

PTI should the source become a major source subject to 

Title V) and those terms that govern the "operation" of the 

source. The rules should clearly state that on renewal of a 

PTIO, only the operating terms of the permit are subject to 

revision by the Director, absent a request by the permit 

holder to the contrary (such as a request to establish 

equivalent alternative limits for BAT or otherwise revise any 

ofthe installation permit requirements.). 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 44 of 51 

Response 35: Our intent during renewal is to only amend any appropriate 

terms related to the operational portion of the permit, just as 

the current process requires. BAT will not be revisited upon 

renewal. A re-evaluation of BAT can only occur when 

triggered by the applicable rule(s). 

Rule 3745-31-07, "Termination, revocation, expiration, renewal, revision and 

transfer" 

Comment 36: OCAP P supports the ten-year term of most PTIOs. This will 

reduce workloads and enable Ohio EP A to be more vigilant 

in processing renewal PTIO applications and conducting 

inspections. 

(Rick Carleski, Ohio EPA Office of Compliance 

Assistance and Pollution Prevention) 

The proposal for a 10-year PTIO for minor sources conflicts 

with the statutory maximum operating permit term of 5 years 

in OR C Section 3704.03(G). 

According to OR C Section 3704.03(G), the Director of Ohio 

E P A may: 

Adopt, modify, suspend, and rescind rules 

prohibiting the operation or other use of any 

new, modified, or existing air contaminant 

source unless an operating permit has been 

obtained from the Director or the Director's 

authorized representative, or the air 

contaminant source is being operated in 

compliance with the conditions of a variance 

issued pursuant to division (H) of this section. 

Applications for operating permits shall be 

accompanied by such plans, specifications, 

and other pertinent information as the Director 

may require. Operating permits mav be issued 

for a period determined bv the Director not to 

exceed five years, are renewable, and are 

transferable.... (Emphasis added) 

While Commenters agree it would be sensible to have 

PTIOs be valid for a period of up to ten years, this violates 

the statutory authority given to the Director by the General 

Assembly and would require legislative action to amend 

O R C Section 3704.03(G). 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 45 of 51 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 36: We appreciate your support. Our intent is to also amend the 

statutory language identified by the commenter. However, 

timing is a consideration and therefore we have decided to 

amend the rule language to require renewals be scheduled 

in accordance with the requirements of the ORC . Until such 

time that the OR C is amended to contain a ten year renewal 

period, Ohio EP A will continue to process renewals within 

the limits of the ORC . W e anticipate this will be 

accomplished prior to implementation ofthe PTIO program. 

Rule 3745-31-07(0 

Comment 37: Needs an additional entry indicating that a PTI does not 

expire, unless it is superseded by a subsequently issued 

PTIO. In addition, there is no legitimate reason for precluding 

the renewal of a conditional PTIO (see OA C 3745-31-

07(C)(1)(a)). While it should be unlikely that renewal of a 

conditional PTIO should be necessary, circumstances may 

exist in which extraordinary problems would dictate that an 

extension is warranted. There is no reason to foreclose the 

ability to grant such an extension in the rules. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 37: We will add additional language clarifying that a PTI does 

not expire and is not renewable. OR C 3704.03(G) affords 

the Director discretion to "provide for the issuance of 

conditional operating permits for such reasonable periods as 

the Director may determine." W e do not agree a conditional 

permit should be renewable. W e have remained consistent 

with the current requirements under OA C Chapter 3745-35 

that conditional permits can only be issued for a period not to 

exceed six months and this should be ample time to remedy 

the sources ability to comply with their permit terms and 

conditions. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 46 of 51 

Rule 3745-31-08, "Registration status permit-to-operate" 

Comment 38: One of the most significant impacts of the PTIO program on 

small businesses is the elimination of PT O registration 

status. While paragraph (C) does contain a "grandfather" 

provision allowing sources to remain on registration status, 

many small companies may be totally unaware that they 

have sources on registration status since no regular 

reporting on these sources was required. It appears the 

intent of the rule is to only initiate a change from registration 

status, either revocation or conversion to PTIO, upon 

request of the company. OCAP P suggests the rule language 

clarify that the PTIO rules place no new requirements on 

existing registration status sources. 

(Rick Carleski, Ohio EPA Office of Compliance 

Assistance and Pollution Prevention) 

Response 38: Please see Comment and Response #17 for additional 

changes being included to clarify the grandfathering of 

registered sources. We agree that no additional 

requirements are being imposed on these sources. We 

identify in this new rule that those sources placed on 

registration status will remain as such unless removed via 

paragraphs (D) or (E). If it is found a source should be 

removed from registration status via paragraphs (D) or (E), 

Ohio EP A field office staff will work with the appropriate 

facility through the process. 

Rule 3745-31-09, "Variances on operation" 

Rule 3745-31-09(B)(1) 

Comment 39: The word "thereof should be "therein." 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 39: We will make the change. 

Rule 3745-31-09(B)(2) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 47 of 51 

Comment 40: Should read "An application that seeks a variance pursuant 

to this rule to allow an applicant..." 

Is a variance application a PTI/PTIO application, or is it a 

separate application? The variance application process is 

not addressed in OA C 3745-31-04, which identifies the 

requirements for various applications. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 40: We will make the change. Please note applications for 

variances are addressed under paragraph (B) ofthis rule. 

Rule 3745-31-09(C)(2)(d) 

Comment 41: Should include PTIs as well as PTIOs in the bubble concept 

discussion. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 41: We disagree. Variances on operation of existing sources 

can occur under this rule for sources not subject to OA C 

Chapter 3745-77 (Title V). Any variances on operation for 

sources subject to Title V, and therefore receiving PTIs, 

would have to be addressed through the Title V program. 

Comments Unrelated to Draft Rule Language but Related to Implementation of 

the PTIO Program 

Comment 42: Additionally, the rule in its current form does nothing to 

eliminate the current PTO backlog, which Ohio EP A has 

indicated was a major driving factor in developing a PTIO 

program. While the PTIO system will, going forward, 

eliminate one permit processing step for the majority of 

permitted sourced in Ohio (i.e., non-Title V sources), sources 

that have been waiting for the issuance of initial or renewal 

PTOs must either obtain a PTIO or the rules must provide 

some other mechanism for authorizing operation. If Ohio 

E P A is required to issue a PTIO for every pending PT O 

permit application, thousands of permits will still need to be 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 48 of 51 

issued and the backlog is in no way reduced or eliminated 

through the implementation of the PTIO program. The 

Commenters believe that there needs to be a mechanism 

added to the proposal to eliminate the PT O backlog and to 

allow Ohio EP A to implement the PTIO program going 

forward, unencumbered by a decade-long backlog of permit 

applications. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

Response 42: The continuing growth of a PT O backlog is a major driving 

force for implementing the PTIO program; however, repairing 

the already existing backlog is a separate issue. 

The proposed program for minor air pollution sources would 

support Ohio EPA' s goal of reducing the backlog by 

eliminating duplicative permitting. PT O processing has fallen 

behind because of increased employee obligations and U.S. 

EPA' s emphasis on high-priority facilities. Currently, over 

17,000 emissions units need a PT O and PTIs for new 

emissions units are constantly being issued at a rate that 

exceeds PT O issuance rates. Thus, the PT O backlog is ever 

expanding. By combining the permit process, there should 

be a steady reduction in the rate of growth of the backlog. 

An additional benefit we hope to see, because of 

implementing PTIO and the gained efficiency, is that 

resources can be directed toward reducing the backlog over 

a long-term basis. Until this is accomplished, sources which 

have not been issued a PTO, or sources which have an 

expired PTO, can continue to operate under the terms and 

conditions of their existing permits, as is the current practice. 

Comment 43: Application and Permit Form 

The permit application and the form of the ultimate PTIO 

permit are just as important to the success of the PTIO 

program as the rules that govern it. Ohio EP A has already 

provided for review and comment on certain preliminary draft 

PTIO applications and instructions, as well as the Permit 

Evaluation Report form and instructions. We believe it was 

premature for Ohio EP A to seek comment on the forms 

before proposing the rules and that the rules and the forms 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 49 of 51 

should be developed and reviewed in conjunction with one 

another. The proposed rules should specify what is required 

to be in a permit application and what may appear in the final 

permit, and any differences between existing permit 

applications and permit content from the current 

longstanding PT O program should be shared with those 

subject to regulation, with a statement of basis and purpose. 

As we saw with the Title V program, how the rules are 

interpreted is subject to change, especially where US EP A 

will presumably be reviewing PTIOs or may claim that many, 

if not all, of the PTIO's requirements are federally 

enforceable, as it has done with PTIs, insignificant emissions 

units, and other Title V permit terms. Without clarity in the 

rules, the PTIO program runs the risk of being expanded and 

of federalizing obligations that are state-only. This would 

mean a loss of flexibility and state autonomy, and a huge 

increase in complexity. 

(Kathy Milenkovski, on behalf of The Ohio Chemistry 

Technology Council, The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, 

and the National Federation of Independent 

Business/Ohio) 

It would be helpful if OEP A could provide a list of specific 

items that must be included in the PTIO application for it to 

be considered complete. This might avoid the loss of some 

time at the front end of the process. 

(Stephen J. Evans, Modine Manufacturing Company) 

Response 43: As noted previously, we have provided the forms along with 

a preliminary draft of the rules for public comment. 

Numerous stakeholders provided feedback during this 

process. The process that is occurring now related to 

rulemaking is required under the ORC . The forms discussed 

above, and the permits themselves, are not contained within 

the rule language and therefore are not subject to additional 

review at this time. We do not feel it would be beneficial to 

incorporate such voluminous forms, etc., directly into rule 

language. This adds a complexity to being able to make 

necessary changes in the future that improve efficiency and 

allow us to readily respond to the needs of stakeholders 

regarding the information requested in these documents. 

Ohio EP A will continue to involve the public in changes to 

the forms, etc., that we generate in the agency through 

various outreach efforts. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 50 of 51 

As to the question of specific items necessary to determine 

the completeness of an application: Ohio EP A has been 

actively reviewing and amending the application form and 

instructions in order to enhance understanding by the 

regulated community. Along with implementation of the 

PTIO program, Ohio EP A will be providing a web based 

program for all applicants to use that should greatly increase 

the ability to submit applications. If certain fields of the online 

application are missing or contain insufficient information, 

the user will be alerted. We hope that changes such as this 

will help the regulated community with preparing 

applications. 

Comment 44: On the DAP C website, the PTIO Common Question section 

states: "All PTIOs at a facility will have a consistent renewal 

date. For most facilities, PTIOs will be renewed every 10 

years. Currently each air contaminant source at a facility 

could have a different 5 year renewal date." I'm confused 

about the consistent renewal date. Our facility currently has 

5 PTIs* for 5 air emission sources. When I transition to the 

PTIO program in 2008, all 5 PTIOs will be renewed in 2018 

and every 10 years afterward. Now if I submit a PTIO in 

2009 for an emission source, will that PTIO be renewed in 

2018 or 2019? * PT O applications have been reviewed by 

OEPA , but no PTO s have been submitted due to backlog at 

OEPA . We have permission to operate in accordance with 

our Final PTIs. 

(Sandra Muehling, Guardian Millbury Corp.) 

Response 44: Your facility would continue to operate in accordance with 

the PTIs until the PTIOs are issued. You would not need to 

resubmit PTIO applications for those sources where you 

have already submitted PT O applications. The PTIO will be 

develpped using the application previously submitted. If 

additional information is needed you will be contacted at that 

time. 

When your first PTIO is issued, the expiration date will be 

set. For example, if PTIOs for 4 of the sources were issued 

in 2009, then the expiration would be 2019 for those 

sources. If the PTIO for the 5th source was not issued until 

2010 the expiration date for that source would also be set for 

2019. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 51 of 51 

Let's say you would like to install a 6th source at the facility. 

You would submit a PTIO application for it. If the PTIO is 

issued before the expiration date that was set in 2019, it will 

be given that expiration date as well. 

Similar to how PTO s work today, as long as a renewal 

application for the sources is submitted before the expiration 

date in 2019 you would be able to continue to operate in 

accordance with those PTIOs. The expiration date for the 

next round would be set at the time the renewal PTIO is 

issued. In other words, the second round would not 

automatically expire in 2029, they would expire 10 years 

from the date the renewal PTIO is issued. 

Comment 45: If I submit a PTI application in Fall 2007, will I need to submit 

a PTIO rather than a PTO application? 

(Sandra Muehling, Guardian Millbury Corp.) 

Response 45: Until the PTIO program is implemented, and new forms are 

posted, continue to use the PTI and PT O forms that are 

available. If any changes are made to those forms or that 

procedure we will post it to the web pages and send a 

message to the PTIO e-mail list. 

Comment 46: Have you considered an internet reporting software system 

for the annual Permit Evaluation Reports? I have submitted 

reports to OEP A using SWIMware and Tier 2 Submit and 

found the systems a time saver. It is also comforting to 

receive instant confirmation the reports have been received. 

(Sandra Muehling, Guardian Millbury Corp.) 

Response 46: The annual PE R will be able to be submitted through our 

new web based software. You will also be able to submit 

PTIO applications and the biannual non-Title V fee 

emissions report. The software will be web-based and 

released at the same time the PTIO program is 

implemented. 

End of Response to Comments 
OTfeEFft 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Response to Comments 

Proposed Rule Language Comment Period 

Rule: OAC Chapter 3745-35, various rules of OAC Chapter 3745-31 and OAC 

rule 3745-15-03 - Implementation of PTIO Program 

Agency Contact for this Package 

Division Contact: Jennifer Hunter, Division of Air Pollution Control, 614-644-3696, 

Jennifer.hunter@epa.state.oh.us 

Ohio EP A provided a 30 day comment period, followed by a 14 day comment period 

extension, which ended on August 24, 2007. This document summarizes the comments 

and questions received during the associated comment period. 

Ohio EP A reviewed and considered all comments received during the public comment 

period. By law, Ohio EP A has authority to consider specific issues related to protection 

ofthe environment and public health. 

In an effort to help you review this document, the questions are grouped by topic and 

organized in a consistent format. The name of the commenter follows the comment in 

parentheses. 

General/Overall Concerns 

Comment 1: The PTIO program would apply to minor air contaminant 

emission sources required to have preconstruction and/or 

operating permits in Ohio, and would apply to new or 

modified emissions units located at Title V major sources 

that currently require a Permit-to-lnstall (PTI). (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP1) 

Response 1: Please note that Title V major sources will still receives PTIs 

and will not be a part ofthe PTIO program. 

Comment 2: The Commenters commend Ohio EPA for innovating ways 

to improve the minor source permitting programs in Ohio 

despite the absence of any federal or Ohio statutory 

mandate or deadline for doing so. The PTIO proposal is the 

Submitting comments on behalf ofthe following entities: The National Federation of 

Independent Business - Ohio; The Ohio Chamber of Commerce; The Ohio Manufacturers' 

Association; The Ohio Chemistry Technology Council; The Ohio Cast Metals Association; and 

The Ohio Petroleum Council. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 2 of 72 

first change of its kind in minor source air permitting since 

the current PTI rules went into effect in 1974. As Ohio EPA 

considers historic changes to its minor source permitting 

programs, the Agency should take into account its decades 

of experience in permitting minor sources, the current 

administrative burdens and workload demands on the 

Agency, and the conditions of Ohio's economy (including the 

ever increasing national and international competitive 

pressures on Ohio businesses). Ohio EPA should seize the 

opportunity update and reform minor source permitting and 

to help modernize and strengthen Ohio's economy. (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 2: Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC), 

appreciates your support. 

Comment 3: We have indicated that we are in support of a PTIO program, 

if properly designed and implemented. However, the 

proposed PTIO rules, like the Interested Party PTIO 

proposal, fail to come to grips with our most serious 

misgivings about inappropriate features in the proposal. In all 

three sets of previous comments, in 2002, 2006, and April 

2007, we emphasized the same three overarching issues: 

1. Imposition of a coercive annual compliance 

certification obligation on minor sources (even if 

renamed a "Performance Evaluation Report") is 

unreasonable and unauthorized; 

2. A combined PTIO program must provide reasonable 

time for shakedown or debugging of new equipment 

and processes, and a timely mechanism for correcting 

construction related (PTI) terms and conditions 

demonstrated to be inappropriate based upon actual 

operating experience; and 

3. PTO-type terms and conditions and certain PTI terms 

and conditions that derive from State policy 

preferences rather than federal Clean Air Act 

mandates should not become federally enforceable 

as a consequence of combining the PTI and PTO 

programs into a single PTIO. 

To date, these high priority concerns with the proposed PTIO 

program have yet to be meaningfully engaged by the 

Agency. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 3 of 72 

I addition to these three main issues, the Commenters have 

significant concerns with the substance of several provisions 

and with drafting flaws (that we assume are unintended) in 

the July 3, 2007 proposal, as set forth more fully below. We 

also believe that the nature, basis, and purpose of key 

implementation policies for the new PTIO program need to 

be explained and resolved in context with PTIO rule 

changes. We support further collaboration and cooperation 

in furtherance of a high quality PTIO program that 

appropriately streamlines and simplifies minor source 

permitting and that does not unduly disadvantage the 

competitiveness of Ohio businesses. 

Ohio EPA's PTI's and PTO's have gradually but persistently 

increased in length, complexity, and detail over time, to the 

point where today's permits over-regulate minor sources and 

equate them with Title V major source permits to a large 

degree. The features of the PTIO proposal to which the 

Commenters take exception would exacerbate the overregulation of minor sources and add new burdens 

unprecedented in Ohio and in states in competition with Ohio 

for business and investment. We understand that the PTIO 

program would apply to tens of thousands of minor sources 

in Ohio EPA's permit system, including some 18,000 

backlogged PTO applications. These numerous and diverse 

minor sources tend to be owned and operated predominantly 

by small businesses. Small businesses tend to be the 

engines of economic growth. We urge Ohio EPA to refine its 

PTIO proposal in a way that gives small businesses and 

other owners of minor sources in Ohio a competitive 

advantage rather than a competitive disadvantage, and that 

focuses Ohio EPA's resources where they can do the most 

good for the environment and more faithfully carry out 

statutory directives. 

We appreciate and applaud Ohio EPA's response to our 

comments on the Interested Party proposal on the wording 

of Rule OAC 3745-31-05(A) with regard to permit hygiene 

and other corrections or updating of BAT terms at the 

request of an applicant (and not unilaterally by Ohio EPA as 

PTIO's are renewed). See Comment 26 and Response on 

pp. 33-34 of Ohio EPA's Response to Comments on the 

Interested Party PTIO proposal. However, most of our other 

significant concerns with the Interested Party PTIO proposal 

have been dismissed, and we restate and incorporate our 

April 2007, April 2006, and November 2002 comments for 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 4 of 72 

reconsideration by Ohio EPA. (Robert Brubaker, Porter 

Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 3: Ohio EPA, DAPC appreciates your support, your thorough 

review of the various rule drafts for implementing the PTIO 

program and your continued participation in the rulemaking 

process. DAPC has taken great care in developing the PTIO 

program to achieve a more streamlined and flexible 

approach to permitting minor sources in Ohio. We have 

spent many years reviewing various options and developing 

what we feel is the best approach for Ohio. Detailed 

responses to the commenters concerns along with the 

remaining comments from this commenter and our 

responses, can be found throughout the body of this 

document. Copies of the previous comments and responses 

referenced by the commenter are available upon request. 

Comment 4: Policy actions or decisions not disclosed in the proposed 

rules that are integral to the intended implementation of the 

PTIO program. Policy decisions that are tantamount to rules 

appear to have been developed in parallel with the PTIO 

proposal, but outside of the proposed rules and outside of 

the notice and comment process. Things like the "PER 

Instruction Manual," the Permit Terms and Conditions 

Library, and new "STARS2"computer software to replace the 

"STARSHIP" and "STARS" programs can be binding as a 

practical matter and have very significant impacts on permit 

applicants and final permits. The Agency has done a good 

job of providing public notice of parts of the proposed PTIO 

program, but not of all the important parts. Section 3745.30 

of the Ohio Revised Code prohibits rulemaking 

circumvention, or regulation by policy. 

Policies outside the rules that are intertwined with the 

proposed PTIO program 

The Commenters are also concerned that the agency is 

establishing significant PTIO program components that are 

not expressed in the proposed rules, but which will 

nevertheless be binding upon PTIO permit holders, and 

therefore tantamount to rule-based requirements. This is 

contrary to ORC Section 3745.30, which provides that 

"policies" do not "have the force of law," must take the form 

of documents that are publicly available and labeled as not 

having the force of law, and must be periodically reviewed 

and updated. The PTIO program, however, has at least two 

such "policies" that are intended to be imposed upon every 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 5 of 72 

PTIO permit holder, and yet the policies are neither 

contained in the PTIO rules nor expressed in policy 

documents that conform to the requirements of ORC Section 

3745.30. 

The first is a set of "Standard Terms and Conditions" for 

PTIO's that have been developed for inclusion in all PTIO's. 

These consist of sixteen conditions that will consume 

(depending upon printing format) at least three pages of 

single-space type. To our knowledge, these conditions have 

not been shared with the public in any organized fashion, 

and public comment on them has not be solicited. The 

Conditions are nevertheless very significant, and, in certain 

respects, contrary to law or otherwise undesirable. If they 

are used as permit boilerplate, they are tantamount to rules 

of statewide applicability. 

Condition 1, for example, provides that "All Standard Terms 

and Conditions are federally enforceable, with the exception 

of those listed below," which list consists of only of Condition 

8 regarding transfer of a PTIO to a new source 

owner/operator and Condition 16 regarding payment of 

permit fees. All other conditions are deemed federally 

enforceable, including all reporting obligations, recordkeeping, nuisance prevention, and employment of best 

available technology. Making all of those conditions 

federally enforceable is directly contrary to ORC Section 

3704.03(G), which states that only terms in permits to 

operate that restrict potential to emit may be federally 

enforceable. (Although, as noted above, even that is not 

required by federal law.) "In all other respects, operating 

permits issued pursuant to this division are enforceable as 

state law only." ORC Section 3704.03(G). Thus, Condition 1 

should state that all conditions are not federally enforceable, 

except for those listed, which should be only those required 

to be federally enforceable by federal law. 

Another example is Condition 15, stating, "all new sources 

must employ Best Available Technology (BAT)." That is 

simply untrue. ORC Section 3704.03(T) exempts from BAT 

new sources with a controlled potential to emit of less than 

ten tons per year of a criteria pollutant. Also, that section 

exempts all new sources for which a permit to install 

application is filed after August 3, 2009, except those 

sources for which the agency has adopted a rule imposing 

BAT requirements. This condition is thus fundamentally 

contrary to law. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 6 of 72 

The other conditions, especially the lengthy Condition 11 

regarding termination of the permit, also contain language 

that is problematic. Our point here is that none of these 

"standard" conditions, intended to be placed in every PTIO, 

should exist unless set forth verbatim in the PTIO rules in 

order to properly establish them as law. 

The Commenters are also concerned about the "PER 

Instruction Manual" that has been developed and will be 

provided to every PTIO permit holder. As noted above, we 

object to this new annual reporting requirement as unlawful, 

unnecessary, and unduly burdensome for minor sources. 

The "manual" confirms our concerns. The document, with 

appendices and forms, consists of twenty pages. This 

cannot possibly be consistent with the goal of establishing a 

minor source permitting program that is efficient, 

transparent, and easy for permit holders, especially small 

businesses, to comply with. Rather, any new reporting 

requirement that requires lengthy explanation in a "manual," 

if not eliminated altogether, should be rethought and 

significantly reduced in scope. 

There are two other program components that will be 

systematically applied to PTIO's, and are therefore 

tantamount to law, but do not appear in the rules. The first is 

the extensive "library" of terms and conditions, which is a 

electronic collection of terms and conditions from which a 

permit writer is to select conditions the writer feels are 

appropriate for a specific PTIO. Commenters understand the 

agency's desire to establish such a "library" to expedite 

prompt production of permit documents. However, by 

establishing such uniform language of conditions, the 

agency has, in effect, established a body of law that should 

be created, if at all, in the form of rules. Only in that fashion 

will the public be provided its right to comment on the 

conditions, and have legal recourse to challenge uniform 

conditions thought to be unlawful or factually flawed. 

The second component is the new computer software 

(apparently labeled "Stars 2") that will be used for electronic 

PTIO applications and to produce the permit document. The 

public has not been involved in the process of developing 

the software, and yet the software may have the effect of 

imposing substantive constraints upon applicants and permit 

writers as effectively as if such constraints were in statutes 

or rules. Will the electronic application forms require only 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 7 of 72 

information required by law, or will they be unduly broad or 

burdensome? Will the permits produced by the software 

conform to law? We simply don't know until the software is 

completed and public informed. (Robert Brubaker, Porter 

Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 4: Implementation of the PTIO program does not conflict with 

ORC 3745.30. 

Currently "general terms and conditions" are contained in 

PTIs and PTOs issued by the agency. Upon implementation 

of the PTIO program they are being renamed as "standard 

terms and conditions." These conditions have been in 

permits issued by DAPC for many years. In developing the 

standard terms and conditions, the Agency is merely putting 

into the form of a permit condition or requirement, a 

requirement that is already a part of existing statutory or rule 

requirements. The Agency is not imposing new 

requirements of general, statewide application, and is 

therefore not engaging in unlawful rulemaking. Moreover, as 

to notice given to the regulated community about these 

terms and conditions, when DAPC developed these terms 

and conditions they were provided to the Permit Advisory 

Group (PAG) prior to implementation and all comments were 

considered. Whenever DAPC identifies a change is 

necessary in these standard terms and conditions, the PAG 

is again provided an opportunity to review the changes. 

There may also be cases where these terms could require a 

permit specific change. Ohio EPA needs the flexibility to 

change these terms, just like the emissions unit specific 

terms of a permit, on a case-by-case site specific basis 

through the permitting process. The commenter references 

"sixteen conditions" that have "not been shared with the 

public." We disagree. The majority of these conditions 

remain unchanged over the conditions currently in use. The 

commenter is privy to a copy of these conditions and new 

format, which was identified as a "draft," provided during a 

presentation to the public during a permitting conference. At 

the time of this presentation, DAPC was continuing to work 

on the new draft format and general terms and conditions 

with the intention of providing a completed draft to the PAG 

through the normal process. 

The commenter sites a few specific draft standard terms and 

conditions. Draft Condition 1 attempts to clearly identify 

which terms and conditions in a permit are federally 

enforceable and which are state-only enforceable (please 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 8 of 72 

see Response 36 for more discussion on this topic). Again, 

this was a draft provided to the public during a conference 

for the purpose of identifying the new format under PTIO for 

organizing all terms and conditions in a permit, not just the 

general terms and conditions. DAPC had not yet fully looked 

at the various general terms and conditions to identify 

federally vs. state only enforceable. This draft was in the 

very early stages of completion. The commenter also raises 

issue with draft Condition 15 with respect to BAT. Although 

re-worded in this draft, this term and condition currently 

exists in permits. We agree the conditions needs updating 

due to recent changes in law regarding the ten ton per year 

threshold. Again, this draft was in the very early stages of 

completion and was not being provided for comment 

purposes at the time of presentation at a conference, but 

rather for illustrative purposes of how the new format would 

be organized under the PTIO program. 

We also disagree that the PER Instruction Manual is an 

illegal rulemaking. This manual has been written as a 

service to our permit holders. In no way is the use of the 

manual mandatory. It is Ohio EPA's goal to provide 

excellent customer service and placing into rule every fact 

sheet or document that the agency prepares to assist the 

regulated community would not only greatly expand our rules 

and further burden industry, but would also direct valuable 

resources away from improving operations. 

The permit terms and conditions library has existed, and 

evolved, for many years within DAPC. This is not a new 

concept to PTIO. The library is a compilation of term and 

conditions for various types of sources that have been 

issued in permits over the years. The library is a very 

valuable tool to the permit writer as it gives them a starting 

point for drafting terms and conditions for a specific source 

type upon receipt of an application. It not only allows for 

more efficient development of permits. By no means are the 

library terms and conditions used to establish uniform terms 

and conditions for sources across Ohio in any automated 

manner. Every permit must be written and reviewed for 

accuracy and applicability to the specific source and any 

terms and conditions contained in the library that may be 

applicable to the source type are reviewed, and amended as 

necessary, by an experience permit writer to apply to the 

specific source. Permit terms and conditions require much 

flexibility in their development due to site specific conditions. 

As the regulated community knows, terms and conditions 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 9 of 72 

are a compilation of the rules and laws a source must 

comply with when installing and operating a source. The 

terms and conditions themselves do not establish the body 

of rule and law but rather provide the regulated entity with a 

single document that clearly identifies the requirements 

contained in the various rules and laws for which they must 

comply. Furthermore, every source which applies for a 

permit is afforded an opportunity to challenge the permit in 

accordance with law and OAC Chapter 3745-47. Many 

sources even choose to participate by reviewing terms and 

conditions prior to issuance even when a draft or proposed 

action is not required under law or rule. Implementation of 

the PTIO program will not alter these procedural rules. 

The commenter also raised concerns regarding the new 

computer software, STARS2, that will replace the existing 

STARS system used in the agency by permit writers and 

used externally by Title V facilities. The new system will be 

expanded to allow non-Title V facilities to also use an 

electronic system for submittal of documents, including 

applications. However, this is not a requirement but rather 

an option for these facilities. Therefore, we disagree that it 

will impose "substantive constraints upon applicants." We 

believe that facilities will find the new electronic system 

convenient and easier than the paper system. Internally, the 

new system will replace two older systems and create a 

more functional system for permit writers. Currently two 

separate systems are used by permit writers to create and 

store permitting documents (PTI and PTO). With 

implementation of STARS2 only one system will be used. It 

is important to note that permits will not be "produced by the 

software" but will continue to be produced by permit writers 

using word processing software (Microsoft Word). It is also 

important to note that we have provided an opportunity for 

the public to review and comment on components of the new 

system, such as process flow diagrams. 

Comments: In response to comments on the Interested Party PTIO 

proposal, Ohio EPA repeatedly states that "[t]he purpose of 

this rulemaking is to combine our permitting processes into 

the PTIO process" without making any changes to existing 

procedures. See, e.g., Response to Comments at page 43. 

We think the Agency has overstated the "sameness" of the 

proposed PTIO program compared to the status quo PTI and 

PTO programs. Ohio EPA also skews the "sameness" by 

comparing PTIO's to recent PTI's, rather than to the vast 

majority of minor source permits (both PTI's and PTO's) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 10 of 72 

currently in effect. A simplistic merger of the existing 

language of Chapters 15, 31, and 35 of the Ohio 

Administrative Code does not result in "sameness" or 

"neutrality," but rather results in some significant substantive 

changes from current law, hidden pitfalls, and unintended 

consequences (as explained more fully in the comments 

below). 

Apart from the inaccuracy of the "sameness" 

characterization of the PTIO "merger" of existing language in 

PTI and PTO rules, the goal of minor source permitting 

reform should not be to preserve the status quo. Rather, 

Ohio EPA should reform its minor source permitting program 

in the best ways possible, in accordance with first principles 

of good government. Ohio EPA should do all it can to make 

the minor source permitting program easier to administer, 

more efficient, less wasteful of resources that do not 

contribute to meaningful environmental results, and more 

advantageous to Ohio businesses, especially small 

businesses, faced with historically high and ever-increasing 

competitive pressures. 

The minor source permitting program is fundamentally 

different from the Title V permitting program required by 

federal law for major sources. The vast majority of sources 

in Ohio - probably more than 95% - are minor sources. 

Many, if not most, of these minor sources are owned and 

operated by small businesses. Many of the minor sources 

are commonplace and produce innocuous and ubiquitous 

emissions, like: dust from roadways and parking lots; erosion 

from storage piles of dirt, sand, or mulch; inherently low 

emissions from natural gas-fired boilers, furnaces, and 

ovens; and tanks for holding liquids like fuel oil. Ohio EPA 

should be reducing, not increasing, the permitting burdens 

on these types of minor sources at small businesses. We 

urge Ohio EPA to do more than just attempt to "merge" text 

from the PTO and PTI rules originally adopted in the early 

1970s, and instead to analyze and evaluate what is the best 

policy in 2007 for Ohio. Ohio EPA should aim for an 

exemplary PTIO program that eliminates unnecessary 

paperwork, delays, and outdated, redundant, or excessive 

requirements for minor sources. The Commenters support 

an expedited process to develop consensus with respect to 

clearly-defined, appropriate, and balanced annual reporting 

obligations for minor sources. (Robert Brubaker, Porter 

Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 11 of 72 

Response 5: The PTIO program is one area of process improvement that 

Ohio EPA is implementing to make the minor source 

permitting program easier to administer, more efficient and 

less wasteful of both agency and the regulated community 

resources. We truly believe implementation of PTIO will 

further these goals and decrease, not increase, the 

permitting burdens on minor sources at small businesses. It 

is true we have made every attempt to integrate the PTIO 

program into the current structure without making any 

changes to existing federally approved state implementation 

program (SIP) requirements. It will be necessary for Ohio 

EPA to resubmit the rescission of OAC Chapter 3745-35 and 

amendments to OAC Chapter 3745-31 as revisions of the 

SIP. Ohio EPA does not wish to jeopardize approvability of 

this important change by trying to encompass more process 

changes than those that were in the scope of the PTIO 

program. 

We agree that Ohio EPA should continue to make process 

improvements in the permitting program. In the past we 

have implemented many other process improvements, such 

as expanding the permit-by-rules and creating general 

permits, to continue to improve in these areas. We recognize 

that there can always be continued improvements made and 

we are dedicated at the agency to continuing these types of 

efforts in the future. Ohio EPA has responded to the 

commenters concerns (as explained more fully in the 

comments) below. 

Comment 6: The amendment's objective is to reduce paperwork and 

increase efficiency. It is also designed to increase 

compliance and reduce air emissions. Combining the PTI 

and PTO process for non-Title V companies is an excellent 

idea and doing so will increase efficiency by eliminating 

duplicate processes and paperwork. The reduction in the 

number of reporting cycles (annually vs quarterly and 10 

years vs 5 years) will also decrease paperwork but I fear at 

the price of increased air emissions as reporting 

requirements provide transparency and the ability for 

oversight. This fear would be eliminated if the new 

amendment includes a mandatory, unannounced visit by the 

EPA or local, third-party oversight official to the non-Title V 

facility every six months. Making these visits mandatory by 

law would provide necessity for continued federal funding 

into this much needed EPA program. (Jennifer Mesaros, on 

behalf of the Green Environmental Coalition, Dayton 

Ohio) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 12 of 72 

Response 6: Ohio EPA understands your concerns. Ohio EPA, under the 

Ohio Revised Code (ORC), always has the authority to enter 

onto the premises of persons with air contaminant sources to 

perform inspections. Unfortunately federal funding does not 

provide for these types of inspections of sources that are not 

major. The Ohio EPA currently conducts inspections of Title 

V sources once every two years and Synthetic Minor 

sources once every five years. These inspections are a 

thorough review of all air pollution compliance obligations 

and are extremely comprehensive. Inspections of minor 

sources may be conducted for a variety of reasons including: 

in response to dust or odor complaints, based upon types of 

air contaminant sources, problems in deviation or 

compliance reports, in response to a permitting request, and 

other relevant reasons. 

Ohio EPA strongly believes that by reducing paperwork 

through implementation of the PTIO program, Ohio EPA's 

time and resources can be redirected to increase 

compliance assistance. 

Rule 3745-15-03, "Submission of emission information" 

Comment 7: OAC 3745-15-03(C)(2). The word "postmarked" should be 

changed to "submitted." "Postmarked" is a term that implies 

that use of the U.S. mail system is required. In many, if not 

most cases, reports will be submitted electronically. (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 7: The word "postmarked" was an agreed upon term as a result 

of comments and concerns raised by members of the permit 

advisory group. However, we agree clarification is 

necessary for when the mail system is not used. We will 

incorporate "submitted" and provide a comment in the rule 

language to identify appropriate submittal techniques and 

how they affect the submitted date. 

Comment 8: OAC 3745-15-03(C)(4). The word "may" in the first sentence 

should be changed to "shall be deemed to." Otherwise it 

would be impossible to know, especially in advance, whether 

quarterly reporting under Chapter 77 (Title V) would satisfy 

the quarterly reporting required under Chapter 15. (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 8: We will incorporate the change. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 13 of 72 

Comment 9: Quarterly Reports 

OAC 3745-15-03(C)(1). The amount of quarterly reporting 

required by this proposed rule is excessive. For PTI's for 

units at Title V facilities, the standard general term and 

condition included in every PTI issued for a source at a Title 

V facility already requires quarterly reporting and needs no 

supplementation (indeed, the Agency should consider 

scaling back the scope of quarterly reporting for Title V 

facilities). Non-Title V facilities should not be burdened with 

these requirements as a matter of course, in the absence of 

a specific applicable requirement that mandates quarterly 

reporting (in which case, such specific requirement needs no 

supplementation). In general, quarterly reporting should be 

required selectively and relatively rarely, if at all, if there is no 

underlying requirement for such reports established by rule. 

Subparagraph (C)(1)(a) refers to "any" "deviations 

(excursions)." It is unwise and unreasonable to mandate 

quarterly reporting of "any and all" deviations from the kinds 

of permit terms listed in the subparagraph. Permit writers, 

working together with applicants, should apply reasoned 

discretion as to whether terms are of such a nature and 

significance as to require deviation reporting, and if so, 

whether to require such reporting more frequently than 

annually (or semi-annually in the case of monitoring terms at 

Title V facilities). The terms "deviations" and "excursions" 

used in the proposed rule have precise defined meanings for 

purposes of the Title V Compliance Assurance Monitoring 

(CAM) rules, but we are not aware of any Ohio statute or 

regulation defining these terms. "Deviations" and 

"excursions" have different meanings in the CAM rules. The 

word "excursions" appears only in parentheses in the first 

sentence of this paragraph, and is not repeated each time 

the word "deviations" is repeated in the same paragraph, 

which creates ambiguity and confusion. Subparagraphs (d) 

through (f) should be deleted because this is too much detail 

for each and every deviation at a minor source of the 

broadly-defined terms and conditions subject to deviation 

reporting. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & 

Arthur LLP) 

Response 9: It appears the commenter is confused as to which types of 

sources will require quarterly reporting versus reporting 

under the Permit Evaluation Report (PER). We will review 

the proposed rule language and ensure there is clarity. The 

quarterly reporting requirements contained in the proposed 

rule will be applicable to Title V facilities and only those 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 14 of 72 

federally enforceable terms contained in an FEPTIO 

associated with a limitation on the potential to emit for the 

purpose of avoiding a federal requirement. This rule is 

consistent with the standard general term and condition 

included in every PTI issued for a source at a Title V facility 

which already requires quarterly reporting. For over ten 

years PTIs issued by this agency have included a 

requirement in the general terms and conditions for quarterly 

reporting of deviations for both minor and major sources. 

Therefore, this is not a new requirement or a supplement, 

but the same requirement. Quarterly reports submitted in 

accordance with a Title V permit are sufficient to fulfill the 

requirements of quarterly reporting under a PTI issued to a 

Title V source. However, for the period of time between 

issuance of a PTI and issuance (or modification) of a Title V 

permit, quarterly reporting under the PTI will be necessary. 

We will be removing the reference to excursion. 

Please see Response #10 for additional information 

regarding reporting. 

Comment 10: Annual compliance certifications for minor sources. The 

proposed "Permit Evaluation Report" (PER) is an 

unprecedented requirement for minor sources that requires a 

sworn statement in all practical respects similar to a Title V 

annual compliance certification. The proposed PER 

expands liability for what small businesses and other minor 

source owner/operators disclose and fail to disclose. The 

disproportionality of this liability and self-policing obligation is 

compounded by the over-regulation of minor sources. We 

respectfully submit that the General Assembly has not 

contemplated or authorized such heavy-handedness in 

regulating small businesses and minor sources. 

Permit Evaluation Report 

The proposed Permit Evaluation Reports, which in effect 

would be very similar to Title V annual compliance 

certifications, have never before been required in PTI's or 

PTO's for minor sources in Ohio. The requirement for such 

self policing and sworn statements, and the scope of such 

reports, expands liability well beyond what has existed over 

the past 35 years of minor source permitting in Ohio. The 

more lengthy and complicated minor source permit terms 

and conditions become, the more onerous and intrusive the 

PER-related liability becomes. This entirely new and heavy 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 15 of 72 

handed obligation is not imposed by the federal Clean Air 

Act or by other states with which Ohio competes for 

business. It will create a disincentive for companies to install 

or operate minor sources in Ohio if they can do so elsewhere 

(or simply discontinue or forgo the business activity). 

Excessive monitoring or recordkeeping and excessive 

liability for minutiae, redundancies, or paperwork lapses is 

the opposite of what Ohio needs to progressively modernize 

and strengthen its economy while continuing to reduce 

emissions and improve air quality. 

In response to our concerns about the PTIO proposal's 

requirement for a Permit Evaluation Report, Ohio EPA 

claims that ORC § 3704.03(1) provides the director with the 

requisite authority to require such a report. While ORC § 

3704.03(1) authorizes the director to require the filing of 

periodic reports, nothing in ORC § 3704.03(1) authorizes the 

director to require self-policing and self-determinations of 

compliance status with respect to extensive permit terms, or 

sworn "affirmations" of a negative, i.e., statements under 

oath that no deviations from permit requirements occurred 

over a year long period. ORC § 3704.03(1) is nothing like the 

deliberate and extensive statutory and regulatory 

underpinning for annual compliance certifications required of 

Title V permit holders. Commenters respectfully disagree 

that the law authorizes these reports. But even if the agency 

is authorized to require these reports, it is not required to do 

so, and should not do so, for the reasons set forth in these 

Comments. 

The Commenters agree that quarterly deviation reports 

required in recently-issued PTI's to minor sources bury 

permittees and Ohio EPA and local air agencies with 

voluminous paperwork that does nothing to reduce 

emissions, and as a practical matter can not all be read, 

much less evaluated, by qualified Ohio EPA staff. We agree 

that reporting by minor source permittees more frequently 

than once a year is unreasonable and often 

counterproductive. 

While annual rather than more frequent reporting is an 

improvement over recent practice, the proposed Permit 

Evaluation Report is too broad as currently contemplated. It 

treats all emission units, all emission limits and operational 

restrictions, all opacity limits, all boilerplate terms, and all 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements as 

equally significant. It requires information beyond 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 16 of 72 

compliance information, like source shutdowns and 

operating information, and information on changes that may 

or may not have required preconstruction permits. The 

Commenters urge Ohio EPA to engage in a collaborative 

and cooperative dialog to try to reach consensus on 

reasonable annual reporting by minor source permit holders. 

Such reporting should avoid coercive admissions of legal 

liability or certifications or "affirmations" of noncompliance or 

violations (not even Title V requires that). Required annual 

reporting should be limited to significant and specificallyidentified emission limits or control obligations, such as 

synthetic minor caps on 12-month rolling average emissions. 

Any knowledgeable person should be able to file such 

reports, and instead of requiring an "affirmation" the 

reporting form should simply state that the signer is aware 

that Ohio law forbids the knowing falsification of information 

required by statute or rule to be submitted to Ohio EPA (see 

O RC § 3704.03(H)(1)). (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright 

Morris & Arthur LLP) 

The proposed "Permit Evaluation Report" (PER) is an 

unprecedented requirement for minor sources. It requires a 

sworn statement in all practical respects similar to a Title V 

annual compliance certification. The proposed PER 

expands liability for what small businesses and other minor 

source owner/operators disclose and fail to disclose. It is 

our understanding that this type of certification has never 

been required for previous PTI's or PTO's, so what is the 

compelling argument to require this overburdensome 

certification under a program that has been described as one 

that would reduce the regulatory burden for minor sources? 

The objective of this rule should be to reduce regulatory 

burden, not increase it. 

Although OCMA has a number of corporate members such 

as General Motors Powertrain-Defiance, Ford Motor 

Company, and Honda of America Mfg., Inc., they are the 

exceptions. Most of our members are small or mediumsized businesses, often family-owned with less than 100-200 

employees. Most of these companies do not have an 

environmental professional on staff whose only task is to 

monitor environmental activities and prepare reports. 

Generally, especially in smaller companies, the person 

"wearing the environmental hat" also has the responsibility 

for workers comp, health & safety, and sometimes human 

resources. The PTIO proposal as written would force these 

small businesses to hire an environmental consultant to 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 17 of 72 

assure compliance with the PER and to limit their liability. 

This is surely not what the Ohio General Assembly 

anticipates when it comes to regulation of small businesses 

and minor sources. The PER proposal should be revisited 

and significantly altered to remove this unnecessary 

regulatory burden. (Russ Murray, Executive Director, Ohio 

Cast Metal Association) 

Response 10: State governments bear much of the responsibility for 

ensuring compliance with environmental standards that 

protect public health, and Ohio EPA is not the only state that 

requires reporting under their non-Tit|e V permitting 

programs. We note, as noted by previous commenters, that 

periodic reporting of a facility's ability to meet the obligations 

of their permit is an important tool for both Ohio EPA and 

citizens to be aware of potential issues that could endanger 

the health and quality of life of Ohio's citizens. Numerous 

studies have found that self-reporting has a positive impact 

on the environment, specifically on emissions. We believe 

monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting is an essential 

component of ensuring compliance with state and federal 

requirements. 

We do not believe it is unlawful or unreasonable for 

permittees to be aware of the compliance status with their 

permits and report such facts. Additionally, we do not concur 

that the annual reporting of facts as they have transpired 

over the preceding calendar year constitutes additional 

compliance liabilities. Compliance oversight, and 

corresponding enforcement actions remain the responsibility 

of the Director. Case in point; unlike the Title V annual 

compliance certification, the PER does not require the 

submitter to identify a compliance plan or detail remedial 

actions taken to resolve the reported deviation(s). 

Exceedances of emission limits or other permit requirements 

are matters of fact. To suggest annual reporting, or other 

such reporting of such facts exposes additional liability 

suggests that permittees are shielded in some fashion until 

the violations are brought to light through inspections or 

"discovered" in some other manner. It is contrary to the basic 

underpinning of air pollution law in Ohio that the protection of 

Ohio citizens is delayed in some fashion under a scheme 

where reporting is non-existent or less frequent. Such delays 

put the health and safety of Ohio citizens and the 

environment at risk. Additionally, a reduction in 

recordkeeping and reporting obligations, as suggested by 

the commentor, could result in extended periods of non-
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 18 of 72 

compliance through reduced application of facility resources 

to observe and maintain compliance. Finally, a reduction in 

recordkeeping and reporting obligations, as suggested by 

the commentor, could extend the period under which 

compliant Ohio facilities operate at a disadvantage as they 

apply resources to compliance activities that a noncompliant 

facility does not apply. Ohio EPA is aware of the resource 

burdens placed on small facilities in maintaining and 

reporting information on the air pollution compliance status 

at the facilities. Likewise, Ohio law provides the Director 

long-standing broad discretion to require record keeping and 

reporting in a balanced manner that protects the health and 

environment of Ohioans. Ohio EPA believes the proposed 

P ER structure strikes an appropriate, lawful balance 

between existing quarterly reporting obligations and 

reasonable application of facility resources to ensure 

awareness and compliance with air pollution permit 

requirements. 

For over ten years PTIs and PTOs issued by this agency 

have included a requirement in the general terms and 

conditions for quarterly reporting of deviations. Prior to that, 

many permits contained periodic reporting requirements for 

specific terms and conditions of the permit. There are many 

sources that do not have this current reporting obligation 

because their PTI was issued prior to Ohio EPA initiating the 

quarterly reporting terms in permits and due to the backlog 

of PTOs requiring issuance. Without implementation ofthe 

PTIO program, DAPC would continue to work on the backlog 

of PTOs that continue to require issuance. Each of those 

PTOs, and any PTO renewed under the current program, 

would include a requirement for quarterly deviation reporting. 

Ohio EPA believes we can improve the reporting process for 

minor sources by instituting the PER report process. 

The PER is a consolidated collection of information about 

the air contaminant sources at a facility for a given year. 

Facilities would be provided with a form for reporting, 

developed by Ohio EPA, to ease the burden over the current 

process. Much of the form will be pre-populated with basic 

information to ease the reporting burden. As you may be 

aware, Ohio EPA does not currently require any particular 

format in reporting the status of a facility's ability to meet the 

obligations of their permit. This has advantages and 

disadvantages. The advantage is that permittees are left to 

develop internal tracking and reporting systems to best suit 

their needs and mesh with their internal procedures and 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 19 of 72 

practices. The disadvantage is that many permittees that 

would fall into the PTIO population have limited resources 

and staff to dedicate to ensuring proper records are kept and 

adequate information is provided regarding permit 

requirements. As an example, Ohio EPA was asked by 

smaller Title V facilities to develop deviation reporting form 

for reporting quarterly and semi-annual deviation reports 

required by Title V. Ohio EPA responded by developing a 

form that is now used by many permittees. Ohio EPA 

envisions that a structured reporting regime would lend 

consistency in reporting, and a better understanding of 

permittee record keeping and reporting obligations. 

The draft of the PER reviewed by the commenter is 

structured into two parts. The first part provides basic 

information about the facility including contact identification 

and a list of all air contaminant sources issued a PTIO. This 

information is populated by Ohio EPA and provides an 

avenue to ensure the permittee and Ohio EPA have a 

common understanding of what is regulated at the facility, 

who the contact is, etc., and the opportunity to correct or 

update incorrect information stored in Ohio EPA data files. 

There is also a question for the permittee that provides an 

avenue for reporting any other pertinent information that may 

be useful to Ohio EPA (e.g., identifying a pending transfer of 

ownership). It is an opportunity for the permittee to report air 

contaminant source shutdowns, process improvements, 

issues and projects so that Ohio EPA data remains current 

and accurate. Conveying information via this section of the 

PER can open the door for discussion and understanding 

between Ohio EPA and the facility concerning regulated 

operations. This first part concluded with an affirmation 

statement and signature section that states: 

"The signature shall constitute personal affirmation 

that all statements or assertions of fact made in the 

report are true and complete, comply fully with 

applicable state requirements, and shall subject the 

signatory to liability under applicable state laws 

forbidding false or misleading statements." 

The second part of the form is specific to the air contaminant 

source and would be completed for each air contaminant 

source issued a PTIO. It contains a series of five yes/no 

questions. Two of the questions are consistent with current 

quarterly deviation requirements and require if deviations did 

occur an attachment identifying the nature of the deviation is 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 20 of 72 

included. Again, this is consistent with the current 

requirements in the general terms and conditions of PTIs 

and PTOs issued by Ohio EPA today and reduces permittee 

administrative burdens by requiring only one submission 

rather than four quarterly submissions. The remaining three 

yes/no questions intended to provide valuable information to 

Ohio EPA necessary to accurately track certain specific 

changes at a facility and include: 1-did the air contaminant 

source operate; 2-was the air contaminant source 

permanently shut down and; 3- was there a modification of 

the air contaminant source. This information has not been 

formally collected in the past. Most notably, shutdown 

sources have only been identified during periodic inspections 

or informal notifications from owners. Accurate tracking of 

shutdown sources is a very important tool for the agency and 

benefits the permittee in various ways. Primarily, it keeps 

agency records up-to-date and accurate. Secondly, some 

shut down operations can benefit a permittee by freeing up 

credits under the emissions banking program being 

established. Finally, we believe requesting this information 

during the yearly report is sufficient notice to allow us to 

update records and maintain an accurate representation of 

the sources operating in Ohio. We do not believe it is 

necessary to require more frequent notification. Requesting 

confirmation as to whether operation of the source occurred 

is helpful when evaluating whether or not deviations at the 

source occurred. Deviations can be common at a facility 

and when field office staff review reports that identify no 

deviations are occurring, understanding that the source did 

not operate during the reporting period is very useful 

information. An air contaminant that was not operated during 

the reporting period does not imply the source was shutdown 

and will not be identified as such in Ohio EPA records. And 

lastly, identifying if modifications may have occurred helps 

Ohio EPA identify if a source may need a permit. Ohio EPA 

believes that if a change occurred during the reporting period 

that, in fact, required a permit or permit modification, it is 

better to address the issue expeditiously rather than delay 

addressing the issue until an inspection occurs. Changes to 

air contaminant sources rarely occur in a vacuum. Reporting 

such changes, and addressing permit application obligations 

early may lead to less inadvertent noncompliance when 

future changes occur. As alluded to by the commenter, 

smaller sources often do not fully understand new source 

review permitting obligations. This question allows the 

permittee to once a year reflect on any changes that may 

have occurred at their facility and evaluate if a permit 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 21 of 72 

application may have been appropriate. This allows sources 

to more quickly obtain appropriate permits they may have 

mistakenly neglected to apply for. At a minimum, it allows 

the Agency to assist in this review process in order to avoid 

future inadvertent noncompliance. Ohio EPA's main 

objectives in these questions are to maintain an accurate 

representation of air contaminant sources at a facility that 

require permits and to assist permittees in maintaining 

compliance with regulations. We believe a better 

understanding of facility operations and projects would result 

in greater compliance rates and environmental benefit. By 

having an avenue to collect this data, facility data is selfcorrecting over time. Ohio EPA is better able to develop 

programs, monitoring regimes, SIP development, etc., with 

the more accurate data regarding facilities operating in Ohio. 

However, because of concerns raised by the regulated 

community, Ohio EPA will be revising the PER form to 

remove the three questions on the emissions unit specific 

form discussed under this paragraph. Rather than ask the 

yes/no questions at the emissions unit level, Ohio EPA will 

be requesting any information relevant to these questions be 

identified under the first part of the form that provides an 

avenue for reporting any other pertinent information that may 

be useful to Ohio EPA. The question states specifically in 

the draft PER: 

Additional Information/Corrections: 

Please list below any additional information you wish 

to communicate with Ohio EPA including permanently 

shutdown EUs with associated shutdown 

date(s),EU(s) that will not be installed or modified, 

new EUs that did not receive a PTIO, modifications of 

EUs and associated Permit Number(s), if applicable, 

etc. 

The PER is not the "line-by-line" compliance report required 

for Title V annual compliance certifications. Title V permit 

holders must certify compliance with each term and 

condition in the permit. Contrary to assertions by the 

commenter, the PER does not require line-by-line 

certification of compliance with each PTIO permit term. We 

disagree that the PER expands liability well beyond what has 

existed under current state law. The PER does not add any 

legal liability to the entity that does not already exist under 

current law prohibiting falsification of records. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 22 of 72 

Such law is not enforceable by USEPA and is not 

federalized "by extension" as asserted by the commenter. 

Under existing Ohio law, ORC 3704.03(1) provides that the 

Director of environmental protection may require the person 

responsible for any air contaminant source to operate 

monitoring devices, maintain records, and file periodic 

reports containing any pertinent information the Director 

prescribes. ORC 3704.05(D) provides that no person shall 

fail to install and maintain monitoring devices or to submit 

reports or other information as may be required under ORC 

3704.03(1) and that no person no person shall falsify any 

plans, specifications, data, reports, records, or other 

information required to be kept or submitted to the director 

(3704.05(H)(1)). We understand the commenter's concern 

regarding the legal ramifications of signing an affirmation in 

the PER where no explicit affirmation currently exists in the 

quarterly deviation reporting requirements. However, it is 

important to note that regardless of the absence of an 

explicit affirmation in quarterly deviation reporting, the same 

implications and potential ramifications exist under the 

current system as would exist under the PER proposal. With 

respect to reporting required by the director, ORC 

3704.06(C) provides that prosecution of any person who 

violates ORC 3704.05 may occur, including imposition of 

civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation. Lastly, 

ORC 3704.09(A) provides that any reckless violation of ORC 

3704.05(D) may be fined up to $25,000 per day or face 

imprisonment of no more than one year per violation. These 

penalties are with respect to failing to submit reports. ORC 

3704.09(B) provides that any person who knowingly violates 

ORC 3704.05(H) may be fined up to $25,000 per day per 

violation. This penalty is with respect to falsifying reports. 

Therefore, under Ohio law any person who fails to submit 

required reporting can face monetary penalties or 

imprisonment while any person who knowingly submits false 

information in a report can face monetary penalties. These 

legal ramifications are unchanged by the PER proposal. 

Many small facility operators are likely unaware of this 

existing liability. Ohio EPA believes it is beneficial for such 

liability to be transparent to the permittee at the time the 

report is submitted. 

That said, to alleviate the concerns of the regulated 

community, Ohio EPA will be revising the signatory 

requirements of the PER, as they are identified in this rule. 

Ohio EPA will include a statement of the existing liability as 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 23 of 72 

Comment 11: 

Response 11: 

Comment 12: 

Response 12: 

referenced in the ORC on the form; however, a signature will 

not be required. 

Permit Evaluation Reports 

For the reasons given in our August 10, 2007 comments, we 

think the proposed "Permit Evaluation Reports" for minor 

sources are not authorized by statute, and are unreasonable 

as a matter of policy even if there was statutory discretion to 

impose such requirements. Without conceding the Agency's 

authority to require the proposed "Permit Evaluation 

Reports," if the Agency rejects our position, we respectfully 

suggest that the language of OAC 3745-15-03(D) should be 

modified to reduce the amount of information to be reported, 

and 15-03(E) should be revised to reformulate the assurance 

of accuracy provided by the person submitting the report so 

that it is consistent with and not more demanding or 

burdensome than the assurance provided in the Title V 

permit program. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris 

& Arthur LLP) 

Please see Response #10. 

OAC 3745-15-03(D)(1) should read: 

(D) Permit evaluation report. 

(1) Pursuant to paragraph (A) of this rule, each permit 

described under paragraph (B)(2) of this rule shall require 

the owner or operator TO submit a permit evaluation report, 

in a form and manner prescribed by the director, which 

identifies, at a minimum: [Comment: the phrase "at a 

minimum" should be deleted, because it connotes 

unbounded discretion, and defeats the purpose of notice and 

comment rulemaking. In the context of this rule, the phrase 

"at a minimum" will produce uncertainty and a high 

probability of conflicts over secret law and regulation by 

policy with regard to expectations and requirements beyond 

the "minimum."]: (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris 

& Arthur LLP) 

Ohio EPA will incorporate the "TO" suggested by the 

commenter. With respect to the "at a minimum" language 

in the rule, Ohio EPA does not believe it produces 

uncertainty. We state in the rule language that it will be 

submitted in a form and manner prescribed by the director. 

This is consistent with ORC 3704.03(1) which provides that 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 24 of 72 

the Director may require periodic reports "containing any 

pertinent information the Director prescribes." As identified in 

Response #10, we are creating a form that will be specific 

removing any ambiguity and providing uniformity for all 

sources. This rule provides the major elements that will be 

in the report form created under the Director's authority. 

Comment 13: OAC 3745-15-03(D)(1)(a) should read: 

(a) A list of all air contaminant sources that have bee issued 

THE permit OR PERMITS FOR WHICH THE REPORT IS 

SUBMITTED described under paragraph (B)(2) of this rule; 

AND [Comment: This subparagraph should be revised to 

refer to only the particular PTIO or PTIO's for which the 

Permit Evaluation Report is being filed because there is no 

good reason for an owner or operator to be obligated to 

inventory all of its (B)(2) PTIs, FEPTIOs, and PTIOs 

(anywhere in Ohio) each year an annual Permit Evaluation 

Report is submitted. The owner or operator should have the 

option, but not the duty, to submit one report for multiple 

PTIO's, provided that each PTIO covered by the report is 

identified in the report. The permit will list the air 

contaminant sources to which it applies, and there is no 

need for the applicant to extract this information from the 

permit every year. The reference to "all" air contaminant 

sources "described under paragraph (B)(2) or this rule" is 

indefinite and not reasonably ascertainable. The proposed 

text would require the submission of one Permit Evaluation 

Report for every PTI, FEPTIO, and PTIO source in Ohio with 

the same owner or operator. Even if proposed paragraph 

(C)(1) is intended to apply just to all the sources described in 

paragraph (B)(1) that are located at the same premise or 

facility, there may be different people involved in the 

operation, supervision, or management of various air 

contaminant sources co-located at the same premise such 

that collective reporting is inappropriate or undesirable. In 

this regard, ORC section 3704.03(G) gives Title V permit 

applicants the statutory option of grouping multiple units at 

the same Title V facility into two or more Title V permits, as 

best serves the business needs of the applicant.] (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 13: As mentioned in Response #10, the form Ohio EPA is 

creating will have two parts. The first part provides basic 

information about the facility including a list of all air 

contaminant sources issued a PTIO. This information is prepopulated by Ohio EPA and provides an avenue to ensure 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 25 of 72 

the permittee and Ohio EPA have a common understanding 

of what is regulated at the facility and the opportunity to 

correct or update incorrect information stored in Ohio EPA 

data files. As the PER is only applicable to PTIOs (whether 

it is a PTIO or federally enforceable PTIO (FEPTIO)), this 

would not be applicable to any previous PTIs (or PTOs) that 

were historically issued to the owner or operator as the 

commenter eluded. 

The permittee will submit one report, on the annual due date, 

for all the PTIO's issued to a facility. Again, the PER is 

comprised of two parts, a facility wide section with basic 

information and an emissions unit specific section. Multiple 

emissions unit specific sections will be attached for each 

source issued a PTIO. Therefore, it will be very easy for 

each person responsible for the various sources at a facility 

to complete the emissions unit specific section applicable to 

them, so that "different people involved in the operation, 

supervision, or management of various air contaminant 

sources co-located at the same premise" can assist in 

compiling the complete report. 

There may be cases where the report does not identify each 

emissions unit issued a PTIO and to be covered by the 

report. For example, if the report was mailed to the recipient 

by Ohio EPA and a PTIO was issued after the mailing date. 

It is still the responsibility of the permit holder to identify that 

there is a source, not identified in the pre-populated table, 

that is subject to the PTIO reporting requirements, and 

submit the applicable information in the report. 

We are unclear on the commenters assertion that "there is 

no good reason for an owner or operator to be obligated to 

inventory all of its (B)(2) PTIs, FEPTIOs, and PTIOs 

(anywhere in Ohio) each year an annual Permit Evaluation 

Report is submitted." We believe, only through an accurate 

inventory of permits issued, can a permitee understand its 

reporting obligation. At a minimum, we hope that all 

permittees are knowledgable enough of their permit contents 

to be able to effectively report on an annual basis. We are 

not sure what the concern is with regards to "anywhere in 

Ohio". A facility is issued an Ohio EPA identification number 

upon creation as a facility. The annual report will be 

applicable to all PTIOs under that facility identification 

number. We do understand the commenters concern 

regarding the language implying that an owner or operator 

with multiple facilities within Ohio submitting one report for all 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 26 of 72 

the facilities. That is not the intent of the PER program. We 

will amend the language under (B)(1) and (B)(2) to read: 

"... .shall be applicable to an owner or operator of a facility..." 

Comment 14: OAC 3745-15-03(D)(1)(b) should read: 

(b) Additional information or corrections to identified in the 

permit evaluation permit, such as: permanently shut down air 

contaminant sources, air contaminant sources that will not 

be installed or modifiod, new air contaminant sources that 

did not receive a permit described under paragraph (B)(2) of 

this rulo, or modifications of air contaminant sources issued 

a permit described under paragraph (B)(2) of this rule; 

[Comment: This subparagraph should be deleted because it 

is not germane to compliance with air pollution control 

performance obligations imposed by a permit. It asks for a 

nuanced judgment on a matter of considerable legal and 

factual complexity. Minor source owner/operators (and 

particularly small businesses) should not be placed in a 

position of unknowingly surrendering permit rights or 

emission reduction credits for sources that may be returned 

to service based on unforeseen or unexpected business 

condition changes In addition, as presently worded, the 

requirement is open ended - the phrase "additional 

information or corrections to air contaminant sources 

identified in the permit evaluation permit (sic)" - is simply too 

vague and indefinite. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright 

Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 14: We believe this question is of the upmost importance for all 

the reasons identified in our Response #10. Having an 

accurate inventory and providing a simplified route for 

presenting that information to Ohio EPA is paramount to 

Ohio EPA being able to accurately reflect the sources 

operating in Ohio. We disagree that this question implies 

surrendering of permit rights. A permit is "surrendered", or no 

longer enforceable, only when an emissions unit is 

permanently shutdown. This can only be accomplished by 

receipt of a certified request from the authorized 

representative of the emissions unit. Ohio EPA will provide 

a mechanism for the permittee to do this through the PER 

report with clear instructions. We believe this is a benefit to 

the PER report. We will be amending the rule language to 

remove the "such as" examples and will identify these 

examples in the PER FAQs/Instructions document. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 27 of 72 

Comment 15: OAC 3745-15-03(D)(1)(c) should read: 

(c) Any—^Deviations (excursions)—DURING THE 

REPORTING PERIOD from THE emission limitations, 

operational restrictions, and control device operating 

parameter limitations THAT ARE DESIGNATED IN THE 

PERMIT AS SUBJECT TO ANNUAL PERFORMANCE 

EVALUATION REPORTING AND that have been detected 

by the testing, monitoring, and record-keeping requirements 

specified in the permit. [Comment: The terms "deviations" 

and "excursions" have precise defined meanings for 

purposes of the Title V Compliance Assurance Monitoring 

(CAM) rules, but we are not aware of any Ohio statute or 

regulation defining these terms. "Deviations" and 

"excursions" have different meanings in the CAM rules. The 

word "excursions" appears only in parentheses in the first 

sentence of this paragraph, and is not repeated each time 

the word "deviations" is repeated in the same paragraph, 

which creates ambiguity. The annual Permit Evaluation 

Report should not automatically apply to each and every 

emissions limitation, operational restriction, and control 

device operating parameter in a minor source permit, no 

matter what the circumstances. Common sense would 

dictate that not all sources and all permit terms are equal, 

and that annual accounting for certain sources and certain 

permit terms is particularly unreasonable and unnecessary.] 

(D)(1)(d) through (f), delete. [Comment: subparagraphs (d), 

(e), and (f) should be deleted because this is too much detail 

for each and every deviation at a minor source of the 

broadly-defined terms and conditions subject to deviation 

reporting.] (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & 

Arthur LLP) 

Response 15: We will be removing the reference to excursion. 

Please see Response #10 for additional information 

regarding reporting. 

Comment 16: OAC 3745-15-03(D)(2)(a), delete "at a minimum" in the first 

sentence. Standardless discretion to require Permit 

Evaluation Reports more often than annually creates undue 

and undesirable uncertainty, and is too susceptible to abuse. 

(Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 28 of 72 

Response 16: We disagree. There may be cases where it is appropriate, 

for example due to enforcement issues, for more frequent 

than annual reporting. 

Comment 17: OAC 3745-15-03(E) should read: 

(E) Each report submitted in accordance with this rule shall 

be signed by the authorized reprosontative, as defined in 

paragraph (B) of rule 3745-31-04 ofthe Administrative Code 

A PERSON WHO HAS CONDUCTED A REASONABLE 

INQUIRY INTO THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT. 

The signature shall constitute personal affirmation that, 

BASED UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF FORMED 

AFTER A REASONABLE INQUIRY, THE PERSON 

BELIEVES THAT all statements or assertions of fact made 

in the report are true and complete, comply fully with 

applicable—state—requirements,—and—sbaW—subject—the 

signatory to liability under applicable state laws forbidding 

false and misleading statements AND THAT THE PERSON 

IS AWARE THAT OHIO LAW FORBIDS THE KNOWING 

FALSIFICATION OF INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE 

SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR BY CHAPTER 3704 OF 

THE OHIO REVISED CODE OR RULES ADOPTED 

UNDER IT. [Comment: Unless the proposed certification 

language is changed, it would demand an absolute 

guarantee of accuracy, which is an unrealistic obligation to 

place on small businesses and minor source owners or 

operators. We understand that the proposed text was taken 

verbatim from the permit application certification provision in 

OAC Rule 3745-31-04(D). However, the application is an 

entirely different context from an annual compliance or 

deviation/non-deviation affirmation (and the nature of the 

affirmation is unduly demanding even for today's extensive 

content of a permit application, in any event). The 

application certification pertains to a closed set of relevant 

facts as put forth by the applicant. The annual 

deviation/non-deviation report involves far more than facts. 

It involves judgment, mixed questions of law and fact, 

extensive recordkeeping systems and reviews, and a 

reasonable inquiry into each relevant term over an entire 

year-long period. Moreover, it is unrealistic to require that 

only an "authorized representative," as defined in OAC Rule 

3745-31-04(B), can sign an annual Permit Evaluation 

Report. For most small businesses and minor sources, the 

defined "authorized representative" would not have first hand 

knowledge of air permit requirements and deviations.] 

(Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 29 of 72 

Response 17: As identified in Response #10, Ohio EPA will be revising the 

signatory requirements of the PER, as they are identified in 

this rule. Ohio EPA will include a statement of the existing 

liability as referenced in the ORC on the form; however, a 

signature will not be required. 

Comment 18: The new amendment lengthens reporting requirements for 

non-malfunction and deviation from emission limits from 

quarterly to annually. (Immediate malfunction reporting is still 

required.) The quarterly requirement should remain thus 

providing more timely oversight should corrective action be 

necessary. It is safer to correct irreversible air emission 

errors and/or omissions on a quarterly versus annual basis. 

(Jennifer Mesaros, on behalf ofthe Green Environmental 

Coalition, Dayton Ohio) 

Response 18: We have proposed the PTIO program require an annual 

PER that would benefit all stakeholders by improving 

compliance assurance. Permit holders would use the PER to 

report a facilities ability to meet the obligations of their 

permit, prompting assistance and/or possible enforcement 

action from Ohio EPA. There would be a greater 

responsibility among permitted facilities to self report 

problems. Additionally, Ohio EPA staff would conduct 

regulatory oversight through review of PER data and 

compliance inspections. 

Currently, not all permits require quarterly deviation and 

semi- annual reports. Although there would be a reduced 

reporting frequency for those companies that have quarterly 

deviation and semi-annual reporting requirements, it is 

anticipated that the companies would be much more diligent 

about both the timely submission of the PER and the 

accuracy of the information contained in the reports. 

Currently, many companies are inundated with producing 

quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reports and tracking 

these reports; Ohio EPA is equally tasked with tracking and 

reviewing these reports. The current system is complex and 

confusing to many companies, resulting in many reports 

being completed inaccurately or omitted altogether. As a 

result, the current reporting system is not an effective system 

for tracking a facility's ability to meet the obligations of their 

permit. It would be much easier for Ohio EPA to review and 

track the submission of the PERs than the several different 

types of reports that are currently required. As a result, Ohio 

EPA expects to find at least as many, and probably more, 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 30 of 72 

violations through PER reporting than with the current 

process. 

An additional benefit of the PER is increased communication 

with the regulated community. There currently is no system 

to ensure that smaller facilities will report changes in 

ownership, business shutdowns or shutdowns of emissions 

units. The PER would achieve this on an annual basis. This 

would improve the accuracy of data that is passed along to 

the public. 

In fact, it is envisioned that compliance oversight of minor 

sources would increase once the PER requirement is 

implemented. Assuring compliance is achieved in many 

ways including on-site visits, compliance inspections, 

complaint investigations, correspondence with the facility 

and the review of reports. Implementation of the PER would 

consolidate the review of reports and over the long term, 

should free up resources and staff time to conduct other 

"hands-on" compliance oversight activities and establish a 

greater Ohio EPA presence in the field. A greater Ohio EPA 

presence in the field would increase the chance that a facility 

would be inspected and would likely result in a higher 

percentage of facilities operating in compliance with permit 

requirements. 

It is important to note that the change in reporting frequency 

(from quarterly to annual) would not change the frequency of 

the monitoring and recordkeeping required in the permit. 

This is an important point to note since the frequency of 

monitoring an emissions unit (air contaminant source) has a 

much greater effect on actual emission levels than does the 

frequency of reporting for that emissions unit. Therefore, 

documentation of a facilities ability to meet the obligations of 

their permit would continue to be available for review and 

inspection, in addition to reporting under the PER. 

Since the change to annual PER reporting is not expected to 

impact emissions, and a greater Ohio EPA presence in the 

field would likely increase compliance with permit 

requirements, the proposed change ensures that the air is 

kept clean and human health is protected. 

Additionally, the annual report will only be applicable to 

minor sources. Sources which require more frequent 

reporting under OAC rules or the federal programs will 

continue to report at the frequency required under those 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 31 of 72 

regulations. For example, OAC rule 3745-15-06 requires 

companies to report malfunctions of equipment used to 

control air pollution. This reporting requirement remains in 

effect and requires a company to report malfunctions quickly 

with a follow-up written report concerning the malfunction. 

Finally, the switch to annual reporting will not hamper Ohio 

EPAs ability to pursue enforcement. The length of time 

between the occurrence of a violation and when it is reported 

on the PER would be well within the time frame in which 

Ohio EPA can pursue enforcement. 

Rule 3745-31-01, "Definitions" 

Rule 3745-31-01 (WW ) 

Comment 19: The proposed addition of a new sentence at the end of the 

definition of "potential to emit" in 31-01 (WW ) makes no 

sense. There is no way to know the difference between the 

purposes of the definition given and "other purposes under 

the Clean Air Act." Moreover, it would not be legally possible 

for the OAC 3745-31-01 (WW ) definition of "potential to 

emit" to "alter or affect" a different term - "capacity factor" -

as used in the Clean Air Act or the regulations promulgated 

thereunder. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & 

Arthur LLP) 

Response 19: This language existed under the federally approved 

definition of potential to emit in OAC rule 3745-35-07. After 

further review of historical rulemaking documents relevant to 

this definition, we do not believe removing the language will 

hinder our ability to regain approval of the federally 

enforceable operating permit program; therefore, we will 

delete the last sentence. 

Rule 3745-31-01 (BBBBB) 

Comment 20: The definition of "PTIO" in proposed OAC 3745-31-

01 (BBBBB), by using "and/or," equates a "PTIO" with a 

"PTI." Those two types of permits become mutually 

exclusive under the PTIO proposal. The 7or" should be 

deleted after "permit-to-install and". Also, PTIO's apply to air 

contaminant sources or projects, not to "facilities." The word 

"facilities" should therefore be changed in the proposed 

definition of "PTIO". (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright 

Morris & Arthur LLP) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 32 of 72 

Response 20: The use of and/or was intentional in this definition. After 

implementation ofthe PTIO program, PTOs, as historically 

known, will no longer be issued. However, there may be a 

source that is issued a PTIO which subsequently becomes 

subject to the Title V program. Ohio EPA will not revoke 

their PTIO and issue a PTI but rather will supersede the no 

longer applicable "operating" requirements from the PTIO so 

it can serve as only an installation permit (PTI) for the new 

Title V source. However, we believe the use of and/or is not 

necessary and upon further review of the rules affected by 

this change, we will be making the following changes to 

address the commenter's concern: 

OAC rule 3745-31-01 (BBBBB) 

"PTIO" or "permit-to-install and operate" means a 

permit-to-install and/or a permit-to-operate applicable 

to air contaminant source(s) not located at facilities 

not subject to Chapter 3745-77 of the Administrative 

Code. 

OAC rule 3745-31-02(B)(1 )(c) 

Upon final issuance of the permit required under 

paragraph (B)(1)(a) of this rule, and, if applicable, 

under paragraph (B)(1)(b) of this rule, any permit-tooperate and/or any terms and conditions specifically 

identified in the standard terms and conditions of a 

PTIO as no longer enforceable under this scenario 

will be superseded by the issuance of the Title V 

permit required under paragraph (B)(1)(a) of this rule, 

and, if applicable, the permit-to-install required under 

paragraph (B)(1)(b) of this rule. When applicable, all 

superseded permits-to-operate will terminate and 

cease to be enforceable. When applicable, 

specifically and-superseded terms and conditions of 

any PTIO will cease to be enforceable and the PTIO 

will function as the permit-to-install. 

Rule 3745-31-01 (AAAAAA) 

Comment 21: Wholesale Incorporation bv Reference of Lengthy 

Documents 

The proposed amendments to OAC 3745-31-01 include 

changes to what is now labeled paragraph (AAAAAA), 

"Incorporation by Reference". Although only a few changes 

to this lengthy (thirteen page) list of incorporated documents 

or other materials (such as federal statutes and regulations) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 33 of 72 

are proposed, Commenters contend that this entire 

paragraph should be deleted. The principal problem with the 

paragraph is that it is unclear whether all of the contents of 

the incorporated documents or legal materials are now an 

enforceable part of OAC Chapter 3745-31, or whether only 

the portion that pertains to the subject being addressed at 

the location of the rule where the document or materials are 

referenced. The sentence, "The materials are hereby made 

a part of the regulations in this chapter" in the initial 

language in (AAAAAA) creates that uncertainty. 

A far better approach is to limit incorporation by reference 

only to a specified portion of the document or materials that 

pertain to the subject being addressed by the rule that 

references the document or materials, and to incorporate 

that specified portion of the document or materials at that 

location in the text of the rule. That approach eliminates the 

wholesale and confusing incorporation of entire documents 

and materials that occurs in (AAAAAA). Also, information on 

where the reader may obtain a copy of the document or 

materials should be placed where the reference to the 

document or materials occurs in the rule text, rather than a 

separate paragraph in the definitions rule. 

Another approach would be to remove altogether the legally 

significant phrase "incorporation by reference," and instead 

describe the listed materials as potentially related 

references and resources. (Robert Brubaker, Porter 

Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 21: Ohio EPA is required by Section 121.72 of the Ohio Revised 

Code (ORC) to provide potentially affected parties with 

information regarding items that have been incorporated by 

reference within our rules. To fulfill these requirements, Ohio 

EPA has included information on the availability (how to 

obtain copies) and the date, edition, or version of the item 

referenced. This paragraph fulfills this requirement for the 

entire chapter and is consistent with procedures used by 

DAPC and other agencies. As Ohio EPA is required to 

comply with ORC 121.72, we cannot delete this paragraph of 

this rule. 

We believe there is no ambiguity created. We believe that 

the context of each instance in which outside materials are 

referenced make clear the extent of the incorporation. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 34 of 72 

Rule 3745-31-02, "Applicability, requirements, and obligations" 

fCommentl 

Comment 22: OAC 3745-31-02. In the "comment" provision that precedes 

proposed rule 31-02, line 8 should have "at facilities" 

inserted after "sources" and before "which," and "or will be" 

inserted after "are" and before "subject," so the sentence 

reads: "This chapter also provides requirements for 

installation and modification of air contaminant sources AT 

FACILITIES which are OR WILL BE subject to Chapter 

3745-77 of the Administrative Code." Line 13 of the second 

"comment" should have "permits-to-install" inserted after 

"status," so the sentence reads: "Updated requirements for 

registration status PERMITS-TO-INSTALL, now defined as 

express permit-to-install or express PTIOs, are incorporated 

into rule 3745-31-05 of the Administrative Code. (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 22: Ohio EPA will incorporate the clarifications except addition of 

"permits-to-install" after registration status. The updated 

requirements are now applicable, and in lieu, of registration 

status that existed under OAC Chapter 3745-35 and 3745-

31. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (A) 

Comment 23: In the first sentence of proposed rule 31-02(A)(1)(b), the 

words "as defined in" should be replaced with the words 

"subject to the requirements of." All air contaminant sources 

are part of a "facility" as defined in Chapter 3745-77, so the 

sentence as written refers to a nonexistent category of 

sources. The same change needs to be made in the first 

sentence of proposed rule 31-02(A)(1)(c), for the same 

reason. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 

LLP) 

Response 23: We intend for the language to refer the reader to the 

definition of "facility" under OAC Chapter 3745-77. However, 

we understand what we believe the commenter's concern to 

be, that new sources not yet installed are nonexistent in the 

facility until installed. Therefore, we will clarify the language 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 35 of 72 

by adding the following: "....any new source that is, or will 

be, part of a facility...." to paragraph (A)(1)(a). 

Comment 24: Commenters also note drafting difficulties in two regulations, 

and suggest the following changes. Both subparagraphs 

OAC 3745-31-02(A)(1)(b) and (c) contain language to 

confine issuance of PTIO's to sources at non-Title V 

facilities. However, both have a negative that should be 

removed. For example, (b) refers to an emission unit "that is 

not part of a facility, as defined in Chapter 3745-77 of the 

Administrative Code, and that is not required to obtain a Title 

V permit". This double negative is confusing and 

inappropriate. This passage, and a like passage in (c), 

should read, "that is not part of a facility that is required to 

obtain a Title V permit under Chapter 3745-77 of the 

Administrative Code". (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright 

Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 24: We believe when subparagraph (a), (b) and (c) are read 

together the requirements are unmistakable. It is necessary 

to identify that the air contaminant source is not part of a 

Title V "facility" because Title V permits are issued to 

facilities and not by source, as PTI and PTIOs are. We are 

establishing in this paragraph that PTIs are issued to a 

"facility" required to obtain a Title V permit while PTIOs are 

issued to facilities not part of the Title V program. It is 

necessary to define the term facility, through reference of the 

Title V rules. It is also necessary to make it clear that 

operation is also regulated under this rule for non-Title V 

facilities, while operation of Title V facilities is not regulated 

under OAC Chapter 3745-31. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (B) 

Comment 25: There is a drafting flaw in the first sentence of proposed rule 

OAC 3745-31-02(B). The reference to "change in a source's 

applicability" makes no sense. A "source" does not have 

"applicability." The intent appears to be to refer to a change 

in facts or law that change the applicability of one or more 

requirements to a particular air contaminant source. 

Whatever the intent, the proposed rule text should be written 

so that it can be understood consistent with its intent. 

Subparagraph (B)(1) also has drafting flaws. There are 

singular and plural references mixed ("the following" is 

juxtaposed with three separate subparagraphs (a) through 

(c), and "an owner or operator who" is paired with "them"). It 

is unclear when the applications required by subparagraphs 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

JulyS, 2007 Page 36 of 72 

(B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(b) are required to be submitted. 

Subparagraph (B)(1)(b) refers to a "permit-to-install," but 

"permits-to-install" would be replaced by PTIO's under the 

proposal. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & 

Arthur LLP) 

Response 25: We will clarify the text. With respect to the clarity of when to 

submit a Title V application (subparagraph (a)), those 

requirements are identified in OAC Chapter 3745-77. 

Paragraph (A) of this rule identifies that installation or 

modification of a "new source" cannot occur without "first 

obtaining" a PTIO. The owner or operator can submit an 

application whenever they would like depending upon their 

schedule for installation/modification (subparagraph (b)). 

Please note, PTIs are not replaced by PTIOs under this 

chapter. PTIs will still be applicable to Title V sources. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (B)(2) 

Comment 25: Unnecessary delay in changing from major to minor source 

status. The PTIO proposal unnecessarily prevents a 

permitting change from "major" to "minor" source status until 

after the expiration of 5-year Title V permits, and unlawfully 

subjects such sources to both PTIO and Title V permit 

obligations. However, once a source is properly permitted 

as a minor source, it by definition has reduced its potential to 

emit and no longer meets the Title V applicability criteria in 

OAC Rule 3745-77-02. Ohio EPA should encourage, not 

discourage, reductions in allowable emissions that are 

inherent in the change from major to minor source status. 

Change from Major to Minor Source Status 

The Commenters believe that Ohio EPA is misinterpreting 

the mutual exclusivity of Title V and non-Title V operating 

permits (see ORC § 3704.036(A)) and the Title V 

applicability criteria, OAC Rule 3745-77-02). Ohio EPA 

maintains that a major source that becomes minor must 

continue to possess and comply with a Title V permit until it 

expires, because the Agency does not have the authority to 

revoke a Title V permit for reasons other than those 

identified in OAC 3745-77-08(D)(1 )(d). First of all, OAC 

3745-77-08(D) deals with reopening for cause and the ability 

to revoke a permit for noncompliance. That is a completely 

separate issue from the one raised by Commenters of a 

source that changes its operations such that its emissions 

drop below major source thresholds. Perhaps the term 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 37 of 72 

"revoke" is confusing the issue and some other term could 

be used to draw a distinction between permits that are 

"revoked" for failure of the permittee to comply with the 

permit requirements and permits that cease to be applicable 

because the permitted facility no longer meets the criteria to 

be subject to Title V. Once a source changes its operations 

such that its emissions are below the major source emission 

thresholds, and it has a minor source operating permit, it 

fails to satisfy the applicability criteria for Title V and, by 

definition, is not subject to Title V. See OAC 3745-77-02(B). 

The fact that a Title V permit had been issued for the source 

when it operated in a different manner and met the definition 

of a "major source" is irrelevant. That source's Title V permit 

should cease to be enforceable upon issuance of a minor 

source operating permit that supersedes it. Ohio EPA has 

no authority to continue to subject a non-major source that 

doesn't meet any of the OAC 3745-77-02(B) criteria to Title 

V. Ohio EPA cannot have sources subject to both Title V 

and PTIO permits, as the PTIO proposal would have 

happen. This is not only unreasonable, it is unlawful. See 

ORC § 3704.036(A), which instructs that "[a] source that 

obtains a Title V permit shall not be required to obtain any 

other operating permit under this chapter and rules adopted 

under it." We urge Ohio EPA to make it as easy as possible 

for sources to reduce their allowable emissions such that 

they are minor rather than major, and to not continue Title V 

operating permit requirements for minor sources that have 

been issued a PTO or PTIO that supersedes a formerly 

required Title V permit. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright 

Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 25: Ohio EPA believe the commenters raising concerns 

associated with the provision in paragraph (B)(2) which 

states: 

(2) The following is applicable to an owner or operator 

who currently holds a Title V permit where a change 

eliminates the applicability of Chapter 3745-77 of the 

Administrative Code but the change does not exempt 

the owner or operator from requirements to obtain a 

PTIO. 

(a) The owner or operator shall submit the 

required application and obtain a PTIO or 

Federally Enforceable PTIO (FEPTIO) from the 

director, as required under this chapter. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 38 of 72 

(b) Final issuance of any permit required under 

paragraph (B)(2)(a) of this rule does not 

release the owner or operator from the 

requirements contained in Chapter 3745-77 of 

the Administrative Code or the owner or 

operator's Title V permit, unless expressly 

identified as such in rule or a federally 

enforceable permit. 

The Commenter asserts that it is unlawful to require the 

holder of a Title V permit to obtain a PTIO, citing to R.C. 

3704.036(A). We do not disagree. The context of proposed 

Rule 3745-31-02(B)(2) is meant to involve those cases in 

were there was a process change that would cause a holder 

of a PTIO to want to submit a PTIO application. Our intent 

was not to require both a PTIO and Title V. We are 

therefore revising paragraph (B)(2)(a) to provide that the 

owner or operator "may" submit a PTIO application, rather 

than "shall" submit such an application. 

The Commenter's overriding point is that issuance of a PTIO 

making a source a non-Title V source makes the Title V 

permit immediately and automatically inapplicable. We 

believe that there will be transition issues between a Title V 

permit and PTIO that prevents the automatic release from all 

Title V permit requirements. For example, if a PTIO is 

issued in the middle of a Title V reporting period the operator 

should still file reports for the time the source was a Title V 

source. The Agency therefore believes that the extent and 

manner of a release from Title V permit requirements should 

be specifically stated either in a rule, a federally enforceable 

permit, or an order of the Director. However, the Ohio EPA 

agrees with the Commenter that the Title V permit should not 

be applicable until it expires at the end of a five-year permit 

term, even if that expiration may be months or years after 

issuance ofthe PTIO making the source a non-title V source. 

In response to the comments, we will be incorporating the 

following change into the rule: 

(2) The following is applicable to an owner or operator 

who currently holds a Title V permit where a change 

eliminates the applicability of Chapter 3745-77 of the 

Administrative Code but the change does not exempt 

the owner or operator from requirements to obtain a 

PTIO. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 39 of 72 

(a) The owner or operator s&allmav submit the 

required application and obtain a PTIO or 

Federally Enforceable PTIO (FEPTIO) from the 

director, as required under this chapter. 

[Comment: An owner or operator with authority 

to operate under a Title V permit which 

subsequently makes a change at the facility 

that eliminates the applicability of Chapter 

3745-77 of the Administrative Code is not 

obligated to obtain a PTIO or FEPTIO if the 

owner or operator elects to continue to be 

permitted under the Title V permit.] 

(b) Final issuance of any permit required under 

paragraph (B)(2)(a) of this rule does not 

release the owner or operator from the 

requirements contained in Chapter 3745-77 of 

the Administrative Code or the owner or 

operator's active Title V permit, unless except 

as expressly identified as such released in rule^ 

bv order of the director, or in a federally 

enforceable permit. 

Ohio is currently drafting proposed amendments of Ohio's 

"Title V" rules in OAC Chapter 3745-77 that will identify how 

the provisions of the Title V permit will be terminated. The 

Agency hopes to have those rules in place within months 

after these PTIO rules are in place. Ohio EPA will also 

actively discuss these issues with USEPA to ensure they 

have no objection. Even prior to amendment of the Ohio 

Title V rules, paragraph (B)(2)(b) would allow the Director to 

issue a rule, directors order or draft a permit condition to 

address the issue. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (C) 

Comment 26: The first sentence in proposed OAC 3745-31-02(C) is 

difficult to understand. It should be reworded as follows: 

"When expressly identified PROVIDED in the terms and 

conditions of a permit-to-install or PTIO, the owner or 

operator of a permanently shutdown AN air contaminant 

source THAT IS PERMANENTLY SHUT DOWN SHALLfRay 

be relieved from eertaiftPROSPECTIVE requirements of the 

permit-to-install or PTIO THAT WOULD OTHERWISE 

APPLY TO SUCH SHUT DOWN SOURCE, without 

obtaining a modification or administrative modification, upon 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 40 of 72 

meeting the requirements SPECIFIED for permanently 

shutdown air contaminant sources contained in the 

standard terms and conditions of the permit." The second 

sentence in proposed OAC 3745-31-02(C) is also difficult to 

understand. It is unclear which terms and conditions the 

word "said" refers to. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright 

Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 26: We will clarify the language consistent with the above 

comments except for retaining the language "may be 

relieved from certain requirements of the permit-to-install or 

PTIO." Ohio EPA will retain the option to review the request 

and permit terms to ensure the request does not conflict with 

requirements that will remain applicable to the source. The 

permittee will always retain the opportunity to comply with all 

conditions of the permit and submit a request for an 

administrative modification to remove the terms and 

conditions for permanently shutdown sources from the 

permit. This provision is intended to provide some flexibility 

for these minor sources. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (D) 

Comment 27: Case-bv-case revocation of rule-based permitting 

exemptions. The PTIO proposal would give the Director 

unprecedented and broad discretion to revoke some 42 

longstanding rule-based permitting exemptions on a caseby-case basis. Such discretion invites excessive uncertainty 

and inconsistency and defeats the purpose of rulemaking 

and the extensive thought and effort that went into the 

exemptions listed in OAC Rules 3745-31-03 and 3745-35-

02(A)(2). 

Case-by-case revocation or rule-based permitting 

exemptions 

Proposed OAC 3745-31-02(D) sets forth the criteria for 

revoking permit exemptions. As Commenters pointed out in 

our previous comments, the proposed rule text is too broad 

and authorizes the Director to revoke exemptions on the 

basis of arbitrary criteria, such as a belief that a source 

"may, in the future, violate applicable law." Moreover, this is 

another example of inappropriate "merging" of text from the 

current PTO rules in a way that causes drastic change in the 

current law. The current OAC Rule 3745-35-05(A) 

authorizes revocation of an exemption from the requirement 

to obtain a PTO for only four narrow categories of sources. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 41 of 72 

The current OAC Rules 3745-31-03 and 3745-35-02(B)(2), 

on the other hand, provide for numerous exemptions - many 

of which are for broad categories of sources - but do not 

provide discretion to revoke those exemptions on a case-bycase basis. By "merging" the old PTO rule from the 1970's 

with the more recent existing PTI and PTO rule-based 

exemptions, Ohio EPA would drastically change the existing 

rules. Such a change would be unreasonable, and would 

diminish the transparency and predictability of regulatory 

requirements. The Commenters question why Ohio EPA is 

inclined to significantly change the scope of the original rule 

text in this instance, when in other areas, where the 

proposed rules could be significantly improved by making 

changes, Ohio EPA has been unwilling to do anything other 

than combine the existing PTI and PTO provisions into one 

new rule. 

Moreover, there is simply no need for the language 

authorizing Ohio EPA to revoke a permit exemption where a 

source "may in the future violate an applicable law." If and 

when a source actually violates an applicable law, the 

Director can deal with it as necessary in accordance with the 

Director's ample enforcement authority and applicable 

procedural safeguards. However, authorizing the Director to 

revoke an exemption today because a source "may," in the 

future, "violate an applicable law" is unreasonably boundless 

and standardless discretion, and is neither necessary nor 

lawful. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 

LLP) 

Case-bv-Case Revocation of Rule-Based Permitting 

Exemptions 

Language in current OAC 3745-35-05(A)(3) giving the 

Director broad discretionary authority to revoke an 

exemption of four source categories from the requirement to 

obtain a PTO has been moved to proposed OAC 3745-31-

02(D). That authority, however, if it remains in the proposed 

rule, now would apply to the much longer list of source 

categories that appears in OAC 3745-31-03(A) that under 

the current rule is exempted from the requirement to obtain a 

PTI. Currently, there is no such revocation authority 

applicable to that list of PTI exemptions. Thus, this is a 

major substantive change that is very disadvantageous to 

those source categories. This proposed authority to revoke 

permit exemptions is unnecessary due the Director's 

authority to enforce substantive emission standards 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 42 of 72 

applicable to such sources, and should be deleted. If it is 

retained, it should be narrowed only to the four categories of 

sources to which it applies under the current Chapter 3745-

35 rules. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 

LLP) 

Response 27: The commenters concerns are raised regarding the following 

provision: 

(D) If, in the director's judgment, based on a review of 

mass emission test data, visible emission readings, 

emission factors, mass balance data, source 

inspection information, or other pertinent information, 

an air contaminant source exempted under rule 3745-

31-03 ofthe Administrative Code, has violated, may 

presently be violating, or may in the future violate 

applicable law, the director shall notify the owner or 

operator of the source in writing that the source is no 

longer exempt pursuant to rule 3745-31-03 of the 

Administrative Code. The owner or operator may 

contest the withdrawal of exemption by filing with the 

hearing clerk, within thirty days of receipt of the 

written notification, a request for adjudication hearing. 

At the close of hearing procedures, the director shall 

restore the exemption if the owner or operator has 

demonstrated that the source has not violated, is not 

presently violating, and will not in the future violate 

applicable law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 

construed as to abrogate the responsibility of the 

source to comply with all other applicable 

requirements or law of other political subdivisions of 

the State of Ohio or with the Clean Air Act. 

This language is verbatim from OAC rule 3745-35-05(A)(3). 

Upon further review of the proposed rule language, it has 

been determined that the paragraph is out of date and all 

requirements contained within the paragraph are duplicated 

and required within new paragraph (E) of this rule (which 

was old paragraph (B) of the existing rule). Therefore, this 

paragraph is being deleted. 

Rule 3745-31-02 (G) 

Comment 28: Proposed OAC 3745-31-02(G) should be deleted. It does 

not add or subtract requirements, it only adds confusion. To 

the extent that issues of fact, interpretation, or applicability 

are properly raised in the permitting process, there should 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 43 of 72 

not be liability for complying with a permit that someone later 

thinks should have been written or interpreted differently 

(after the permit is issued as final). OAC 3745-31-02(G) is 

also inconsistent with the criteria applicable to the Director's 

issuance of a PTI or PTIO under proposed rule OAC 3745-

31-05(A)(4), discussed below. (Robert Brubaker, Porter 

Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 28: The provision the commenter is referring to states: "(G) The 

approval to construct and/or operate under this chapter shall 

not relieve any owner or operator of a stationary source of 

the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of 

this chapter and any other requirements under local, state or 

federal law." This language exists under the current PTI 

(OAC rule 3745-31-10(A)) and PTO (OAC rule 3745-35-

02(G)) rules. We do not believe it conflicts with OAC rule 

3745-31-05(A)(4) which requires an owner or operator to be 

in compliance with applicable requirements and laws at the 

time of permit issuance unless they are subject to a 

compliance plan. We believe the language is appropriate 

and disagree that it adds confusion. It is the obligation of the 

owner or operator to comply with any applicable 

requirements to the source regardless of a permit providing 

for installation/modification. Issuance of a permit to install 

(and operate) a source under the air program does not 

remove the responsibility to comply with requirements 

applicable to the source that may not be identified in the 

specific permit issued. 

Rule 3745-31-03, "Exemptions" 

Rule 3745-31-03(A)(4)(b) 

Comment 29: AEP is requesting the consideration of the OEPA for the 

removal of the word "firefighting" from this paragraph in OAC 

rule 3745-31-03. See Below excerpt from rule: 

3745-31-03 (4) Permit-by-rule exemptions 

(b) Emergency electrical generators, emergency firefighting 

water pumps, or emergency air compressors powered by 

internal combustion engines greater than fifty horsepower 

(37.3 Kilowatts) where each engine operates at any one 

facility for no more than five hundred hours per rolling 

twelve-month period and where such engine burns gasoline, 

natural gas, distillate oil (with less than or equal to 0.5 per 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 44 of 72 

cent by weight sulfur), or liquid petroleum gas and that 

maintains the following records: 

(i) Monthly records that contain the rolling twelvemonth hours of operation; and (ii) Records that show 

the type of fuel used and the sulfur content (in per 

cent by weight) of any distillate oil used. 

The paragraph would then read "...(b) Emergency electrical 

generators, emergency water pumps, or emergency air 

compressors powered by internal combustion engines 

greater than fifty horsepower (37.3 Kilowatts) where each 

engine operates at any one facility for no more than five 

hundred hours per rolling twelve-month period etc." 

Dropping the word "firefighting" from this paragraph will allow 

industry to install diesel powered emergency water pumping 

equipment which is intermittent and infrequently used to 

providing critical cooling or quench water to guarantee the 

safe operation of industrial/utility systems. These 

emergency back up water pumping systems are frequently 

installed and critical to the safe operation of industrial 

equipment, providing emergency cooling water flow or 

supply in time of an emergency upset, and are not routinely 

characterized as "firefighting" pumps. For example, the 

pump may well provide a "deluge" of water to cool an 

industrial process or gas flow, thus preventing damage to 

equipment or preventing a "fire" without actually being 

characterized as a "firefighting" water pump. Dropping the 

term "firefighting" from the exemption language, will provide 

industry additional flexibility to install critical industrial 

process equipment when found necessary to protect 

systems or operations without any detriment to the 

environment or intent to circumvent this rule. This flexibility 

is important to our facility commitment to environmental 

compliance and safe operation. (J.C. Lytle, AEP) 

Response 29: We agree and will remove the reference to "firefighting". 

Rule 3745-31-05, "Criteria for decision bv the Director" 

Rule 3745-31-05(A)(1) and (2) 

Comment 30: In both OAC 3745-31-05(A)(1) and (2), language appears 

stating that the application must demonstrate that the source 

"does not, or shall not" interfere with NAAQS attainment and 

violate applicable requirements. The rule previously used 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 45 of 72 

the phrase "will not". That previous phrase should be 

retained. Applications for both PTI's and PTIO's are both 

forward looking, i.e., they both authorize installation and/or 

operation of the source after issuance of the permit, and 

therefore the future tense "will not" is preferable. Also, "does 

not" is inapplicable to a new source that does not presently 

exist, and "shall not" is more appropriate in language 

mandating refraining from certain conduct, rather than 

referring to an application for a permit. Thus, the new 

language should be deleted in favor of the current, more 

appropriate and familiar phrase "will not". (Robert Brubaker, 

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 30: We will incorporate the commenter's change. 

Rule 3745-31-05(A)(3) 

Comment 31: Changes to OAC 3745-31-05(A)(3) Regarding BAT 

Paragraph OAC 3745-31-05(A)(3) imposes the requirement 

that a source "shall employ BAT". There are three problems 

with this paragraph that should be corrected. First, the 

phrase "shall employ" should be "will employ" for the same 

reasons as noted in our comment on 31-05(A)(1) and (2). 

Second, because PTIO's may be issued to sources installed 

or modified prior to January 1, 1974, which are therefore not 

"new sources" as defined at OAC 3745-31-01 (TTT) 

(relettered to (UUU) in the proposed rule), such sources are 

not subject to the requirement to employ BAT. Thus, in the 

first line of the paragraph, "the air contaminant source" 

should read "a new air contaminant source". 

Third, there should be language reflecting ORC 3704.03(T)'s 

provisions regarding BAT in permits issued after August 3, 

2009. Thus, a new paragraph (3)(c) should be added that 

tracks the statutory language, as follows: 

"With respect to permits-to-install or PTIO's issued on 

or after August 3, 2009, BAT for air contaminant 

sources and air contaminants emitted by those 

sources that are subject to standards adopted under 

section 112, Part C of title I, and Part D of Title I of the 

federal Clean Air Act shall be equivalent to and no 

more stringent than those standards. For an air 

contaminant or precursor of an air contaminant for 

which a national ambient air quality standard has 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 46 of 72 

been adopted under the federal Clean Air Act, BAT 

only shall be required to the extent required by rules 

adopted by the Director for permit to install or PTIO 

applications filed on or after August 3, 2009.". (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 31: We will incorporate the commenter's request with respect to 

use of "will" rather than "shall." With respect to the second 

point, we will be making several changes to this paragraph 

to clearly identify when BAT requirements are applicable and 

allow for changes to BAT to occur outside of a modification 

based on the date of initial installation or modification. This 

will provide clarity when, for example, a permittee wants to 

request a re-evaluation of BAT without a modification 

triggering the evaluation. With respect to the third point, at a 

future date we will make necessary rule language changes 

needed to implement the future changes to the BAT 

requirements. 

Rule 3745-31-05(A)(4) 

Comment 32: Drafting and Permit Shield Issues in OAC 3745-31-05(A)(4) 

Proposed rule OAC 3745-31-05(A)(4) uses the term 

"applicable requirements." We believe the term "applicable 

requirements" may also be used elsewhere in proposed 

changes to Chapter 31, yet it is not one of the 131 terms 

defined in OAC 3745-31-01. "Applicable requirements" is a 

term defined for purposes of the Title V permit program in 

ORC section 3704.036(B)(1) and in OAC 3745-77-01. In the 

Title V context, "applicable requirements" is a legal term of 

art, and is a term of limitation (it limits the scope of federal 

Title V permit provisions to 12 enumerated types of 

standards or other requirements imposed under the Clean 

Air Act). Commenters doubt that Ohio EPA intends to limit 

the proposed provisions of Chapter 31 to "applicable 

requirements" as defined for purposes of the Title V permit 

program. If that is not Ohio EPA's intention, the use in 

Chapter 31 of an identical term defined and used elsewhere 

in OAC 3745 air rules creates confusion and a likelihood of 

misunderstanding. 

Another issue with proposed rule OAC 3745-31-05(A)(4) is 

its incongruity with the unlimited liability for PTI and PTIO 

permit holders, notwithstanding the permitting actions of the 

Director, in proposed rule OAC 3745-31-02(G) ["The 

approval to construct and/or operate under this chapter shall 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 47 of 72 

not relieve any owner or operator of a stationary source of 

the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of 

this chapter and any other requirements under local, state or 

federal law"]. Given that one of the criteria set forth in OAC 

3745-31-05(A)(4) for the Director's issuance of a PTI or 

PTIO is that the permitted source will "be in compliance with 

applicable requirements and laws at the time of permit 

issuance" or in compliance with an "approvable compliance 

plan," there should be a permit shield in effect for the 

requirements and laws within the scope of the Director's 

adherence to OAC 3745-31-05(A)(4). A permit shield is the 

opposite of the provision in proposed rule OAC 3745-31-

02(G) - instead of creating independent liability as if the 

permit did not exist, a permit shield provides that the 

Director's conclusion that the applicant has met the criteria 

of OAC 3745-31-05(A)(4) "shields" the permit holder from 

contrary conclusions or interpretations after the permit is 

issued. Minor sources should certainly have no less of a 

permit shield in PTIO's for "requirements identified and 

addressed in the permit as of the date of permit issuance" 

than Title V sources are given in OAC 3745-77-07(F). 

(Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 32: We will remove the reference to "applicable requirements" 

and refer to "applicable rules and laws". 

With respect to the commenter's request for a permit shield, 

we reiterate our previous response to a request for a permit 

shield under the interested party comment period responsive 

summary. We do not believe it would be appropriate to 

apply a Title V type permit shield to the state only program, 

nor do we anticipate we have the authority under the Ohio 

Revised Code. 

Rule 3745-31-05(B) 

Comment 33: Conditional operating authority for shakedown/debugging of 

new eguipment and processes. The PTIO proposal does not 

adequately accommodate the shakedown or debugging 

needed for newly-permitted equipment and processes. Ohio 

EPA has, by rule, unduly narrowed its statutory authority in 

(B) to take out 6 month period and expiration altogether. 

Added language to require the owner or operator provide 

sufficient information to demonstrate the requirements for 

conditional permits. 

Amended 31-08(C) to provide for "reasonable periods" at 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 48 of 72 

directors discretion. Do not include renewal option b/c it 

could pose problems for sources afforded the application 

shield if director believes renewal of a conditional permit is 

not appropriate. However, did include language to allows us 

to extend the period so long as it doesn't exceed the 

statutory length allowed (10 years).. Instead of a 

"reasonable" time, OAC Rule 3745-35-02(H) limits 

conditional operating authority to not more than six months, 

with no possibility of renewal. The conditional operating 

permit authority should be used to provide adequate time to 

fix any operational and/or design problems with new 

equipment and processes, and to properly match operating 

performance requirements incorporated into operating 

permits with representative real world operating information. 

The need for adequate conditional operating permit authority 

is accentuated by the combination of PTI's and PTO's and 

by federalization of certain terms and conditions that in past 

and current PTO's have never been federally enforceable. 

Conditional Permits to Operate 

Ohio Rev. Code §3704.03(G) provides for the adoption of 

rules for operating permits, which "shall provide for the 

issuance of conditional operating permits for such 

reasonable periods as the director may determine to allow 

the holder of an installation permit, who has constructed, 

installed, located, or modified a new air contaminant source 

in accordance with the provisions of an installation permit, to 

make adjustments or modifications necessary to enable the 

new air contaminant source to comply with applicable 

emission standards and other rules." The statute does not 

impose restrictions on the duration of a conditional operating 

permit, but rather authorizes such permits for whatever 

period is "reasonable" as determined by the Director. 

Despite this, Ohio EPA's proposed PTIO rules will restrict 

the duration of a Conditional PTIO to only 6 months, without 

possibility of renewal. Ohio EPA does so because it has, 

again, chosen to "remain consistent" with the current 

requirements in OAC Chapter 3745-35 rather than 

evaluating what makes the most sense and best serves the 

intent of the statute. We encourage Ohio EPA to not just 

borrow language from the old PTO rules to create the PTIO 

program, but rather to adopt a rule consistent with the 

statutory language in ORC §3704.03(G), which would allow 

the Director to issue Conditional PTIOs of whatever duration 

is deemed "reasonable" for a given situation. The 

conditional operating permit authority takes on much greater 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 49 of 72 

practical importance in a combined PTIO program, which 

would eliminate the one year of operating authority is 

provided under the PTI before a PTO is issued. Also, the 

greater likelihood of federalizing terms in PTIO permits that 

would not have been federalized in a separate PTO as that 

program has been implemented over the past 35 years 

makes the conditional operating permit authority all the more 

important. Owners and operators of new or modified units 

have a paramount and legitimate need to be able to 

shakedown, debug, and test the units in actual 

representative operation. In the period after initial startup, 

owners and operators need a reasonable time to rectify 

problems with equipment or processes that do not operate 

as designed and intended, without violating permit terms. In 

some cases, terms are prematurely written in permits based 

on estimates of future performance characteristics, in the 

absence of real world data. It is in Ohio EPA's interest to 

avoid guessing at performance characteristics and 

parameters such that permits need to be revised soon after 

they are issued, often more than once. These problems can 

easily be solved with reasonable conditional operating 

authority for reasonable periods of time, consistent with 

statutory law and common sense. (Robert Brubaker, Porter 

Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Because ORC 3704.03(G) allows a conditional operating 

permit to be issued to a new source for a "reasonable" 

period to allow for debugging the source, OAC 3745-31-

05(B) should be changed. The phrase "for a period not to 

exceed six months" in the sixth line should be changed to 

"for a period of six months, or such longer period as the 

applicant requests and the director determines to be 

reasonable under the circumstances." (Robert Brubaker, 

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Regarding conditional permits to operate, Ohio EPA is 

proposing that for minor sources these permits are limited to 

six months without the possibility of a renewal. We do not 

understand the reasoning for these changes. The statute 

provides for a reasonable time to operate and debug new 

equipment to fine-tune operation and assure compliance 

with an operating permit. Although a six-month permit may 

be adequate for some types of operational or equipment 

changes, for others it may not be. Why create this restriction 

when the statutory language does not require it? 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 50 of 72 

This proposed rule could have a much greater impact upon 

small company operations than anticipated. These 

companies often rely upon their vendors to help them debug 

operations. As small operations, it may be very difficult to 

schedule timely vendor visits to work through any 

operational difficulties. Additionally, the proposed rule does 

not take into consideration the fact that in manufacturing, 

business conditions can change quickly and newly 

purchased equipment may have to sit idle until business 

conditions improve. The ability to renew a conditional permit 

would allow the company to debug the equipment when 

business conditions permit. 

Finally, under the previous PTI and PTO process the 

company generally had one year of operation under the PTI 

before a PTO was issued. Under the PTIO proposal this 

operating period is limited to six months without renewal. 

We do not understand the reasoning behind this proposal 

and urge the Ohio EPA to revisit this issue. (Russ Murray, 

Executive Director, Ohio Cast Metal Association) 

Response 33: The language regarding a 6-month period for conditional 

PTOs existed under the current PTO rules since February 

15, 1972 while the language regarding no renewal 

opportunity has existed since July 5, 1973. Both were 

transferred into the new PTIO rules without any changes 

being made. Ohio EPA was not attempting to impose any 

requirements that did not already exist. A conditional 

operating permit, whether a PTO or PTIO, is issued for a 

short period of time to allow the holder of an installation 

permit, who has constructed, installed, located, or modified a 

new air contaminant source in accordance with the 

provisions of an installation permit, to make adjustments or 

modifications necessary to enable the new air contaminant 

source to comply with applicable emission standards and 

other rules. The one-year operational period afforded under 

PTIs is not considered a conditional operating permit under 

the law. The one-year operational period included in PTIs is 

a requirement under the ORC to allow operation of the 

source, in accordance with the operational requirements 

under the PTI, for a period of time until the PTO is issued to 

the facility. Conditional operating permits are intended to be 

issued to a source which cannot comply with the 

requirements of the terms of their installation permit for a 

period of time to allow them to come into compliance. We 

realize "shakedown" is a difficulty with the current system 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 51 of 72 

and the future system. Under current day PTIs, operational 

terms are incorporated as required by ORC 3704.03(F)(2): 

"Installation permits shall include the authorization to 

operate sources installed and operated in accordance 

with terms and conditions of the installation permits 

for a period not to exceed one year from 

commencement of operation, which authorization 

shall constitute an operating permit under division (G) 

of this section and rules adopted under it". 

The same concern that commenters have expressed 

regarding the ability to make necessary changes during the 

"shakedown" period is applicable today and it will be under 

PTIO. 

The current method of writing permits does not normally 

require that the terms be modified from the original PTI after 

the "shakedown" period. In fact, the current PTIs often 

function as the first PTO for the initial operating period. If 

changes are necessary after the "shakedown" period, then in 

many cases an administrative modification of the permit 

would be processed. For instance, sometimes stack testing 

shows that an allowable emission limitation in the permit 

should be changed. Under the existing system, Ohio EPA 

would process an administrative modification to correct the 

limitation. In the future, Ohio EPA would process an 

administrative modification of the PTIO to change the 

limitation. The current modification procedures used to 

address "shakedown" after a PTI is issued would also be 

used under the PTIO program. If a conditional PTIO is 

issued, just as a conditional PTO would be under today's 

system, it would expire after the shakedown period is 

complete. Ohio EPA is then required to issue a new PTIO (or 

PTO under the current system) to allow continued operation. 

Under either scenario, a permitting action is necessary 

although Ohio EPA has found the administrative modification 

process for correcting terms resulting from "shakedown" 

periods is less burdensome to both the permittee and Ohio 

EPA compared to expiration of a conditional permit and 

issuance of a new permit. In most cases, Ohio EPA believes 

the conditional operating permit is not necessary. However, 

to address the commenters concern, Ohio EPA will be 

amending the rule language to allow the full flexibility 

afforded under ORC 3704.03(G) which provides that the 

director can develop rules which identify conditional 

operating permits can be issued "for such reasonable 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 52 of 72 

periods as the director may determine." As to the question 

of renewal, we still do not believe renewal is appropriate for 

conditional PTIOs. We will incorporate rule language (see 

new OAC rule 3745-31-05(C)(1)(a)) that allows the director 

the ability to extend the expiration date so long as the entire 

effective period is within the effective period allowed under 

the ORC (i.e., 10 years). 

Rule 3745-31-05(0 

Comment 34: Also, several drafting problems appear in OAC 3745-31-

05(C)(1). An error appears in the third line. "There under" 

should be "thereunder." Also, inappropriate language 

appears in the following passage, "below major size cutoffs, 

below cutoffs for other Clean Air Act requirements, or place 

other restrictions on an air contaminant source or stationary 

source in order to avoid a Clean Air Act requirement(s)." 

The term "cutoffs" is colloquial and inappropriate for formal 

rules. "Thresholds" is a better term. "Major size" should be 

"major source." Lastly, the phrase "to avoid Clean Air Act 

requirement(s)" is inappropriately pejorative. A better phrase 

would be "in order to make alternative Clean Air Act 

requirements applicable to the source". (Robert Brubaker, 

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 34: We will incorporate the above requested changes except the 

request to remove the language "to avoid Clean Air Act 

requirement(s)." This terminology is widely used and easily 

understood by the regulated community. 

Comment 35: Over-federalization of minor source permit terms. The PTIO 

proposal will result in all or virtually all minor source permit 

terms being federally enforceable, creating unnecessary 

confusion and second-guessing, and diminishing Ohio EPA's 

autonomy over minor source permitting. First, the PTIO 

proposal will as a practical matter over-federalize permit 

terms that restrict the "potential to emit" of a source. A PTIO 

can do everything a FEPTIO is expected to do with respect 

to limiting "potential to emit." Even if the permit applicant 

and Ohio EPA determine that it is appropriate and desirable 

to use federally-enforceable terms to limit "potential to emit," 

it is not necessary for the permit itself to be labeled 

"federally-enforceable." More importantly, the repeated 

references to FEPTIO's give the impression that "federallyenforceable" permits are the exclusive or expected way to 

restrict "potential to emit." We also object to carrying over 

into Chapter 31 the extraneous text from the Chapter 35 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

JulyS, 2007 Page 53 of 72 

definition of "potential to emit." Federal case law, U.S. EPA 

guidance, and Ohio's approved PTI rules do not require 

FESOPs or FEPTIOs to reduce the potential to emit if 

practically enforceable state limits apply to the source. 

Second, PTO terms generally have not been considered 

federally enforceable whereas PTI terms have recently been 

presumed to be federally enforceable. Minor source 

operation-related terms that historically originated in PTO's 

and that are not considered federally-enforceable are likely 

to be deemed federally-enforceable when they arguably 

originate in a PTI (or the PTI part of a PTIO). Federalization 

of minor source permit terms to an extent similar to Title V 

permit terms and the terms in the recent General Permits, 

Permits-by-Rule, and PTI's would be a drastic and 

inappropriate change in minor source permitting. To the 

extent that Ohio EPA concludes that certain or all minor 

source permit terms must be federally enforceable, that is all 

the more reason to streamline and minimize the terms and 

conditions in minor source permits. 

Potential to Emit and FEPTIOs 

In our comments on the Interested Party proposal, we 

indicated that there was no need for a "federally enforceable" 

PTIO, as proposed in OAC 3745-31-05(C), because state 

and practically enforceable terms suffice to limit potential to 

emit. Ohio EPA responds that it "intends to transfer that 

same program into the PTIO program as an FEPTIO ... and 

resubmit[ ] for SIP approval. In the future, if USEPA 

undertakes rulemaking to clarify federal vs. state and 

practical enforceability, Ohio EPA will amend their rules as 

appropriate." See Response to Comments, page 38 

(emphasis added). This response ignores the fact that the 

law today on potential to emit is that federal enforceability is 

not a requirement to create a synthetic minor. See National 

Mining Association v. EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995); 

Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, No. 89-1514 (D.C. 

Cir. Sept. 150 1995); and Clean Air Implementation Project 

v. EPA, No. 96-1224 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 1996)). It also 

ignores the fact that Ohio EPA has recognized that state and 

practically enforceable limits suffice in its current SIP 

approved definitions of potential to emit in both Chapters 

3745-31 and 3745-77. Ohio EPA claims that "[t]he purpose 

of this rulemaking is to combine our permitting processes but 

not to re-evaluate and/or re-negotiate the procedures for 

issuing federally enforceable state permits with US EPA." 

See Response to Comments at page 38. However, there is 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 54 of 72 

no need for Ohio EPA to "re-evaluate" or "re-negotiate" 

anything with U.S. EPA in connection with the definition of 

"potential to emit" or the need for a "federally enforceable" 

restrictions. Ohio has a SIP approved mechanism to limit 

"potential to emit" without "federally enforceable" restrictions, 

in OAC Rule 3745-31-02(A)(2), and a SIP-approved 

definition of "potential to emit" that does not require federal 

enforceability, in OAC Rule 3745-31-01 (UUUU). That 

mechanism is available to the "owner or operator of any air 

contaminant source," is fully approved now by U.S. EPA, 

and can be used in any PTIO to properly reduce allowable 

and potential to emit. 

Between 1995 and 1996, three separate federal court 

decisions each held that U.S. EPA had not adequately 

explained why only federally enforceable measures should 

be considered as limits on a source's potential to emit. The 

decisions vacated or remanded the definition of potential to 

emit under Section 112 (See National Mining Association v. 

EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995), PSD and nonattainment 

NSR (See Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, No. 89-

1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 150 1995), and Title V (See Clean Air 

Implementation Project v. EPA, No. 96-1224 (D.C. Cir. June 

28, 1996)). As a result of these decisions, EPA announced, 

through guidance, that the term "federally enforceable" 

should be read to mean "federally enforceable or legally and 

practicably enforceable bv a State or local air pollution 

control agency" pending any additional rulemaking by US 

EPA. See, e.g., Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability of 

Limitations on Potential to Emit (January 1996) (emphasis 

added); see also, Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to 

Emit Transition Policy (August 27, 1996); Second Extension 

of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit Transition Policy and 

Clarification of Interim Policy (July 10, 1998); and Third 

Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit Transition 

Policy, (December 20, 1999). 

The third and final extension of the Transition Policy explains 

that "[t]he PTE transition policy is currently set to expire on 

December 31, 1999. The state-enforceable provision of the 

transition policy, which allows a source to rely on a 

practically enforceable, state-enforceable limit to restrict its 

PTE, will remain in effect until EPA has completed its 

rulemaking on the term 'potential to emit.'" (emphasis 

added). To date, US EPA still has not proposed, let alone 

finalized, any such rulemaking. Thus, the ability under U.S. 

EPA's Transition Policy to rely on state-enforceable limits to 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 55 of 72 

restrict potential to emit remains in effect today. Accordingly, 

practically enforceable state limits are a legally permissible 

and appropriate mechanism for limiting potential to emit. 

Apart from the federal case law and EPA transition policy 

requiring recognition of state enforceable restrictions in 

determining "potential to emit," U.S. EPA has approved the 

definition of "potential to emit" in OAC Rule 3745-31-

01(UUUU) under which restrictions that are "legally and 

practically enforceable by the state" are taken into account. 

We urge Ohio EPA to delete all references to FEPTIOs from 

the PTIO proposal, and to rely upon the federally approved 

provisions in OAC Rules 3745-31-01 (UUUU) and 3745-31-

02(A)(2) for synthetic minor permits that limit a source's 

potential to emit. 

In addition, we urge Ohio EPA not to amend the definition of 

"potential to emit" in OAC 3745-31-01. Ohio EPA claims that 

it is amending the definition in Chapter 3745-31 to 

incorporate language that was found in the Chapter 3745-35 

definition of "potential to emit." The Commenters submit that 

such revisions are unlawful, unreasonable, and 

unnecessary. There is no reason for Ohio EPA to have 

varying definitions of the same term in different chapters of 

the air program rules. The current, SIP approved definition 

of "potential to emit" in OAC 3745- 31-01 (UUUU) is identical 

to that in OAC 3745-77-01 (BB). Ohio EPA should not 

amend the definition in OAC Chapter 3745-31 to add 

extraneous language that will make the definitions different, 

just because that language existed in the old OAC Chapter 

3745-35 definition. 

Lastly, OAC 3745-31-05(C)(5) requires the regional 

administrator to approve "this rule" before permit terms may 

be federally enforceable. This provision should be deleted, 

since, as noted above, federal enforceability is unnecessary 

to create a synthetic minor. Also, if federal enforceability is 

required or desirable, why condition it on approval ofthe rule 

by the regional administrator? If, as the agency contends, 

PTI terms are currently federally enforceable, there is no 

need for this overlay of regional approval in order to 

accomplish that. Moreover, delay and confusion will result if 

regional approval is denied, delayed, or conditional. This 

provision is undesirable and unnecessary. If the PTIO rules 

cannot be relied upon until they are approved by U.S. EPA, 

they should not take effect unless and until the effective date 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 56 of 72 

of such final approval.(Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright 

Morris & Arthur LLP) 

The current definition of "potential to emit" in OAC 3745-31-

01 (UUUU) is the same as in OAC 3745-77-01 (BB). Both 

have been approved by USEPA, and the proposed change 

is not needed. Also, because limitations on potential to emit 

need not be federally-enforceable to be effective in creating 

synthetic minors, all references to FEPTIO's should be 

deleted. See, for example, OAC 3745-31-05(C)(1) and (D). 

Further, there is no need to submit PTIO conditions to 

USEPA for approval, as provided by OAC 3745-31-

05(C)(2)(e). Also, the rule itself need not be approved by 

USEPA, as provided by OAC 3745-31-05(C)(5). Those 

provisions should be deleted. (Robert Brubaker, Porter 

Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 35: An FEPTIO is a form of a PTIO where certain terms and 

conditions are federally enforceable through issuance of the 

permit in draft and final forms. This is consistent with how 

FESOPs are issued under the current program for the same 

types of terms and conditions. 

USEPA approved our program for federally enforceable 

state operating permits in 59 FR 53586, October 25, 1994, 

(as revised in 60 FR 55200, October 30, 1995). Therefore, 

Ohio EPA currently has a federally approved program for 

federally enforceable operating permits, whether in a FESOP 

or FEPTIO. As stated in the federal register notice: 

"The operating permit provisions in title V of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 have created interest in 

mechanisms for limiting sources 1 potential to emit, 

thereby allowing the sources to avoid being defined as 

"major" with respect to title V operating permit 

programs. A key mechanism for such limitations is the 

use of federally enforceable State operating permits 

(FESOPs). USEPA issued guidance on FESOPs in the 

Federal Register of June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27274). On 

April 20, 1994, Ohio submitted its newly adopted Rule 

3745-35-07 to provide for FESOPs in Ohio. This rule 

would supplement the pre-existing mechanisms for 

establishing federally enforceable limitations on 

potential to emit (i.e., State rules, administrative orders, 

and in some cases new source permits)." 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 57 of 72 

Ohio EPA is implementing a mechanism whereby all terms 

and conditions that are federally enforceable and those that 

are state-only enforceable are expressly designated us such 

in the PTIO document (or FEPTIO document). Any source 

that requires a limit on PTE to avoid federal requirements will 

be designated as such in an FEPTIO, as they are currently 

required under a FESOP, and issued as a draft and final 

action. This is consistent with Ohio EPA's current SIP 

approved program that provides us with the authority to 

issue federally enforceable state operating permits in lieu of 

Title V permits for sources which opt-out of Title V permitting 

via federally enforceable limitations. This does not preclude 

Ohio EPA from specifically designating any appropriate 

terms of an FEPTIO as state-only enforceable. We do not 

believe labeling the permit as "federally enforceable" has any 

legal implication when the permit clearly identifies the 

federally enforceable provisions and the state-only 

enforceable provisions. 

We believe, at this time, the only mechanism for limiting PTE 

to avoid federal requirements is through federally 

enforceable terms. This is consistent with the current 

requirements in both the PTI rules (OAC Chapter 3745-31) 

and the PTO rules (OAC Chapter 3745-35), both of which 

are approved in Ohio's SIP. While the commenter has cited 

several court cases and federal guidance regarding federal 

enforceability of PTE and USEPA's current position, USEPA 

has also been clear in stating that the court decisions only 

"vacated the requirements in the nationwide rules" and "the 

decision, however, did not address the term federally 

enforceable as used in SIPs, because that issue was not 

before the court." [67 FR 251, page 80191] USEPA is clear 

in their January 22, 1996 memo (referenced by commenter) 

that "EPA interprets the order vacating certain provisions of 

EPA regulations as not affecting the provisions of any 

current SIP, or of any permit issued under any current SIP. 

Thus, previously issued federally enforceable permits, such 

as ..."FESOPS" remain in effect. Likewise....PSD and NSR 

SIP approved rules requiring ....restrictions limiting PTE to 

be federally enforceable remain in place..." They also state 

"second, a new or modified sources....limiting its PTE to 

achieve synthetic minor status must still obtain ...a "minor" 

NSR...permit. Every SIP contains a minor NSR program 

....permits under such program are, like all other SIP 

measures, federally enforceable." Therefore, it is USEPA's 

position that state rules approved as part of the SIP that 

require federal enforceability are still applicable. In the same 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 58 of 72 

document, USEPA states "states conceivably might now 

seek to reduce the scope of SIP-approved minor NSR 

programs where they are presently broader than minimum 

federal requirements, and to substitute state-enforceable 

mechanisms...EPA does not expect states to seek such 

changes pending the outcome of EPA rulemaking....it is 

unlikely that states would have the legal ability to exclude 

such programs transactions that are intrinsic to the 

avoidance of major NSR permitting requirements." At this 

time, Ohio EPA does not wish to jeopardize implementation 

of the PTIO program in order to negotiate alternative PTE 

definitions from those that exist in our current SIP. But as 

stated previously, if USEPA undertakes rulemaking 

applicable to the definition of PTE, Ohio EPA will amend 

their rules and our SIP as appropriate. 

The commenters also objects to Ohio EPA carrying over 

extraneous text from OAC Chapter 3745-35 (current FESOP 

rules and definition for PTE) into the PTI rules of OAC 

Chapter 3745-31. The commenter states the approved PTI 

rules do not require federally enforceable permits to reduce 

the PTE if practically enforceable state limits apply to the 

source. The current SIP approved definition for PTE in OAC 

rule 3745-31-01 (UUUU) requires the limitation be "federally 

enforceable or legally and practicably enforceable by the 

state." This language is unchanged in the draft language 

necessary to implement PTIO; therefore no extraneous text 

applicable to enforceability was incorporated into the rule 

language. The currently approved SIP language regarding 

synthetic minor limits necessary to limit PTE in PTIs is 

contained in OAC rule 3745-31-05(C). It states that such 

conditions shall be "federally enforceable and designated as 

such in the PTI." Under the current program these PTIs are 

always issued as draft and final actions. The current 

requirements for limiting PTE to avoid federal requirements 

through a FESOP contained in OAC rule 3745-35-05(B) 

requires such limits be designated in either a PTI or "a final 

permit to operate... provided that only those terms and 

conditions necessary to limit the PTE of the source and 

expressly designated as federally enforceable shall be 

federally enforceable, and provided further that the permit 

was first issued as a draft or proposed action." Under the 

current system, any conditions necessary to limit the PTE to 

avoid federal requirements are federally enforceable through 

a federally enforceable PTO (FESOP) contrary to the 

commenters statement that PTO terms generally have not 

been considered federally enforceable. These 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 59 of 72 

procedures/requirements remain unchanged under the PTIO 

program. 

We have never asserted that all permit terms must be 

federally enforceable. As described above, Ohio EPA is 

implementing a mechanism whereby all terms and 

conditions that are federally enforceable and those that are 

state-only enforceable are expressly designated us such in 

the PTIO document (or FEPTIO document). Under the 

current program, every source required to be issued a PTI 

would subsequently be required to obtain a PTO. The 

commenter argues that PTO terms generally have not been 

considered federally enforceable whereas PTI terms have 

recently been presumed to be federally enforceable and is 

concerned that operational terms originated from PTOs that 

will now be incorporated into PTIOs will now be subject to 

federal enforceability. USEPA has historically declared that 

all PTIs issued by Ohio EPA are federally enforceable due to 

the rules requiring PTIs being incorporated into the state 

SIP. In a February 3, 1997 memo from USEPA to Bob 

Hodanbosi, USEPA stated "unless construction permits 

clarify which of their conditions are not federally enforceable, 

all of the conditions will be considered to be federally 

enforceable." Also important to consider is that any rule that 

regulates emissions and is contained in the SIP is 

considered federally enforceable. This includes the vast 

majority of Ohio EPA's rules governing air emissions, not 

just the rules requiring a PTI. Therefore, many of the terms 

and conditions originating from Ohio EPA rule based 

requirements, for example limitations on VOC emissions 

from coating operations contained in OAC Chapter 3745-21, 

are federally enforceable whether issued in a PTI or PTO. It 

is also important to consider how the current system 

functions. A source is issued a PTI for new or modified 

operations. This PTI contains operating terms and 

conditions necessary to implement the requirements of ORC 

3704.03(F) which states installation permits shall "include 

the authorization to operate sources installed and operated 

in accordance with terms and conditions of the installation 

permits for a period not to exceed one year from 

commencement of operation, which authorization shall 

constitute an operating permit under division (G)." After this 

year's period, Ohio EPA is obligated to issue a PTO to the 

source to afford operation beyond this one year period. 

Therefore, as the commenter points out, all installation and 

operating terms incorporated into a PTI are federally 

enforceable (due to the SIP approval of the PTI rules), 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 60 of 72 

unless expressly designated otherwise. It becomes 

irrelevant as to whether there is an argument as to the 

federal enforceability of the same terms when they are 

transferred into the PTO document because they remain 

federally enforceable under the PTI. Again, recall, federal 

enforceability of specific requirements is also dictated by the 

specific limitations required in a permit via the SIP approved 

rules. Ohio EPA, as noted above, will be explicitly identifying 

federally and state-only enforceable terms in PTIOs which is 

a new feature of the PTIO program that we believe will 

provide for additional clarity by all stakeholders. We do not 

believe implementation of the PTIO program has a direct 

affect on the issues raised by the commenter. We are 

continuing to work on federal enforceability issues raised by 

commenters regarding terms and conditions contained in 

permits, whether those permits are PTIs, PTOs, FESOPs, 

PTIOs or FEPTIOs. 

With respect to the final comment regarding paragraph 

(C)(5), this provision originates from the original agreed 

upon, and SIP approved, language contained in OAC 

Chapter 3745-35. USEPA required Ohio EPA to incorporate 

a provision that required approval of our federally 

enforceable state operating permit rules as part of the SIP 

prior to federal enforceability of these types of permits. 

USEPA approved this program in 59 FR 53586, October 25, 

1994, (as revised in 60 FR 55200, October 30, 1995). 

Therefore, Ohio EPA currently has a federally approved 

program for federally enforceable operating permits, whether 

in a FESOP or FEPTIO. USEPA will still require these 

provisions, now under the "FEPTIO" program, be 

incorporated into the SIP as a replacement. We do not 

believe USEPA will argue that FEPTIOs cannot be federally 

enforceable until the replacement rules are SIP approved 

considering this was a program approval and the rules 

implementing the program were transferred into this rule 

verbatim. The OAC Chapter 3745-35 federally enforceable 

state operating permits provisions will remain in effect as 

part of the SIP until the new rule location is approved in their 

place. We will be adding clarifying language in place of the 

paragraph (C)(5) as such: 

[Comment: In 59 FR 53586, October 25, 1994, (as 

revised in 60 FR 55200, October 30, 1995), the 

United states environmental protection agency 

approved rule language providing for the creation of a 

program for issuing federally enforceable state 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 61 of 72 

operating permits. See former rule 3745-35-07 of the 

Administrative Code. That approved rule language 

has been incorporated in paragraphs (C)(1) to (C)(4) 

of this rule. Consequently, such designated terms 

and conditions imposed in an FEPTIO under the 

approved program elements contained in the 

language of paragraphs (C)(1) to (C)(4) of this rule 

will be considered federally enforceable as of the 

effective date of this rule, unless and until the United 

States environmental protection agency later 

disapproves the language.] 

Comment 36: Changes to OAC 3745-31-05(D) to Conform to ORC 

3704.03(G) 

OAC 3745-31-05(D), as proposed, does not conform to ORC 

3704.03(G), which provides that, in permits to operate, only 

conditions designed to limit potential to emit may be federally 

enforceable, and further provides, "In other respects, 

operating permits issued pursuant to this division are 

enforceable as state law only." Thus, only limitations on 

PTE may be federally enforceable in PTIO's. Thus, 31-

05(D) should read in its entirety: 

"The Director may impose terms and conditions 

necessary to ensure compliance with applicable 

requirements of the federal Clean Air Act, Chapter 

3704 of the Revised Code, and rules adopted 

thereunder by the Administrator and the Director. 

Except for terms and conditions imposed under 

paragraph (C) of this rule, terms and conditions 

appearing in PTIO's are enforceable as state law 

only." (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & 

Arthur LLP) 

Response 36: OAC rule 3745-31-05(D), as written does conform to the 

requirements of ORC 3704.03(G). As proposed, it states: 

(D) State-only enforceable limitations 

The director may impose terms and conditions 

necessary to ensure compliance with any provisions 

of the statutes or regulations of the state of Ohio that 

are not mandated by the Clean Air Act or regulations 

adopted by the administrator thereunder, but such 

terms and conditions shall be enforceable as state 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 62 of 72 

law only, and shall be designated as such in the 

permit-to-install, PTIO or FEPTIO. 

Paragraph (D) thus identifies terms and conditions imposed 

solely to enforce state law as state-only enforceable 

limitations. It does not state that these are the only type of 

terms and conditions that may be state only enforceable. 

Rule 3745-31-05(F) 

Comment 37: Restoration of Language in OAC 3745-31-05(F) Allowing 

Installation and Operation of a Source Eligible for an 

Express Permit to Install or PTIO Sixty Days after 

Submission of a Reguest for an Express PTI or PTIO 

OAC 3745-31-05(F), as proposed, deletes existing language 

allowing an owner or operator to install and operate a source 

sixty days after submission of a request for an express PTI 

or PTIO for the source, if by that date the owner or operator 

has not been notified by the Director of the source's eligibility 

for such a permit. This language should be retained as 

facilitating timely installation of very small sources that will 

have negligible impact, if any, on ambient air quality. 

(Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 37: Ohio EPA did not remove this language. As indicated in the 

synopsis of changes, the language was relocated to new 

OAC 3745-31-06, Completeness determinations, processing 

requirements, public participation, public notice, and 

issuance, under paragraph (E)(4)(a). 

Rule 3745-31-05(H) 

Comment 38: "Consideration" of social, economic, or other factors in 

acting on permit applications 

OAC 3745-31-05(H) provides that the Director "may take into 

consideration the social and economic impact of the air 

contaminants, water pollutants, or other adverse 

environmental impact" when "deciding .. . to grant or deny" a 

PTI or PTIO. This provision should be deleted for several 

reasons. First, there is no statutory authority to grant or 

deny air permits for reasons outside the ambit of air pollution 

regulatory requirements. Second, the factors to be 

considered are broad and vague, giving the Director 

unbounded discretion to deny applications for virtually any 

reason he or she wishes, which makes the air permitting 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 63 of 72 

program unpredictable and opaque. Third, the Director 

cannot lawfully use these factors to "grant" an application 

that does not demonstrate compliance with applicable air 

pollution regulatory requirements. Thus, the factors can only 

be used to deny an application. In all, this provision is 

unlawful and very undesirable. For the air program to be 

efficiently administered, predictable, and transparent, 

applications should be granted or denied based solely upon 

whether the application demonstrates compliance with clear, 

objective air regulatory requirements. (Robert Brubaker, 

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 38: This language originally existed in paragraph (B) of this rule 

and is not an amendment made by Ohio EPA during this 

rulemaking. This language has been original to the rule 

since inception of Ohio EPA (EP-30-05, effective January 1, 

1974). It also existed in the former regulations adopted July 

24, 1972 (AP-9-01 through AP-9-02) under the Ohio 

Department of Health. Since that time there has never been 

an amendment to the language identifying the director "may" 

take into consideration "the social and economic impact" of a 

granting or denying a PTI. 

We disagree that there is no authority to grant or deny air 

permits for reasons outside the ambit of air pollution 

regulatory requirements. ORC 3704.02(A) states one of the 

purposes of the chapter [air pollution control] is to "protect 

and enhance the quality of the state's air resources so as to 

promote the public health, welfare, economic vitality, and 

productive capacity of the people of the state" and "all rules 

adopted ... and all permits... issued under it shall ... 

promote the purposes of this chapter." The ORC recognizes 

consideration to health, welfare, economics and the 

productive capacity of the people should be considered 

along with air pollution requirements. 

Rule 3745-31-05(1) 

Comment 39: "Coordination" with Other Ohio EPA Divisions 

OAC 3745-31-05(1) retains language previously appearing in 

31-05(H), providing that the Director "shall coordinate" 

review and issuance of PTI's with other programs 

administered by Ohio EPA. "Coordination" is not defined, 

but appears to contemplate delaying action on air PTI's until 

all programs that must issue a PTI for a new or expanded 

facility are prepared to act on applications filed with those 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 64 of 72 

programs. Insofar as this paragraph authorizes the Director 

to employ criteria applicable to non-air PTI's in the denial of 

an air PTI, it is unlawful. It is also unlawful and 

unreasonable insofar as it purports to authorize the Director 

to delay an air PTI beyond the 180 day review period 

prescribed by rule. In addition, Commenters see no value to 

delaying action on an air PTI in order to take action on 

several PTI's simultaneously. An applicant that has applied 

for several PTI's recognizes the need to obtain all required 

PTI's, and thus simultaneous issuance serves no purpose. 

Lastly, it is inappropriate to list other divisions of the agency 

in a rule, thereby codifying the current division names and 

table of organization into law. If it is lawful and desirable to 

refer to other programs, that should be done by reference to 

the applicable statutes and rules. For these reasons, this 

paragraph should be deleted. (Robert Brubaker, Porter 

Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 39: OAC rule 3745-31-05(1) was amended October 17, 2003, 

along with the entire OAC Chapter 3745-31 to allow the 

chapter to be separated into three distinct chapters 

corresponding to three Ohio EPA program areas (surface 

water, solid waste and air). At this time, each of the new 

chapters incorporated the contents of paragraph (I) to 

specifically enumerate which permit applications need multimedia reviews. It is the intent of these changes to foster 

better internal coordination which will result in more efficient 

permit processing. This revision will also eliminated 

unnecessary reviews of permit applications that don't 

necessitate coordination that was inferred by the court for all 

permits. The Agency does not intent this language to be a 

basis for exceeding statutory deadlines on permit review. 

Rule 3745-31-06, "Completeness determinations, processing requirements, 

public participation, public notice, and issuance" 

Comment 40: PTIO Permit Processing Times 

OAC 3745-31-06. The Agency has proposed a 60-day time 

period for determining whether a PTI or PTIO application is 

"substantially complete or materially deficient." Sixty days is 

too much time for a PTI or minor source permit application 

completeness review. Currently, Ohio EPA makes PTI 

application completeness reviews within 14 days. Ohio EPA 

should not be lengthening the time for application 

completeness reviews. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 65 of 72 

Other proposed time limits for processing PTI and PTIO 

applications are also too lengthy. Ohio EPA proposes in 

OAC 3745-31-06(E)(2)(a) to keep the current 180 day period 

for processing applications for PTI's and initial construction 

PTIO's. However, when added to the 60 day application 

completeness review period, the 180 day permit processing 

time effectively becomes 240 days. Given the substantial 

decrease in the number of PTI applications Ohio EPA has 

been receiving annually (down from approximately 1,800-

2,000 per year in the 1980's, to 1,669 in 1997, to 1,040 in 

2002, and to 813 in 2006), and the workload reductions and 

efficiencies afforded by General Permits, Permits-by-Rule, 

and the upcoming STARS2 permit processing software, 

Ohio EPA should be shortening, not lengthening, the 180 

day permit processing time limit originally established in the 

early 1970's. In today's competitive economy, 180 days is 

too long to wait for a PTI or initial construction PTIO for 

many time-urgent business opportunities. (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Speed to market is essential to business competitiveness in 

the 21s t Century. If business planners and investors can not 

have strong assurances that a permit necessary to start 

construction on new or expanded production capacity can be 

obtained faster than 180 days, and much faster than 300 

days, Ohio will miss out on countless opportunities for 

economic modernization and growth. 

PTI's and PTIO's for new minor sources (including synthetic 

minor sources) should not take more than 90 days to 

process. The combination of advanced computer 

technology, 35 years of permitting experience, the upcoming 

STARS2 software, Permits-by-Rule, General Permits, permit 

exemptions, SB 265 reforms (including the 10 tons per year 

BAT exemption and the elimination by August 2009 of 

ponderous case-by-case BAT determinations), together with 

a policy commitment to writing streamlined, short, and easy 

to understand and administer minor source permits, should 

collectively result in much faster and better minor source 

permits. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur 

LLP) 

Proposed rule OAC 3745-31-06(F) would provide the 

Director discretion to extend the 180 day (after a 

completeness determination) processing time for PTI's and 

initial construction PTIO's by an additional 60 days "if a 

public meeting or public hearing was held." Thus a PTI or 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 66 of 72 

initial construction PTIO could be expected to take 300 days 

to finalize in a frictionless atmosphere (60 days for a 

completeness review, 180 days for normal processing, and 

another 60 days for a public meeting or hearing). (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 40: Ohio EPA has not made any proposal of changes to permit 

issuance timeframes. All the timeframes discussed by the 

commenter originally existed in the rules and are mandated 

by the ORC. Ohio EPA has not lengthened the processing 

times for permits under the PTIO program. The commenter 

refers to Ohio EPA making "PTI application completeness 

reviews within 14 days." What the commenter is referring to 

is Ohio EPA's own internal goal for "preliminary 

completeness reviews" of all applications received. This 

goal has never existed in rule or law and will be the 

continued goal for "preliminary" completeness reviews under 

the PTIO program. 

We currently strive to issue all permits within 180 days. 

There are cases where an application is deficient and it is 

necessary for additional information to be collected from the 

applicant. At that point the applicant is in control of how 

much time is taken to complete the application so that Ohio 

EPA can continue to process the permit. Ohio EPA does not 

have the authority to control how quickly the applicant 

responds. 

We appreciate the concerns of the commenter and the ideas 

expressed for improving permit processing. We have 

actively worked with various stakeholders and developed 

various workgroups to continually find ways to improve our 

processes. The PTIO is one such process. Our hope is that 

implementation of the PTIO program will help to reduce the 

permitting burden and processing burden felt by both the 

DAPC and the regulated community. 

Rule 3745-31-06(E)(3) 

Comment 41: Proposed rule OAC 3745-31-06(E)(3) would impose no 

specific time limit at all for processing a PTIO application for 

air contaminant sources currently regulated under a permitto-install. Instead, the proposed rule requires that the 

Director issue or deny or "propose" action on such 

applications "as expeditiously as practicable." This rule may 

not be a problem where the PTI currently in effect is correctly 

written and acceptable to the owner and operator, but in 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 67 of 72 

many instances there are significant problems that come to 

light only after a PTI has been issued, such that the PTI 

needs to be corrected or revised. In those cases where PTI 

corrections or revisions are urgently needed, the rules 

should provide for timely action on PTIO applications 

submitted to accomplish such PTI corrections or revisions. 

The same need exists for acting on applications to correct or 

revise future PTIO's issued for construction of new or 

modified minor sources. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright 

Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 41: Ohio EPA agrees that certain changes, not triggered by a 

modification, may require prompt changes to a permit. 

These types of changes are often accomplished by the more 

expedited administrative modification procedure because 

they are not required to be processed under the modification 

procedure. This specific provision was incorporated to 

address issuance of PTIOs for sources already operating 

under a valid PTI. This is intended to address the transition 

of all existing sources operating under valid permits into the 

PTIO program. Therefore, there is not an urgency for this 

type of source to obtain the PTIO in order to construct or 

modify a source. If the owner or operator of a source has a 

significant problem with a PTI (or PTIO in the future) that has 

previously been issued, they should contact the appropriate 

field office and discuss the needed changes, why they are 

needed, and how quickly they are needed. Ohio EPA will 

then be able to prioritize those changes to the existing 

PTI/PTIO, not triggered by a modification, along with 

PTIs/PTIOs that are necessary to be issued quickly for 

sources wanting to install or modify. We do not believe it 

would be appropriate to require an issuance deadline for 

changes covered under this provision (unrelated to the need 

to install or modify a source) which could potentially affect 

the processing times of those needing PTIOs for projects to 

be completed. 

Rule 3745-31-07(0 

Comment 42: The new amendment lengthens the permit renewal period 

from 5 years to 10 years. The 5 year renewal period should 

remain. This provides an opportunity to provide a 

comprehensive review of the polluter's practices and 

procedures. (Jennifer Mesaros, on behalf of the Green 

Environmental Coalition, Dayton Ohio) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 68 of 72 

Response 42: In this proposal, Ohio EPA incorporated language that 

renewals will be consistent with "the requirements of 

paragraph (F) of section 3704.03 of the Revised Code." 

There was an error in citing (F) and it will be changed to (G). 

Am. Sub. H.B. 119 ("budget bill") became effective June 30, 

2007, extending the renewal period for operational permits 

from five to "up to" ten years in the state law. This affects 

the renewal periods for PTIOs but not FEPTIOs. Ohio EPA 

is retaining a five year renewal period for FEPTIOs. 

Rule 3745-31-09, Variances on operation 

Comment 43: Variances for all sources 

Since at least as early as 1982, Ohio EPA has had a SIP 

approved mechanism for issuing variances. It exists in OAC 

Rule 3745-35-03 and has historically applied to all sources -

major and minor. The applicability of the variance provisions 

to major sources has apparently become confused after the 

Title V program went into effect. Clearly, it was never the 

intent of Title V or the General Assembly to eliminate the SIP 

approved variance process that applied to all sources in 

Ohio. See, e.g., ORC § 3704.036(M) ("The director shall 

develop procedures for the Title V permit program such that 

the program shall minimize procedural burdens and 

maximize operational flexibility to the extent consistent with 

the federal Clean Air Act") and ORC § 3704.036(H) ("The 

director shall include in a Title V permit all operating 

scenarios and anticipated changes in emissions for which an 

application has been made unless the operating scenarios or 

emissions are prohibited by federally enforceable 

requirements"). 

The current PTIO proposal authorizes the creation of 

variances only for minor sources that will obtain a PTIO. For 

major sources subject to Title V permits, no variance 

mechanism is spelled out in the proposed rule. Thus, the 

proposal takes away the variance provision that is in the 

current SIP for major sources. 

Even if a variance applicable to all sources didn't already 

exist as part of Ohio EPA's approved SIP, Ohio EPA should 

create one as part of this PTIO proposal. There is no reason 

why emissions units at major sources should not be afforded 

the same flexibility as emissions units at minor sources. 

Ohio EPA indicates that proposed OAC 3745-31 -09(C)(2)(d) 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 69 of 72 

only authorizes variances on operation for minor sources 

because variances on operation of major sources subject to 

Title V would have to be addressed through the Title V 

program. Yet, the Title V rules say that the mechanism for 

creating alternative limits in Title V must exist outside of the 

Title V rules, in the approved SIP. Specifically, the Title V 

rule governing permit content, OAC 3745-77-07(A), 

provides: 

(1) Emission limitations and standards. The permit 

shall include emission limitations and standards, 

including those operational requirements and 

limitations that assure compliance with all applicable 

requirements at the time of issuance. 

(a) The Title V permit shall specify 

authority for each term or condition, 

and identify any difference in form as 

compared to the applicable 

requirement upon which the term or 

condition is based. 

(b) The Title V permit shall state that, 

where an applicable requirement of the 

act is more stringent than an applicable 

requirement of regulations promulgated 

under Title IV of the act, both provisions 

shall be incorporated into the permit 

and shall be federally enforceable. 

(c) If the applicable implementation plan 

so provides, upon an applicant's 

request, pursuant to division (E) of 

section 3704.03 and division (K) of 

section 3704.036 ofthe Revised Code, 

that an alternative limit or means of 

compliance be specified in the Title V 

permit, and such alternative limit 

satisfies the criteria set forth in division 

(E) of section 3704.03 and division (K) 

of section 3704.036 ofthe Revised 

Code, such an alternative emission limit 

or means of compliance shall be 

included in the permit upon a showing 

satisfactory to the director that it is 

Quantifiable, accountable, enforceable, 

and based on replicable procedures. 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 70 of 72 

The applicant shall include in the permit 

application proposed permit terms and 

conditions to satisfy the requirements of 

this paragraph. 

(Emphasis added). 

As indicated above, Ohio EPA's approved implementation 

plan contains such a provision that authorizes the creation of 

variances and that has historically applied equally to 

emissions units at major and minor sources. Because the 

adoption of OAC Chapter 3745-77 has confused the matter 

and made it appear as though the variance provision in OAC 

Rule 3745-35-03 is no longer applicable to major sources, 

Ohio EPA should remove this confusion and ensure the 

maximum flexibility for sources in operation in Ohio by 

including a variance mechanism that would allow Title V 

sources to take advantage of the provision in OAC 3745-77-

07 allowing alternative emission limits to be included into 

Title V permits. This approach would be consistent with the 

statutory directives in ORC § 3704.036. The most logical 

place to continue such authority for major sources, given the 

creation of a new PTIO program, is in the part of the PTIO 

rules that apply to Title V sources. Creating a PTIO variance 

mechanism for Title V sources would not be creating a "new" 

variance. Rather, it would be continuing the SIP approved 

variance provision that existed before Title V, when OAC 

Rule 3745-35-03 was clearly applicable to both major and 

minor sources. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & 

Arthur LLP) 

To clarify that both major and minor sources are eligible to 

receive variances, OAC 3745-31-09(A) should be amended 

as follows: 

(A) A variance may be applied for and obtained from the 

director that allows operation or other use of an air 

contaminant source, WHETHER OR NOT THE SOURCE IS 

PART OF A FACILITY SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 3745-77 

OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, that emits " (Robert 

Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP) 

Response 43: As to the variance rule, our purpose is merely to incorporate 

the existing provisions from rule 3745-35-03 into the OAC 

Chapter 3745-31 rules. In the interest of limiting the number 

of issues raised by unifying PTI and PTO rules in the 

proposed PTIO rules, our intent is not to consider, in this 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 71 of 72 

rulemaking, revisions to the applicability of the variance 

provisions as they presently exist in rule 3745-35-03. After 

careful review of the proposed rules, we do note that there 

was language placed in a comment under OAC rule 3745-

31-02 that stated: 

"Rule 3745-31-09 of the Administrative Code provides for 

operation or other use of an air contaminant source that 

emits any air pollutant in violation of any applicable law 

for sources not subject to Chapter 3745-77 of the 

Administrative Code." 

We will be amending this language to read: 

Rule 3745-31-09 ofthe Administrative Code provides for 

operation or other use of an air contaminant source that 

emits any air pollutant in violation of any applicable law 

under a variance for-soHr-ees^et-stibject to Chapter 

3745-77 ofthe Administrative Code. This provision was 

previously established in the now rescinded rule 3745-35-

03 ofthe Administrative Code. 

Comments Unrelated to Draft Rule Language but Related to Implementation of 

the PTIO Program 

Comment 44: CROMERR Deadline Extension 

We note that on August 3, 2007, U.S. EPA extended the 

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) 

deadline from October 13, 2007 to October 13, 2008. See; 

72 Fed. Reg. 43165 (Aug. 3, 2007). To the extent that the 

CROMERR deadline may have been influencing the 

schedule for finalizing the PTIO program rules, the one year 

extension of the CROMERR deadline provides more than 

sufficient time for Ohio EPA to make appropriate 

improvements and corrections to the PTIO rules proposed 

on July 3, 2007. (Robert Brubaker, Porter Wright Morris & 

Arthur LLP) 

Response 44: USEPA has issued the CROMERR requirements that apply 

to all of the major programs at Ohio EPA. Conformance with 

this standard is being handled by the Information 

Technology Service (ITS) division of the Agency and does 

not have a direct impact on the development of PTIO. Ohio 

EPA does not want to delay the efficiency gains on the part 
Rule Package: PTIO Rules 

Response to Comments 

July 3, 2007 Page 72 of 72 

of Ohio EPA and the regulated community that will occur 

with PTIO while waiting on some future action of USEPA. 

End of Response to Comments