### (

, 

# Appendix E
Transcript ofthe Public Hearing Held October 19, 2007

# (



# ( Inthematterof: DAPCParticulateMatterStandards Rules Hearing, takenonOctober 19, 2007



### BEFORE THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING

IN THE MATTER OF: DAPC PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS RULES HEARING

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

In the above-captioned matter, taken before Teresa A. Pollard, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio, at the Ohio Protection Agency, Central District Office, Lazarus Government Center, 50 West Town Street, Room C, Columbus, Ohio on Friday, October 19, 2007, at 10:00 a.m.

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

## (
\,



# (

( Inthe rnatter of: DAPC ParticulateMatter Standards Rules Hearing, taken on October 19, 2007

Page 2 Page 4 1 INTHEMATTEROFDAPC PARTICULATEMATTER 1 Columbus office andmaybe obtainedbycontactingPaul 2 STANDARDS RULES HEARING 2 Braun with Ohio EPA's Division ofAirPollutionControl 3 3 at (614)644-3734. APPEARANCES 4

- - - 4 All interestedpersons are entitledto attend 5 MS. DARLA L. PEELLE, PublicInvolvementCoordinator 5 orberepresented, andtopresentoral and/orwritten OHIOENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY 6 comments concerningtheproposedrule. All written and 6 PUBLIC INTERESTCENTER 7 oral commentsreceivedas partofthe officialrecord Lazarus GovemmentCenter 8 will be consideredbytheDirectorofOhioEPAbefore a 7 50WestTownStreet, Suite700 Columbus, Ohio43215 9 final decision is made. 8 (614) 644-2160 10 Tobe includedinthe officialrecord, E-mail: Darla.peelle@epa.state.oh.us 11 written comments mustbereceivedbyOhioEPAbythe 9 12 close ofbusiness, today, Friday, October 19, 2007. 10 13 These comments maybe filed withmetoday ore-mailed 11 12 14 to Paul dotBraun atEPA dotstate dotO-HdotU-S. 13 15 All written comments submittedfortherecordreceive 14 16 the same consideration as oral testimonygiventoday. 15 17 Written statements submittedaftertodaymay 16 18 be consideredas time and circumstancespermit, but 17 18 19 will notbepartofthe officialrecord ofthe hearing. 19 20 Ifyou wishtopresent oral testimonyatthis 20 21 hearingtoday andhave not already signedthe 21 22 registration sheet, please do so atthis time. The 22 23 sheetis available atthe registrationtable. Persons 23 24 24 will be calledinthe orderinwhich theyhave 25 25 registered.

Page 3 Page 5 I FridayMorning Session, 1 Thereis no cross-examination ofspeakers or October 19,2007. 2 ofrepresentatives ofOhioEPA inpublichearings. 2 10:00 a.m. 3 OhioEPAhearings suchas this affordcitizensthe 3

- -

### - 4 opportunitytoprovide comments ontheofficialrecord. 4 MS. PEELLE: We are on therecord. 5 Therefore, we willnotbe ableto answerquestions 5 Myname is DarlaPeelle. Iam apublic 6 duringthe hearing. However, members ofthepanel may 6 involvementcoordinatorfor Ohio Environmental 7 askclarifyingquestions ofthepersontestifyingto 7 Protection Agency's Public InterestCenter. Iwill be 8 ensurethattherecordis as complete andaccurate as 8 presiding overtoday's publichearing. 9 possible. 9 Thankyou fortakingtime to attendthis 10 Seeingthere is no oneregisteredwishingto 10 hearingbefore OhioEPA. Thepurpose ofthehearing 11 testify, wewill go offtherecord until 10:30. 11 todayis to obtain comments from anyinterestedperson 12 12 regarding OhioEPA'sproposedrules. 

### --- 13 OhioEPA Division ofAirPollution Control 13 (Recess taken.) 14 has performed afive-yearreview ofOAC Chapter 14

- - - 15 3745-17, OAC Rules 3745-17-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, 15 MS. PEELLE: I'mgoingbackon therecord. 16 -08, -09, -10, -11, -12, -13 and-14, to satisfythe 16 Seeingnorequests fortestimony, I'mjust 17 requirements ofSection 119.032 ofthe OhioRevised 17 goingtoremind everyone, fortherecord, thatpublic 18 Code for afive-yearreview. DAPC has determined that 18 comments canbe submitteduntil the close ofbusiness 19 OAC Rule 0745-17-05 is no longernecessaryand should 19 today, October 19,2007. 20 berescinded andthat OAC Rules 3745-17-01, -02, -03, 20 The time is now 10:30 andthis hearingis 21 -04, -07, -08, -09, -10, -11, -12, -13 and-14 are 21 adjourned. Thankyou. 22 necessaryandneedtobe amended. 22

- -

### - 23 Thisrule change has beenfiledwith the 23 Thereupon, at 10:30 a.m., onFriday, October 24 JointCommittee on AgencyRule Review. Copies ofthe 24 19, 2007, the hearingwas concluded. 25 rule are available forpublicreview at OhioEPA's 25



### ---

2 (Pages 2 to 5) Fraley, Cooper& Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556o ' Inthe matterof: DAPCParticulateMatter Standards Rules Hearing, takenonOctober 19, 2007 

# ( 1 

### 2 STATE OF OHIO CERTIFICATE Page 6



### SS: 3 COUNTY OF FRANKLIN 4 

### I, Teresa A. Pollard, a Notary Public in and 5 for the State of Ohio, duly commissioned and qualified, do hereby certify that the aforesaid proceeding on 6 October 19, 2007, was by me reduced to stenotype and afterward transcribed upon a computer; that the 7 foregoing 1S 

### a true and correct transcript of the proceedings; that the proceeding was taken at the time 8 and place in the caption specified and was adjourned; and that I am in no way related to or employed by any 9 attorney or party hereto, or financially interested in the action. 10

TERESA A. POLLARD NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF OHIO

My Commission Expires: October 21, 2012. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office at Columbus, Ohio,
on this 30th of October, 2007. 

# (
11

12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

## ( 24 25

Fraley, Cooper&Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556Inthe matterof: DAPC ParticulateMatter StandardsRules Hearing, takenonOctober 19, 2007 Page 1 

# (



# (

( A comments 3: 11 filed 3:23 4:13 need 3:22 Protection 1: 1,14 specified 6:8 able5:5 4:6,7,11,13,15 final4:9 Notary 1:136:4 2:5 3:7 SS6:2 above-captioned 5:4,18 financially 6:9 6:15 provide 5:4 STANDARDS 1:12 Commission6:20 five-year3:14,18 public 1:2,13 2:5 1:72:2 accurate5:8 commissioned foregoing 6:7 0 2:63:5,7,8,25 state 1:144:14 action 6:9 6:5 FRANKLIN6:3 OAC 3:14,15,19 5:2,176:4 6:2,5 adjourned 5:21 Committee3:24 Friday 1:17 3: 1 3:20 PUBLIC-STA

... statements4: 17

6:8 complete5:8 4:125:23 obtain3:11 6:15 stenotype 6:6 affixed 6: 11 computer6:6 from3:11 obtained4: 1 purpose 3: 10 Street 1:162:7 afford 5:3 concerning4:6 October 1:173:1 submitted4: 15 aforesaid 6:5 concluded 5:24 G 4:125:19,23 Q 4:17 5:18 after4:17 consideration given4:16 6:6,11,20 qualified 6:5 Suite2:7 afterward 6:6 4:16 go 5: 11 off5: 11 questions 5:5,7 Agency 1:1,15 considered4:8 going5:15,17 office 1:15 4:1 T

2:53:24 4:18 Government 6: 11 R table4:23 Agency's 3:7 contacting4: 1 1:15 2:6 official4:7,10,19 receive4: 15 taken 1: 12 5: 13 Air3:13 4:2 Control 3:13 4:2 5:4 received4:7,11 6:7 already4:21 coordinator2:5 H Ohio 1:1,14,14 Recess 5:13 taking3:9 amended 3:22 3:6 hand 6:11 1:162:5,73:6 record 3:44:7,10 Teresa 1: 13 6:4 and/or4:5 Copies 3:24 hearing 1:2,7 2:2 3:10,12,13,17 4:15,195:4,8 6:15

answer5:5 correct6:7 3:8,10,104:19 3:25 4:2,8,11 5:11,15,17 testify5: 11 APPEARANC

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

2:3 Court 1:13 hearings 5:2,3 6:15 regarding 3: 12 testimony4: 16 attend 3:9 4:4 cross-examinat

... hereto 6:9 one 5:10 registered4:25 4:205:16 attorney 6:9 5: 1 hereunto 6: 10 opportunity5:4 5:10 Thank3:95:21 available3:25 oral4:5,7,16,20 registration4:22 time3:94:18,22

4:23 D I order4:24 4:23 5:206:7

a.m 1:17 3:2 5:23 DAPC 1:62:1 included4:10 over3:8 related 6:8 today3:114:12 3:18 Interest2:63:7 O-H4:14 remind 5: 17 4:13,16,17,21 B Darla2:53:5 interested3: 11 Reporter 1: 13 5:19 back5: 15 Darla.peelle@e

... 4:4 6:9 P representatives today's 3:8 before 1: 1,12 2:8 involvement2:5 panel5:6 5:2 Town 1: 162:7

3:104:8 decision4:9 3:6 part4:7,19 represented4:5 transcribed 6:6 Braun4:2,14 determined3: 18 PARTICULATE requests 5:16 transcript 1: 10 business4: 12 Director4:8 J 1:62:1 requirements 6:7

5:18 District 1: 15 Joint3:24 party6:9 3:17 true 6:7 Division3: 13 4:2 just5:16 PauI4:l,14 rescinded 3:20 C dot4: 14,14,14,14 Peelle2:5 3:4,5 review 3:14,18 U C 1:16 duly6:5 L 5: 15 3:24,25 until5: 11,18 called4:24 during 5:6 L2:5 performed 3:14 Revised 3: 17 U-S4:14 caption6:8 Lazarus 1:15 2:6 permit4: 18 Room 1:16 Center 1: 16 2:6,6 E longer3:19 person3:11 5:7 rule 3:19,23,24 W

3:7 employed 6:8 persons4:4,23 3:254:6 way 6:8 Central 1:15 ensure5:8 M place 6:8 rules 1:72:23:12 West 1:16 2:7 CERTIFICATE entitled4:4 made4:9 please4:22 3:15,20 WHEREOF6:10

6: 1 Environmental matter 1:5,6,12 Pollard 1: 13 6:4 wish4:20 certify 6:5 1:1 2:53:6 2: 1,1 6:15 S wishing 5: 10 change 3:23 EPA3:10,13 4:8 may4:l,13,17 Pollution3:13 same4:16 WITNESS 6:10 Chapter 3:14 4:11,145:2,3 5:6 4:2 satisfy3:16 written4:5,6,11 circumstances EPA's 3:12,25 members 5:6 possible5:9 seal 6:11 4:15,17

4:18 4:2 Morning 3:1 present4:5,20 Section3: 17 citizens 5:3 everyone5: 17 must4:11 presiding3:8 Seeing5:10,16 0 clarifying5:7 Expires 6:20 proceeding6:5,7 Session3:1 023:15,20 close4:12 5:18 E-mail2:8 N proceedings 1: 10 set 6:10 033:15,20 Code 3:18 e-mailed4: 13 name3:5 6:7 sheet4:22,23 043:15,21 Columbus 1:16 necessary3: 19 proposed3: 12 signed4:21 053:15

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

Ilil Fraley, Cooper&Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556Inthe matter of: DAPC Particulate Matter Standards Rules Hearing, takenonOctober 19, 2007 Page 2 

# (



# (

( 0745-17-053: 19 083:16,21 093:16,21
1 103:16,21 10:00 1:17 3:2 10:305:11,20,23 113:16,21 119.0323:17 123:16,21 13 3:16,21 143:16,21 191:173:14:12

5:19,246:6
2 20071:173:1

4:125:19,24 6:6,11 If; 2012 6:20 216:20
3 30th 6: 11 3745-173:15 3745-17-013:15

3:20
4 432152:7 5 501:162:7
6 6142:8 614)644-37344:3 644-21602:8
7 7002:7

',Tec" '" Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556OHIO GENERALASSEMBLY 

## JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGENCY RULE REVIEW

SENATE MEMBERS TOM NIEHAUS

VICE-CHAIR HOUSE MEMBERS ROSS MCGREGOR CHAIR 

### (

SUE MORANO CAPRI S. CAFARO ROBERTSCHULER TIM GRENDELL WILLIAM L. HILLS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CLYDE EVANS WILLIAM G. BATCHELDER FRED STRAHORN SANDRASTABILE HARWOOD



### (



## ( November2, 2007
Jim Orlemann OhioEnvironmentalProtectionAgency DivisionofAirPollutionControl (DAPC) 50WestTown Street, Suite700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus,OH 43216-1049
DearMr. Orlemann,
This letteris to informyouthatthenextmeetingofJCARRis scheduledforTuesday, November 13, 2007 intheWilliamMcKinleyRoom (StatehouseRoom 121) at 1:30P.M.
The agendafortheNovember 13, 2007 meetingwillinclude allrules filedbetween September9,2007 and September28,2007 andthoserulesrefilednotlaterthan November2, 2007 as well asno changerules filedbetweenAugust 15, 2007 and September3, 2007.
Pleasehave an agencyrepresentativeinattendance. The agencyrepresentativeneedonly sign-inontheregistrationformprovidedbyJCARRstaff. The sign-in sheetwill qualify as awitness slip forallrules notonthereview agenda. Thepreregistrationallowsthe Chairto k.110Wuponwhomto callifthereis aneedfor agencytestimony.
Ifwe find aproblemorhave questions regardingrules filedbyyouragency, one ofour staffpeoplewillbeincontactwithyoupriorto the abovemeetingdate.
Thankyouforyourcooperation. Sincerely,

# ~~ William L. Hills ExecutiveDirector

77 South High Street, Concourse Level • Columbus, Ohio 43215 • (614) 466-4086 • Fax (614) 752-8803 www.jcarr.state.oh.us**/~ ~,** **~,** 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAGENCYRULEREVIEW 119.032Agenda

- 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)



### FINAL AGENDA FINAL AGENDA



## 119.032 Consent

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/15/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/27/2007

Public notice

- rulemaking hearings.

Rule Title Applicability. Rule Title Rule Title Techniques or methods. Breath tests. Blood, urine and other bodily substance tests. Instrumentcheck. Collection and handling of blood and urine specimens. Laboratory requirements. Qualifications of personnel. s.urveys and proficiency examinations. Permits. Revocation and denial of permits.

8/17/2012

8/1/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012 8/29/2012

Date Filed: 8/20/2007 Next 119.032 Review Date

Date Filed: 8/17/2007 Next 119.032 Review Date

Date Filed: 8/29/2007 Next 119.032 Review Date 1 Departmentof Health • Total Rules In This Package: 10**~"[\loe** Action Rule1'.Jumber 119.032 No Change 3701-53-01 119.032 No Change 3701-53-02 119.032 No Change 3701-53-03 119.032 No Change 3701-53-04 119.032 No Change 3701-53-05 119.032 No Change 3701-53-06 119.032 No Change 3701-53-07 119.032 No Change 3701-53-08 119.032 No Change 3701-53-09 119.032 No Change 3701-53-10 2 Departmentof Health • Total Rules In This Package: 1
Rule Tvoe Action Rule Number 119.032 No Change 3701-51-01 3 Departmentof Health • Total Rules In This Package: 3
Rule Tvoe Action Bule bl,umber 119.032 No Change 3701-60-03

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page1·1111312007FINAL AGENDA**i~** 

### JOINTCOMMITTEEONAbENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA /"----,

119.032 No Change 3701-60-09 8/1/2012 119.032 No Change 3701-60-10 8/1/2012 4 Department ofTransportation • Division of Highways Liability. Compliance action.

Net assets. Application for qualification. Responsibilityand competency. Worktypes. Certificate ofqualification. Jointventure bids. Contracting procedure--foreign contractors. Subcontracting procedure. Prequalification review board. Revocation and debarment. Rule Title Total Rules In This Package: 10
Rule Type Action 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 119.032 No Change 5 State Chiropractic Board • Total Rules In This Package: 25 Rule Number 5501 :2-3-01 5501 :2-3-02 5501 :2-3-03 5501 :2-3-04 5501 :2-3-05 5501 :2-3-06 5501 :2-3-07 5501 :2-3-08 5501 :2-3-09 5501 :2-3-10 Date Filed: 8/23/2007 Next 119.032 Review Date 9/1/2008 9/1/2008 9/1/2008 9/1/2008 9/1/2008 9/1/2008 9/1/2008 9/1/2008 9/1/2008 9/1/2008

Date Filed: 8/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/21/2007

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/26/2007
Rule Tvoe AQ!i.Qn Rule Number Next 119.032 Review Date 119.032 No Change 4734-2-01 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-2-02 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-2-03 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-3-01 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-3-02 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-01 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-02 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-03 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-04 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-05 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-06 8/28/2012 Rule Title Public notice of rules. Five year rule review. Rules hearings. Board records and documents; personal information system. Public records. Hearings; disciplinary procedures. Representatives; appearances; communications; applicability. Continuances. Out-of-state attorneys. Authority and duties of hearing officers. Broadcasting and photographing administrative hearings.

JCARR77 South High Street· ConcourseLevel· Columbus, Ohio43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page2· •• /.3/2007**-~,**

FINAL AGENDA**,~** 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAGENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

- 

### 1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA**-~,**

119.032 No Change 4734-4-07 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-08 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-09 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-10 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-11 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-12 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-4-13 8/28/2012
119.032 No Change 4734-4-14 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-6-01 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-6-02 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-6-05 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-6-06 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-6-09 8/28/2012 119.032 No Change 4734-6-10 8/28/2012 Depositions in lieu oftestimony at hearing and transcripts of priortestimony for submission at hearing. Witnesses; subpoenaes; witness fees. Evidence; judicial notice of board records; stipulations; certified copy ofconviction deemed conclusive. Limited discovery procedures. Motions. Pre-hearing conferences; status conferences. Post hearing procedures; reports and recommendations; newlydiscovered evidence; addressing the board. Requesting adjudication hearing; timing of hearing; notification of hearing; requirements for filing; calculation oftime; transcripts. Application for licensure. Licensure by endorsement. License forvoluntary public service. Jurisprudence examination. Characterand fitness standards. Review of applicants. 

## 119.032 Withdrawn
6 Department of Public Safety• Bureau of MotorVehicles

Rule Title Total Rules In This Package: 1
Rule Type Action Rule Number Date Filed: 11/5/2007 Next 119.032 Review Date Jurisdiction Ends:

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

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page3·1111312007**~,** 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAGENCYRULEREVIEW Agenda -11/13/2007
- 1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)



### FINAL AGENDA FINAL AGENDA



## Consent
1 Board of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology • Jurisdiction Ends: 11/16/2007 Public Hearing: 10/16/2007 Total Rules: 6 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-4-01 Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-5-01 Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-8-01 Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-8-03 Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-8-05 Rule Title Continuing education. Speech-language pathologistoraudiologist; fee for initial license; fee for renewal of license; late renewal fee. Definitions. Rules on appropriate hearing aid test procedures. Fraud or misrepresentation; hearing aid, assistive listening device; disciplinary action. Amendment Original Filing Yes 4753-9-01 "Code of Ethics". Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/29/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/28/2007 Public Hearing: 10/16/2007 RuleType Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Refiled Filing Yes 4753-3-10 Exempt practice; renewal. 2 Board of Speech-Language Pathologyand Audiology• Total Rules: 5 Original Filing Date: 9/11/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/15/2007 Public Hearing: 10/16/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number RuleTitle New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-01 Educational requirements forstudent permit. New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-02 Ohio speech-language pathologygraduate program requirements. New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-04 Application forspeech-language pathologystudent permit. New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-05 Speech-language pathology student permit holdercase load. New Rule Original Filing No 4753-10-06 Identification of speech-language pathology student permit holder. Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/11/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/29/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/28/2007 Public Hearing: 10/16/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page1.1111312007**,~,** .,....-----."
FINAL AGENDA 

### JOINTCOMMITTEEON**A~ENCY** 

### RULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA

New Rule Refiled Filing No 4753-10-03 Supervision ofspeech-language pathology permit holders. 3 DepartmentofCommerce• Board of Building Standards: Ohio Building Code Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :1-35-01 Referenced standards. 4 Department of Commerce • Board of Building Standards: Ohio Mechanical Code Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007

4101 :2-75-44 Rule Number

. 4101 :2-70-19

4101 :2-72-17 4101:2-72-48 4101 :2-72-69 4101 :2-72-75 4101 :2-72-87 4101 :2-72-94 4101 :2-73-04 41 01 :2-73-08 4101 :2-73-14 4101 :2-73-21 4101 :2-74-11 4101:2-75-14 No Rule Title Certification ofthe building department ofthe city of Campbell, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Chippewa Lake, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Lodi, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Newtown, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Ontario, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Seville, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Spencer, Ohio. Certification ofthe building department ofthe village ofWaynesville, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentofthe city ofWillowickOhio. Certification ofthe building department ofthe village of Haskins, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Cyget, Ohio. Certification ofthe building departmentof Medina county, Ohio. Certification ofthe building department ofthevillage of Plymouth, Ohio. Certification ofthe building department ofthe village ofthe village ofYankee Lake, Ohio. Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-75-68 Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village ofAshville, Ohio. Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-76-29 Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Gloria Glens Park, Ohio. Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-76-39 Certification ofthe building departmentof the city of Greenfield, Ohio. New Rule Original Filing No 4101:2-77-29 Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of New Holland, Ohio. New Rule Original Filing No 4101 :2-77-30 Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Baltimore, Ohio. Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-81-18 Certification ofthe building department ofthe village of Utica, Ohio. New Rule Original Filing No 4101:2-81-37 Certification ofthe building departmentofthe village of Ostrander, Ohio. Department of Commerce• Board of Building Standards: Ohio Mechanical Code Amendment Original Filing Total Rules: 21 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No

5

. JCARR77 South High Street· ConcourseLevel· Columbus, Ohio43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page2·1111312007**~""" i~'** **'~"',**

FINAL AGENDA 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAGENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007-1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA

Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Title Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :2-15-01 Referenced standards. 6 Departmentof Commerce • Board of Building Standards: Ohio Plumbing Code Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :3-13-01 Referenced standards. 7 Department of Commerce • Board of Building Standards: Residential Code ofOhio Total Rules: 5 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :8-1-03 Certified building department. Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :8-1-05 Approvals. Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :8-1-06 Construction documents. New Rule Original Filing No 4101 :8-1-17 Unsafe buildings. Amendment Original Filing No 4101 :8-43-01.2 Referenced standard list. Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 10/30/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/2/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title New Rule Revised Filing No 4101 :8-11-01 Energy efficiency. 8 Department ofCommerce • Division of Real Estate Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 12/22/2006 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/17/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title New Rule Refiled Filing No 1301:5-7-03 Criteriafor course approvals. Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 12/22/2006 Date of Refiled Filing: 11/1/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title New Rule Refiled Filing No 1301 :5-7-04 Distance education. 9 Department ofCommerce • Elevators: Elevator Code Total Rules: 10 Original Filing Date: 9/28/2007 RuleType Action FYR? Rule Number

.JCARR77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page3·11/13/2007**/~** FINAL AGENDA**.~** 

### JOINTCOMMITTEEON**A~ENCY** 

### RULEREVIEW 11/13/2007-1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA .-,

Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101:5-1-02 Definitions. Rescission Original Filing Yes 4101:5-1-03 Enforcement. New Rule Original Filing No 4101 :5-1-03 Enforcement. Rescission Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-1-04 Application for permit. New Rule Original Filing No 4101:5-1-04 Application for permit. Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-1-05 Adjudication order. Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-1-06 Examination forcertificate of competency. Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-1-07 Assessment fee. Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-3-02 Resolution of conflicts. Amendment Original Filing Yes 4101 :5-3-03 Special purpose personnel elevators. 10 Department of Development· Workforce Development Total Rules: 4 Original Filing Date: 9/21/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/25/2007 Public Hearing: 10/29/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Rescission· Original Filing Yes 122:17-1-01 Workerguarantee program definitions. Rescission Original Filing Yes 122:17-1-02 Worker guarantee program eligibility requirements. Rescission Original Filing Yes 122:17-1-03 Worker guarantee program application process. Rescission Original Filing Yes 122:17-1-04 Worker guarantee program annual report. 11 Department ofJob and Family Services • Child Support Total Rules: 15 Original Filing Date: 9/26/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/30/2007 Public Hearing: 10/31/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101:12-80-05 Collections and disbursements by child support paymentcentral (CSPC). New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :12-80-05 Collection and disbursement. Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.1 Billing. NeW Rule Original Filing No 5101:12-80-05.1 Collection atthe child support enforcement agency. Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.2 Collecting support payments. New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :12-80-05.2 Date ofcollection. Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.3 CSPC payment posting. New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :12-80-05.3 Payment processing and disbursement. Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.4 Child support payment central (CSPC) disbursements. New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :12-80-05.4 Exception item processing and resolution. Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :12-80-05.5 Exception processing.

JCARR77 South High Street· Concourse Level'Columbus, Ohio43215' (614) 466-4086' www.jcarr.state.oh.us'Page4' 11/13/2007FINAL AGENDA 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAGENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)



# . . FINAL AGENDA 

# .--.,

New Rule Original Filing No 5-101:12-80-05.5 Check replacement. Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101:12-80-05.6 Child support payment central (CSPC) recoupments. New Rule Original Filing No 5101:12-80-05.6 Recoupment. Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101:12-80-05.7 Interstate cost recovery reporting. 12 Department ofJob and FamilyServices· Division of Medical Assistance Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 9/26/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/30/2007 Public Hearing: 10/31/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Original Filing Yes 5101 :3-2-07.2 Classification of hospitals. Amendment Original Filing Yes 5101:3-2-07.8 Redetermination of prospective payment rates. 13 DepartmentofJob and FamilyServices • Division of Medical Assistance Total Rules: 3 Original Filing Date: 9/25/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/29/2007 Public Hearing: 10/30/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Original Filing No 5101 :3-4-02.2 Site differential payments and place of service. Amendment Original Filing Yes 5101 :3-4-08.1 Paymentfor prenatal visits. Amendment Original Filing No 5101 :3-4-12 Immunizations. Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/25/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 10/30/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/29/2007 Public Hearing: 10/30/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number. Rule Title Amendment Revised Filing No 5101 :3-1-60 Medicaid reimbursement. 14 Department ofJob and FamilyServices· Division of Public Assistance Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/26/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/25/2007 Public Hearing: 10/17/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Refiled Filing Yes 5101:1-1-36 Income and eligibilityverification system (IEVS) program. 15 Department ofJob and Family Services· Division of Social Services Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 8/1/2007

. Date of Refiled Filing: 10/17/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/16/2007 Public Hearing: 9/5/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Refiled Filing Yes 5101 :2-9-02 Staffing requirements. 16 Department ofJob and FamilyServices • ODJFS Practices Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 9/27/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing:

JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level'Columbus, Ohio43215' (614) 466-4086'www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page5·11/13/2007/"',**~,** 

# --,
FINALAGENDA 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAbENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

- 

### 1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA**RuLe~voe** Action .EY.81 Rule_Number
New Rule Original Filing No 5101 :9-6-29
Rescission Original Filing Yes 5101 :9-1 0-49 17 Departmentof Mental Health • Total Rules: 5 Original Filing Date: 9/27/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-24-01 Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-29-03 Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-29-05 Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-29-28 Amendment Original Filing Yes 5122-29-29 18 Departmentof Rehabilitation and Correction • Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/24/2007 Rule Type Action .EY.81 Rule Number Amendment Original Filing No 5120-9-02 19 Qhio EnvironmentaLProtection Aaencv• Rule Title Earningsforthe recoveryof paymentsfor erroneous aid to dependent children (ADC), temporary assistancefor needyfamilies (TANF), Ohioworks first (OWF) and disabilityfinancial assistance (DFA). Incentives forADC, TANF, Ohioworks first (OWF), and DAcollections.

Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing: 11/2/2007 Rule Title Certification definitions. Behavioral health counseling and therapy service. Pharmacologic management service. Intensive home based treatment (IHBT) service. Assertive communitytreatment (ACT) service.

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/28/2007 Public Hearing: Rule Title Use offorce report and investigations.

Public Hearing: 6/8/2007

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

3745-11 0-04 3745-11 0-05 3745-11 0-03 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/23/2007 Rule Number Rule Title 3745-110-01 Definitions. RACT requirements and/or limitationsforemissions of NOxfrom stationary sources. Compliance deadlines. Compliance methods. No Original Filing Date: 5/1/2007 Action FYR? Refiled Filing No Refiled Filing New Rule Total Rules: 4 Rule Type New Rule

New Rule Refiled Filing No New Rule Refiled Filing No 20 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency• Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/3/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/23/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Refiled Filing No 3745-31-01 Definitions. 21 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency•
JCARR 77 South High Street· Concourse Level· Columbus, Ohio43215 • (614) 466-4086• www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page6·11/13/2007//.'

........**c~ ~.** 

FINALAGENDA 

### JOINTCOMMITTEEONAGENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA

Public Hearing: Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/16/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/22/2007 Public Hearing: 8/10/2007

3745-17-13 3745-17-12 Rule Title Ambient airqualitystandards. Measurement methods and procedures. Compliance time schedules. Non-degradation policy. Control ofvisible particulate emissions from stationary sources. Restriction ofemission offugitive dust. Restrictions on particulate emissions and odorsfrom incinerators. Restrictions on particulate emissions from fuel burning equipment. Restrictions on particulate emissions from industrial processes. Additional restrictions on particulate emissionsfrom specific aircontaminant sources in Cuyahoga county. Additional restrictions on particulate emissionsfrom specific aircontaminant sources in Jefferson county. 3745-17-14 Contingency plan requirements for Cuyahoga and Jefferson counties. Date of Revised Filing: 10/16/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/16/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007 Rule Number RuleTitle 3745-17-01 Definitions. Rule Number 3745-17-02 3745-17-03 3745-17-04 3745-17-05 3745-17-07 3745-17-08 3745-17-09 3745-17-10 3745-17-11 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/23/2007 Rule Number Rule Title 3745-77-01 Definitions.

Amendment Original Filing Yes Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007**~ule** Type AQ1iQo. FYR? Amendment Revised Filing Yes 23 Public Employees Retirement System· Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 4/13/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 11/1/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Refiled Filing No 145-1-63 Guardianship and powerofattorney. Amendment Refiled Filing No 145-2-07 Purchase ofadditional service credit undersection 145.201 ofthe Revised Code. 24 Public Employees Retirement System • Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 7/3/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Amendment Refiled Filing No 22 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency• Total Rules: 12 Original Filing Date: 9/12/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes Rescission Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes
Amendment Original Filing Yes

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

JCARR77 South High Street· ConcourseLevel· Columbus, Ohio43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page7·11/13/2007......

## -

....**,~** 

# -,

FINALAGENDA 

### JOINT COMMITTEEON**A~ENCY** 

### RULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA

Rule Title Organization. Board travel and expense reimbursement policy. Appeal of staff membership determination. Death benefit payment. Rule Number 145-1-01 145-1-03 145-1-11 145-2-55 Rule Type Action FYR? Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing Yes Amendment Original Filing No Amendment Original Filing No 25 Public Employees RetirementSystem • Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 10/17/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007 Rule Type AQti.Qn FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Revised Filing Yes 145-1-02 Election of board members. 26 Public Utilities Commission of Ohio• Utilities Date of Refiled Filing: 10/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/17/2007 Public Hearing: Rule Number Rule Title 4901:1-7-02 General applicability. 4901:1-7-03 Toll presubscription. 4901 :1-7-14 Compensation for intrastate switched accesstraffic and carrier-to-carriertariff. Total Rules: 3 Original Filing Date: 9/5/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? New Rule Refiled Filing No New Rule Refiled Filing No New Rule Refiled Filing No 27 Public Utilities Commission of Ohio• Utilities Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/5/2007 Date of Refiled Filing: 10/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/17/2007 Public Hearing: Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title New Rule Refiled Filing No 4901:1-7-26 Competition safeguards. 28 School Employees Retirement System • Total Rules: 2 Original Filing Date: 9/27/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 12/1/2007 Public Hearing: Rule Type FYR? Rule Number Rule Tjtle Amendment Original Filing No 3309-1-35 Health care. Amendment Original Filing No 3309-1-53 Rolloverdistribution. 29 State Board of Emergency Medical Services • Total Rules: 6 Rule Type New Rule New Rule Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Action FYR? Rule Number Original Filing No 4765-1-01 Original Filing No 4765-7-04 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Rule Title Definitions. Application forAccreditation. Public Hearing: 10/17/2007

JCARR77 South High Street

- ConcourseLevel- Columbus, Ohio43215

- (614) 466-4086

- www.jcarr.state.oh.us-Page8·11/13/2007,.....---......

FINAL AGENDA /..-........... 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAGENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121)**,~**

FINAL AGENDA

New Rule Original Filing No 4765-7-05 Offsite locations. New Rule Original Filing No 4765-7-06 Notification to the board. New Rule Original Filing No 4765-7-08 Reinstatement of acertificate of accreditation orcertificate of approval. New Rule Original Filing No 4765-7-10 Reinstatement of revoked certificate of accreditation orcertificate of approval. Total Rules: 10 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 9/14/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/17/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-1-01 Definitions. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-01 Definitions. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-02 Accreditation oftraining programs. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-03 Provisional accreditation oftraining programs. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-04 Application foraccreditation. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-05 Offsite locations. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-06 Notification to board. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-08 Reinstatement ofcertificate of accreditation. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-7-10 Validity ofcurrent certificates. Rescission Revised Filing Yes 4765-12-05 Accreditation oftraining programs. Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Date of Revised Filing: 10/18/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/17/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title New Rule Revised Filing No 4765-7-02 Accreditation ofOhio EMS training programs. 30 State Racing Commission • Total Rules: 7 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rescission Original Filing Yes New Rule Original Filing No Rescission Original Filing Yes New Rule Original Filing No Rescission Original Filing Yes Rescission Original Filing Yes New Rule Original Filing No Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007Rule Number Rule Title 3769-2-03 Procedure for adoption of rules. 3769-2-03 Procedure for adoption of rules. 3769-2-04 Public notice ofcommission meetings. 3769-2-04 Public notice ofcommission meetings. 3769-2-10 File listofofficials. 3769-6-15 Moving and racing restrictions ofclaimed horse. 3769-6-15 Moving and racing restrictions ofclaimed horse. Date of Revised Filing: 9/14/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007

JCARR77 South High Street

- Concourse Level- Columbus, Ohio43215

- (614) 466-4086

- www.jcarr.state.oh.us

- Page9 - 11/13/2007**,-,-~-** .... ,**/~** 

# --
FINAL AGENDA 

### JOINTCOMMITTEEON**A~ENCY** 

### RULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA

Jurisdiction Ends: 11/18/2007 Public Hearing: 10/19/2007 Rule Title Ruled off. Commission rules supersede. Giftsforbidden. Applicants for permitto conduct a horse race meeting. Application for racing dates. Permitto race. Permits, agriculture societies, totalizator licenses. License qualificationsfortrainerand assistanttrainerand horseshoer. Licensefees. Numbering of mutuel windows and mutuel transactions. Emergencysubstitute common pool wagering procedure. Ohiothoroughbred race special account. In hands ofstarter. Rule Title File list ofofficials. Rule Number 3769-2-10 FYR? No Rule Type Action New Rule Revised Filing 31 State Racing Commission • Total Rules: 13 Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-1-10 Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-06 Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-07 Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-08 Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-09 Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-11 Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-12 Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-23 Amendment Original Filing Yes 3769-2-24 Amendment Original Filing No 3769-3-07 Amendment Original Filing

. No 3769-3-33 Amendment Original Filing No 3769-5-66 Amendment Original Filing No 3769-6-29 32 StateTeachers Retirement System • Defined Benefits Total Rules: 2 Rule Type Amendment Amendment Original Filing Date: 9/21/2007 Action FYR? Rule Number Original Filing No 3307:1-10-01 Original Filing No 3307:1-12-01 Rule Title Cost-of-living. Distributions. Jurisdiction Ends: 11/25/2007 Public Hearing:



## To Be Refiled
33 Attorney General • Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation Total Rules: 3 Rule Type Amendment New Rule Original Filing Date: 9/14/2007 Date ofTo Be Refiled: 11/9/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 10/22/2007 Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title To Be Refiled Yes 109:5-1-01 Procedurefor requesting criminal records. To Be Refiled No 109:5-1-03 Procedure for requesting and processing asearch ofthe retained applicant
JCARR77 South High Street

- Concourse Level- Columbus, Ohio43215

- (614) 466-4086

- www.jca".state.oh.us

- Page 10

- 11/13/2007/ ........,'''"',

FINALAGENDA ,-.., 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAGENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007-1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINALAGENDA

fingerprint database. New Rule To Be Refiled No 109:5-1-04 Operation and maintenance ofthe retained applicantfingerprint database. 34 Department ofJob and FamilyServices • Division of Social Services Total Rules: 22 Original Filing Date: 9/13/2007 Date ofTo Be Refiled: 10/17/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 10/17/2007 Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-01 Definitions. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-02 Exemptions. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-03 Procedures and registration. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-04 Application and fees forchild daycamp funding approval. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-05 Compliance review. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-06 Issuance and renewal. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-07 Complaint investigation. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-08 Denial and termination. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-09 Environmental health inspections. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-10 Camp personnel. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-11 Personnel training. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-12 Camp supervision. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-13 Camp program. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-14 Field trips. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-15 Health care. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-16 Medication. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-17 Firstaid supplies. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-18 Care ofcampers with disabilities orspecial health conditions. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-19 Admission'procedures. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101 :2-18-20 Camper's records. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-21 Safety. Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-22 Behavior managementof campers. 35 Department ofJob and FamilyServices • Division of Social Services Total Rules: 4 Original Filing Date: 9/13/2007 Date ofTo Be Refiled: 10/17/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: Public Hearing: 10/17/2007 Rule Type Action FYR'? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment To Be Refiled Yes 5101:2-18-23 Medical emergency procedures.

JCARR 77South High Street

- ConcourseLevel- Columbus, Ohio43215

- (614) 466-4086

- www.jcarr.state.oh.us· Page 11

- 1111312007FINAL AGENDA**,~** 

### JOINT COMMITTEEONAbENCYRULEREVIEW 11/13/2007

### -1:30P.M. William McKinley Room (Statehouse Room 121) FINAL AGENDA**~.,....:;""""-**

Amendment To Be Refited Rescission To Be Refiled New Rule To Be Refiled Yes Yes No 5101 :2-18-24 5101 :2-18-25 5101 :2-18-25 Food preparation. Vehicle safety and drivertraining. Vehicle safety and drivertraining in approved child daycamps. 

## Withdrawn 36 DepartmentofJob and FamilyServices• Division of Medical Assistance Total Rules: 1 Original Filing Date: 10/16/2007 Date ofWithdrawn Filing: 10/26/2007 Jurisdiction Ends: Rule Type Action FYR? Rule Number Rule Title Amendment Withdrawn Filing No 5101:3-23-01 Disability medical assistance (DMA) program. Public Hearing: 11/20/2007

JCARR77South High Street· ConcourseLevel· Columbus, Ohio43215· (614) 466-4086· www.jcarr.state.oh.us·Page12·11/13/2007

## ( 

# Appendix F
"Response to Comments" Summaries forthe Draft and Proposed Rule RevisionsI 

## "



# ( 

# CJiIEA\ Division ofAir Pollution Control Response to Comments Draft Rule Language Comment Period
Rules: OAC Chapter3745-17 

### (Particulate MatterStandards) Agency Contactforthis Package: Division Contact: James A. Orlemann, DAPC (614-644-3592; jim.orlemann@epa.state.oh.us) Ohio EPAprovided a3D-day, "interested parties" comment period which ended on May 11, 2007. This documentsummarizesthe comments and questions received during the comment period. Ohio EPA reviewed and considered all ofthe comments received during the public comment period. By law, Ohio EPA has authorityto considerspecific issues related to the protection ofthe environment and public health. In responding tothe comments, the responses have been organized bycommenter. For each commenter, each comment is eitherstated verbatim orsummarized, followed by the Agency's response. 

### A. Entity: Ohio Steel Group (Republic Engineered Products, Inc., WCI Steel, Inc., Mittal Steel USA)



## ( Comment:

Response: In 1991, the Agency revised Chapter 3745-17 to achieve and maintain the NAAQS for PM10. Those revisions were appealed by the Ohio Steel Group. One of the issues raised in the Ohio Steel Group's appeal remains unresolved, and that issue concerns rule 3745-17-07 as it applies to the fugitive dust emissions from BOF shop roof monitors. The Ohio Steel Group believes the application of a 20% opacity limitation, as a 3- minute average, is unreasonable and does not reflect the use of RACT for the fugitive dust emissions from BOFs. The 20% opacity limitation for BOF shop roof monitors should be based upon a 6-minute average; and the Ohio Steel Group believes the 5-year ruIe review for Chapter 3745-17 provides an "excellent opportunity" for the Agency to address and resolve this remaining appeal issue.
The Ohio Steel Group's appeal of Chapter 3745-17 has been pending for 16 years. We do not agree with the contention that 20% opacity, as a 3-minute average, is an unreasonable limitation for BOF shop roof monitors. We believe the limitation is reasonable and is representative of RACT for the control ofRule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 2 of20 

### fugitive dust emissions from BOFs; and our position concerning ( this limitation has been expressed to the Ohio Steel Group on numerous occasions. The 5-year rule review for Chapter 3745- 17 is notthe appropriate mechanism for resolving this remaining appeal issue. We believe the final resolution of this issue will have to be accomplished through ERAC.
B. Entity: Ohio Manufacturer's Association and Ohio Chamberof Commerce Comment:

Response: 

### "The Ohio Manufacturer's Association and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce are pleased to submit these comments in support of Ohio's proposed amendments to OAC 3745-17-11. These proposed amendments are primarily designed to clarify the standards applicable to particulate emissions from surface coating operations at affected sources. In summary, we agree with Ohio EPA's practical approach for addressing surface coating operations as provided in these proposed amendments to OAC 3745-17-11. We urge Ohio EPA to adopt these amendments as expeditiouslyas possible." We appreciate the support for the proposed revisions to OAC rule 3745-17-11. It is our intention to expeditiously proceed with the promulgation of all the necessary revisions for Chapter 3745-17. 

## (

C. Entity: Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, LLC Comment 

### 1: "On April 11, 2007 the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issued an "Interested Parties" notice containing draft language that proposed a rule exemption for Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, LLC ("Martin Marietta") from the requirements of O.A.C. 3745-17-07(A) during the startup and shutdown of lime producing kilns at Martin Marietta'sWoodville, Ohio facility.
In accordance with the enclosed copies of prior submittals regarding this matter on October 2, 2006; August 24, 2006; March 21, 2006; December 15, 2006; and October 14, 2005; Martin Marietta is submitting the following comments on the proposed draft. Our experience has confirmed that the 600 degrees F operating temperature specification provided by the manufacturerof our electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is applicable during both shutdown and startup operations. Thus, Martin Marietta requests that Ohio EPA add the following language to the proposed rule: / \Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 30f20 ( "(iv) The shutdown of any kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), after the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln has dropped below six hundred (600) degrees Fahrenheit atthe inlet ofthe ESP." " Response 1: The October 14, 2005 document is a letterfrom April R. Bott of Chester Willcox & Saxbe LLP, the law firm representing Martin Marietta concerning the proposed revisions of OAC rule 3745- 17-07. In this letter, the company gives its initial recommendations to Ohio EPA for the revisions that should be made to the rule. The following is the company's suggested wording forthe exemption pertaining to an ESP: "(ii) For any kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator, until the kiln is operating in a steady-state condition using solid fuel. Steady-state is present when a stable flame has been established aftersolid fuel has been introduced into the kiln."



## (

( \. No mention is made in this initial letter, or in the accompanying technical support information, for a shutdown exemption for the ESPs based upon temperature. In the affidavit provided by George E. Williams, the facility's Process Engineering Manager, he simply states the following: "Further, utilizing this ESP at lowertemperatures is not effective control since the resistivity of lime dust at the lower temperature does not allow enough particle charge to appropriately capture the emissions." One page of the three pages provided from a document entitled "Solutions. for Problem Dust Collectors," BHA gives a very brief discussion of dust chemistry and resistivity as factors to consider in the performance of an ESP. The discussion states: "Dust collectibility changes when temperature fluctuates." Nothing is specifically stated concerning the ESPs at Martin Marietta's facility. Also, in the first page ofa June 15, 1970 letter from Buell Engineering Company, Inc. to Woodville Lime & Chemical Company the prior owner of the facility, it is stated that one of the "normal operating conditions" for one of the existing kilns is 600 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the extent of the technical support that is included in Martin Marietta's initial request for a shutdown exemption for the ESPs based upon temperature.
The December 15, 2005 document is a letterfrom Joe 

### L. Green of Martin Marietta that responds to the November 17, 2005 questions from the Ohio EPA concerning the company's October 14, 2005 submission. Nothing in this letter addresses the company's need for a shutdown exemption for the ESPs based upon temperature.Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page4 of20



### The March 21, 2006 document is an e-mail from Joe 

### L. Green that responds to the February 22, 2006 questions from the Ohio EPA concerning the company's October 14, 2005 submission. Nothing in this e-mail addresses the company's need for a shutdown exemption forthe ESPs based upon temperature. The August 24, 2006 document is a letter from Joe 

### L. Green that responds to a June 6,2006 request from the Ohio EPA for specific information concerning several issues. Nothing in this letter addresses the company's need for a shutdown exemption forthe ESPs based upon temperature. The October 2, 2006 document is a letterfrom Joe 

### L. Green in which comments are provided concerning a preliminary draft of the proposed revisions to OAC rule 3745-17-07. One of the recommendations in the letter is that Ohio EPA should consider adding the.following language to specifically address the shutdown ofan ESP: "(iv) The shutdown of any kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), after the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln has dropped below six hundred (600) degrees Fahrenheitatthe inletofthe ESP."
This letter contains no information that supports the need for a shutdown exemption for an ESP or that provides the basis for the 600 degrees Fahrenheittemperature exemption level. Although Martin Marietta has requested an exemption for the shutdown of a kiln equipped with an ESP, the company has not provided adequate information to support such a request. When the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln drops below 600 degrees, the efficiency of the ESP in removing particulates from the gas stream may decrease; however, the company has not provided any specific test data to support this contention. Also, assuming there would be a decrease in the efficiency of the ESP as the temperature drops, the company has not provided any information that indicates such a decrease in efficiency would cause the kiln to violate the opacity limitations in OAC rule 3745-17-07. It is very likely that any decrease in efficiency of the ESP would not cause opacity violations because during the shutdown of the kiln the stone feed and fuel firing have ceased, thereby dramatically reducing the uncontrolled particulate emission rate from the kiln. 

## (Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 50f20 

### ( Therefore, further revisions ofOAC rule 3745-17-07 based upon Comment 1 from Martin Marietta would not be appropriate. Comment2: "Martin Marietta is submitting the following comments on the proposed rulemaking, based on recent questions about apparent discrepancies between the Ohio EPA's definitions, specifically the "maximum capacity of a source" specification, and the terminology accepted bythe USEPA under40 CFR Part 63 AAAAA (Lime MACT) for using "representative operating conditions." Therefore, we are enclosing copies of "Comments of the National Lime Association (NLA)" regarding this subject (as setforth on page 25) and the corresponding USEPA "Public Comments and Responses" (showing acceptance of the NLA suggestions on page 3-49) in August 2003. In addition, we believe that a review of these documents may reveal other inconsistencies that would warrant further revision of the proposed rulemaking package, potentially reducing some ofthe differences between the Ohio EPA requirements and USEPA regulatory protocols."


## ( Response 2: The relevance of this comment to OAC Chapter 3745-17, in general, or to the proposed revisions of OAC Chapter 3745-17 is notapparent. The following is the NLA's comment on the proposed MACT regulations that is highlighted by Martin Marietta: "Performance testing should be conducted under "representative" conditions rather than under the "highest production level reasonably expected to occur."" The USEPA's response to this comment, which also is highlighted by Martin Marietta, is: 'We have changed the requirement in the final rule to require testing under representative Conditions, which is in agreement with the language in the General Provisions."
In applying the MACT regulations and determining compliance with those regulations, Ohio EPA would require that performance tests for particulate emissions be conducted while the kiln is operating at representative operating conditions. This approach would not cause a conflict with the requirements of OAC Chapter 3745-17 because the allowable particulate emission rates under the MACT regulations are substantially more stringent than the allowable particulate emission rates underOAC rule 3745-17-11. Therefore, Comment 2 from Martin Marietta does not necessitate anyfurther revisions to OAC Chapter3745-17.Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007
D. Entity: Denison University Page 60f20

Comment:

Response: 

### 'We would like you to consider changing the start-up temperature on baghouses found in Rule OAC 3745-17

- Particulate Matter Standards. The current switch-over temperature standard is too low which could lead to potential safety problems oradditional particulate emissions.
Mr. Charles Schmidt P.E. concurs and has written a letter that provides data and the rationale for making this change. His letterisatlached to this e-mail. By allowing the baghouse to warm up a few extra hours, acids will notform on the bags or other metal surfaces. This will keep the equipment operating at peak efficiency. Mr. Schmidt has calculated that two hours of additional start-up time would release an additional 40 Ibs of particulate peryear based on an average of 4 starts per year. Damaged bags, on the other hand, could potentially release an additional 11,529 Ibs of particulate based upon 8000 tons ofcoal burned peryear."
In Mr. Schmidt's letter he gives the following recommendation: "The baghouse must be bypassed until the flue gas temperature at the baghouse inlet is above 380 degrees F. The higherflue gas is required to minimize the sulfuric acid formation in the weave ofthe bags." OAC rule 3745-17-07(A)(3)(a)(i), which specifies the 250 degrees Fahrenheit exemption threshold, was promulgated in October of 1983. The 250 degrees Fahrenheit temperature is intended to prevent damage to the control equipment as a result of acid deposition, and the value was chosen only after much consultation with USEPA. In the 23 years this exemption has been in effect, there have been essentially no complaints or documentation from the regulated community .that would indicate the existing temperature level is unreasonably low and, as a result, causes damage to the control equipment. Therefore, there does not appear to be a need to increase the temperature exemption level for all affected emissions units. 

### (

Nevertheless, the existing rule does state "thatthe Director may incorporate a higher start-up temperature in the permit or variance for such source forwhich an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that the higher temperature is needed for safety considerations or to prevent damage to the / control equipment." In this case, Denison University has \. recommended or requested a temperature exemption level ofRule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 70f20 

### ( 380 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent damage to their baghouse as a result ofacid deposition; however, no information has been provided to indicate that in complying with an exemption level of 250 degrees Fahrenheit the baghouse has suffered any kind of damage. Absent such information, the Ohio EPA would continue to believe that the 250 degrees Fahrenheit exemption level is adequate to protect the baghouse from damage. If Denison University has additional information to support its position, it should be submitted to the Ohio EPA and it will be reviewed and evaluated, but not as part of this 5-year rule reviewfor OAC Chapter3745-17.
E. Entity: Office ofCompliance Assistance and Pollution Prevention, Ohio EPA



## (

( Comment 1:

Response 1:



### Comment2: "3745-17-11 (A)(1 )(k)
This paragraph exempts processes using "hand-held cup spray guns" and "other hand-held devices" from the particulate control requirements. The use of these terms could lead to considerable confusion and varied interpretations by the field offices since the terms are undefined. Potentially, any manually operated spray gun could be interpreted to be a "hand-held device". As worded, this could potentially exclude all manual spraying operations from the rule. It is suggested that paragraph (A)(1 )(k) simply reference "handheld cup spray guns" and the ambiguous term "other hand-held devices" be deleted but have its intent incorporated into the list of methods in paragraph (A)(1 )(h) using elaborative examples, i.e., spraycans, pads, swabs, oranything non-atomized." The phrase "and other hand-held devices" admittedly is vague and potentially could lead to arguments from the regulated community that no manual spraying operations are subject to the rule. Paragraph (A)(1 )(k) is not intended to exclude all manual spraying operations from the requirements of OAC rule 3745-17-11; therefore, the phrase "and other hand-held devices" will be deleted from paragraph (A)(1 )(k). "3745-17-11 (A)(1 )(j) 

### It is not clear if the intent of this paragraph is to exempt all coating processes that employ airless spray or to exempt only the named examples of coating processes for sealers, adhesives and deadeners. This leads to questions about whether primers, topcoats, and c1earcoats are exempted too ifRule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 8 of20 

### applied by airless equipment. The synopsis states the amount ( of overspray from the airless spray application method is considered to be negligible. Simply wording the exclusion as "surface coating processes that employ airless spray application equipment" would improve clarity." Response 

### 2: Surface coating processes that employ airless spray application methods could be used for many different types of coatings. Sealers, adhesives, and deadeners are mentioned as several examples of such coatings. Airless spray application methods are commonly used for these three types of coatings within automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants. This is not meant to be an exhaustive listing of the possible coatings. Therefore, no changes to the wording of this paragraph are necessary. Comment 3: "3745-17-1 HC)(1)
This paragraph states that any surface coating process not exempt shall be controlled by a dry particulate filter, waterwash, or equivalent control device or devices. It does not state that surface coating operations must take place in a booth, enclosure, or hood so particluate emissions can be contained and routed to such a control device. OCAPP receives many calls from industry about regulations for spray painting operations. One common question is "What are the EPA requirements for a paint booth?". Aside from the issues pertaining to de minimis, permit exemption, or PTIIPTO, the OAC does not specify any design criteria for a booth, enclosure, stack, or even state that a booth is required. How then, is one to know a booth or enclosure is needed? The proposed rule appears to be indirectly requiring a booth because ofthe stated particulate control requirements. The proposed requirements of paragraph (C)(1) do not contain any exemptions for large painting operations done in a building area orother non-booth type environment. Considerthe case of a business that fabricates and paints large steel structural members. The large assemblies are painted in an open area on the plant floor since constructing a large paint booth and maneuvering the assemblies in and out is impractical. By applying 6 gallons per day of VOC-compliant coatings via a single, air-atomized spray gun, this coating operation is violating the proposed rule by not having particulate controls. Are the new proposed requirements intended to apply to this type of coating operation?" 

### (Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 90f20 

## (

( Response 3:



### Comment4: The rule does not contain any specifications for an enclosure that would be used as part of a control system for a surface coating process. An enclosure would be viewed as an integral part of any control system, as would, for example, the exhaust fan. It is assumed that an adequately designed enclosure will be installed for each type of control device so that the control device will be able to function effectively in controlling the particulate emissions from the surface coating process. It does not appear to be necessary to include specifications for an enclosure in the proposed rule. Decisions concerning the design of an enclosure should be leftto the manufacturerofthe control device and the owner/operator of the surface Goating process. For a surface coating process that coats very large items within large buildings, it may not be technically feasible and/or economically reasonable to install an enclosure (or hooding) and control device for the control of the particulate emissions. In such cases, an exemption from the requirements of GAe rule 3745-17-11 (e) would be necessary. To address this possibility, which probably would be very rare, a new exemption will be added to paragraph (A)(1). The new exemption will read as follows: "(I) Surface coating processes for which the owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that, due to the large size of the item(s) being coated, it is technically infeasible and/or economically unreasonable (in terms of costeffectiveness) to employ an enclosure (or hooding) and control device forthecontrol ofthe particulate emissions." "3745-17-11 (e)(2) (c) This paragraph requires the owner or operator to conduct periodic 

### inspections of the control devices to determine whether the devices are operating in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, instructions, or operating manuals. Since 'periodic' is not defined, this will create uncertainly for the operator, inspector, and permit writer as to what is required. (d) This paragraph requires the owner or operatorto document 

### inspections of the equipment. Since the documentation requirements are not defined, this paragraph would also create confusion as to what is required.Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 10of20 

### (e) This paragraph requires the owner or operator to make \ timely repairs of control devices. Again, 'timely' is an ambiguous term that could mean different things to different people. OCAPP recognizes the intent of these provisions is to require companies to maintain and repair control equipment, similar to current permit terms and conditions. However, all of the above paragraphs would promote regulatory inconsistency in permits and inspection activities conducted by the district offices and local airagencies unless the highlighted terms are defined in the rule." Response 4: The wording of paragraph (C)(2)(c) was drafted based upon the assumption that the periodic inspections would be conducted in accordance with the frequency recommended by the manufacturerofthe control device. To ensure that each control device will be inspected at a reasonable frequency, the assumption will be added as a requirement within the rule. Therefore, the following wording will be added to the paragraph afterthe first sentence: "The periodic inspections of each control device shall be performed at a frequency that is based upon the recommendation of the manufacturer of the control device, and the owner or operator shall maintain a copy of the manufacturer's recommended inspection frequency."
In paragraph (C)(2)(d), it would be helpful to clarify what documentation should be maintained for each inspection. Therefore, the sentence will be revised to read as follows: "The owner or operator shall document each inspection of a control device by maintaining a record that includes the date of the inspection, a description of each problem identified and the date it was corrected, a description of the maintenance and repairs performed, and the name of the person who performed the inspection."
In paragraph (C)(2)(e), itwould be difficultto define atime frame within which all types of repairs must be completed. The important concept in this paragraph is that any repairs should be completed promptly. The word "timely" in this paragraph will be changed to "expeditiously" to convey this concept more clearly. The records required by revised paragraph (C)(2)(d) can be reviewed by the field office inspector to determine whether or notthe repairs are being completed expeditiously. 

### (



## (

### ( Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007



### F. Entity: Dave Newsad Page 11 of20

Comment 1: 

### "Here are my observations and questions on the proposed exemption (k).
As you knowthe proposed exemption states, "Surface Coating processes that employ hand held cup spray guns and other hand held devices"
First thing is the proposal does not include the word "only" (note: did notice the similar proposed exemption under (h) includes this term). SO,ifan operation is permitted and employs other equipment such as an air spray gun I would assume the intent is not to exempt the air spray gun portion of the process from 17-11?" Response 1: 

### The assumption is correct. This paragraph would only exempt hand held cup spray guns. 

## ( Comment2: "Second, I noted "cup spray gun" and "other hand held devices" are undefined in the regulation and I looked at the background and synopsis and did notsee this addressed.
With regard to "cup spray guns" I spent a little time seeing if there is an industry definition for this term. I could not find one. Ifthere is one outthere, I suggest adding one in the rule. So I hit a couple of websites and found this http://www.google.com/search?g=spray+cup+guns. From this it looks to me like "cup spray guns" can run up to 2 quarts in volume. I understand some people, such asthe auto industry, use some really small ones (4 oz volume etc.) for repair activities and touch up activities. On the other hand it does not look to me this proposed exemption is just limited to the auto industry. Also, the term "other hand held devices" seems pretty ambiguous? What's the intent here? Seems to me the proposed 5 gallon/day usage exemption (i) ought to cover any very small emitters including the ones under (k) and maybe just dropping (k) altogether would avoid these issues." 

### ( Response 

### 2: A cup spray gun consists simply of a spray gun that is attached directlyto a container that holds a small volume of coating, e.g.,Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 120f20



### one quart. The spray gun and attached container are small enough that they can be carried easily by hand. A hand held cup spray gun is a commonly understood term for the coating equipment manufacturers and the companies that employ such equipment; therefore, it does not appear necessary to have a definition forthis term in this paragraph.
As mentioned in a previous response, the phrase "and other hand-held devices'" admittedly is vague and potentially could lead to arguments from the regulated communitythat no manual spraying operations are subject to the rule. Therefore, the phrase "and other hand-held devices" will be deleted from paragraph (A)(1 )(k).
It is unlikelythat the 5 gallons/day exemption would cover all the processes that would be exempted under paragraph (k); therefore, there would be a need to retain the exemption in paragraph (k). Also, any surface coating process exempted pursuant to paragraph (k) would not be required to maintain records that demonstrate the coating usage is less than 5 gallons/day. Comment 3: "Finally, suggest considering adding something in there about keeping adequate records (not necessarily daily· records) on coating usage to demonstrate the usage is maintained below proposed 5 gallons/day under (i)." 

### (

Response 3: Any owner or operator that claims the 5 gallons/day usage exemption will need to maintain records that demonstrate the actual coating usage complies with the usage exemption. To make this obligation clear, paragraph (i) will be revised to read as follows: "Surface coating processes that use less than five gallons of coatings per day, provided the owner or operator maintains coating usage records, coating purchase records, and/or production records that clearly demonstrate the actual coating usage is less than five gallons perday;" G. Entity: Regional Air Pollution Control Agency Comment 1: "General Comments: RAPCA strongly recommends Ohio EPA take the opportunity during this 5-year rule review process to revise Ch. 17 to address the changes needed in accordance with the S.B. 265 requirements, as well as the PM2
.5 

### nonattainment situation throughout the state of Ohio. The changes to the law as a result of S.B. 265 require the state to establish 

### {Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 130(20 

## (

( specific Best Available Technology (BAT) rules by August, 2009. RAPCA recommends Ohio EPA incorporate into the Ch. 17 rules more stringent requirements that are in line with the BAT requirements that were used in permits for new and modified sources prior to August, 2006. Specifically, RAPCA proposes Ohio EPA incorporate the various BAT emission limitations and restrictions that were included in the General Permit terms and conditions created for ready mix concrete batch plants; unpaved roadways & 

### parking areas; paved roadways & parking areas; and storage piles. Additionally, Ohio EPA should take this opportunity to incorporate BAT emission limitations and restrictions for other particulate emission sources, such as, grinding operations, salt bath processes, shot blasting, topsoil screens, tub grinders, draw-benches and welding operations." Response 1: These suggested revisions are beyond the scope of the 5-year rule review process for Chapter 3745-17. The Ohio EPA has not yet determined what control measures will be required to achieve the PM2.5 NAAQS throughoutthe State. New rules will be developed after the

.necessary control measures for the PM2.5 NAAQS have been defined. In addition, new rules will be necessary to define the BAT requirements for new air contaminant sources. Work on those rules has only recently begun. Comment2: "17-02 (C): Revise the last sentence to "The standards are attained , 

### is less than orequal to one hundred and fifty micrograms percubic meter." This change will also make the sentence more consistentwith paragraphs (0), 

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

### (E), and (F) refer to an ambient air "concentration" in defining when the standards are attained. The second and last sentence in paragraph (C) does not. It refers to the "expected number of days per calendar year" in defining when the standards are attained; therefore, it would not be appropriate to revise the paragraph to specify an ambient air concentration as recommended. Comment3: "17-02 (0): 

### Add 

### percubicmeterto the lastsentence." Response 3: This change is not necessary because paragraph (0) 

### will be deleted. See Comment 2 and Response 2 under Entity

### J.Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 14 of20 

### Comment4: "17-02 (E): In October of 2006, the primary and secondary twenty-four hour standards for PM2
.5 

### were revised to thirty-five micrograms per cubic centimeter. The rule needs to reflect this change." Response 4: The wording of this paragraph, which will become paragraph (D), will be changed to reflect the fact that USEPA has revised the standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms percubic meter. Comment 5: "17-07 (A)(1 )(a) & (b): Reduce the opacity limitfor point sources from twenty percent to ten percent opacity for new installations and/or modified emissions units.
17-07 (8)(1): Reduce the opacity limit for fugitive dust sources from twenty percent to ten percent opacity for new installations and/or modified emissions units.
17-07 (8)(11): Revise 17-07 such that, the opacity requirements apply to all new installations and/or modified emissions units, regardless of location. This would be accomplished by removing the "AppendixA" restriction in the applicability in both 17-07 and 17-08.
17-08 (A)(1): Remove the "Appendix A" restriction for new installations and/or modified emissions units, such that, the restrictions on fugitive dust emissions applies to all areas in the state, regardless of location." Response 5: It appears the intent of these recommendations is to define new opacity and RACM requirements for new air contaminant sources. As explained in the response to the first comment, these types of recommended changes for new air contaminant sources go beyond the scope of the 5-year rule review process for Chapter3745-17. See Response 1. Comment 6: "17-09: Add crematoriums to this rule and also to the definitions in 17-01. Currently there is no specific rule that covers crematoriums. However, we cite this rule in all crematorium permits." 

### (

Response 6: OAC rule 3745-17-09 always has applied to crematoriums. OAC rule 3745-17-01(8)(9) defines "incinerator" as "any equipment used to burn solid refuse " OAC rule**37d45-1d7-~1** 

### (8)(119) defines,"refuse:' as "adny m t attfer**~1'thiCt** 

### h**i~t** 

### to be { re uce In vo ume In 

### or er 0 

### aCI I a e IS

. disposal." Clearly, human and animal remains would fall underRule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 15 of20 

### (

Comment 7: 

### the definition of "refuse." There undoubtedly are ways the definitions could be revised to clarify in a more "politically correct" manner that the particulate emissions from the incineration of human and animal remains are regulated by GAC rule 3745-17-09; however, such a clarification does not appear to be necessary at this time. To date, there has not been a problem in regulating crematoriums under GAC rule 3745-17-09.
"17-10: According to Figure 1, a derated source is allowed to have a higher Ibs/mmBtu rating ifthe total heat input is derated from the source. Revise Figure 1 such that when a source is derated the allowable heat input is decreased."



## ( Response 

### 7: GAC rule 3745-17-10 states that the derated total heat input would be used as the total heat input for purposes of determining the allowable particulate emission rate from Figure I. In addition, paragraph (3)(c) ofthat rule is very clear in stating that if the Director approves a derated total heat input, the "terms and conditions of any permit for equipment which has been granted a derated total heat input value shall prohibit the operation of such equipment at a level in excess of the derated total heat input value." Therefore, the recommended revision ofthis rule does not appearto be necessary. Comment 

### 8: "17-11 (A)(2): Clarifywhetheror notthe emission restrictions, as determined through eitherTable I or Figure II, take into account control device efficiencies." Response 

### 8: Table I gives the allowable particulate emission rate as a ,function of the maximum process weight rate for the air

contaminant source. Figure II gives the allowable particulate emission rate as a function of the uncontrolled mass rate of emission for the air contaminant source or, if applicable, the group of air contaminant sources. If a control device is employed to meet the allowable particulate emission rate from Table I or Figure II, whichever is applicable, the efficiency must be adequate to comply with that emission rate while the source is operating at its maximum capacity. It does not appear that any clarification ofthe use ofTable I or Figure II is necessary. Comment 9: 

### "17-11 (B)(2) & (B)(3): Remove the application of "curve P-2" and "curve P-3" from Figure II. for newly installed and/or modified emissions units after the effective date of this rule revision."Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 16 of20 Response 

### 9: Implementation of this recommended change would cause the ( allowable particulate emission rates from OAC rule 3745-17-11 to become more stringent for new air contaminant sources located in the counties specified in paragraphs (8)(2) and (8)(3). As explained in the response to the first comment, these types of recommended changes for new air contaminant sources go beyond the scope of the 5-year rule review process for Chapter 3745-17. See Response 1.
H: Entity: FirstEnergy Corporation Comment 1: 

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

### The definition of "particulate matter" hasn't changed. We added definitions for "PM2.5" and "PM10" and deleted the definition for "total suspended particulates." OAC rule 3745-17-02 now only refers to "PM2.5" and "PM10;" therefore, there no longer is a need for a definition for "total suspended particulates." Comment 

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

### 2: This definition was changed only in format. "AppendixA" is now included in the "Incorporation by reference" section, in paragraph (C)(2)(i). That paragraph refers to the current effective date ofthe CFR.


### I. Entity: Ford MotorCompany 

## (

Comment: 

### "Given the announced plans to shut down CCP by the end of 2009, Ford Motor Company withdraws our comments regarding OAC 3745-17-12(1) filed by E-mail May 10, 2007 and instead requests that the proposed rules be retained with minor amendment to reflect current (and anticipated based on our current plans) operations at CCP. Given our recent discussions, we believe that this approach (retaining rules (1)(50) and (51) and making minimal regulatory change to the other paragraphs) will provide adequate flexibility for CCP over the next couple ofyears. We have attached marked-up versions ofdraft rules 3745-17-12 and 3745-17-04 for consideration in the current rules update process. The suggested changes are shown in green font with double underline for additions and double strikethrough for deletions in the attached files. 

## (

### ( Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007
3745-17-12(1) Page 17 of20



## ( (7) Sources F024, P091, & P092 added since part oftheir emissions were rerouted to A-Unit Baghouse when KOH Collector No.5 was shutdown. (7) P044 has been removed. (7)(a) Sources F024, P091, & 

### P092 added since part of their emissions are ducted to A-Unit Baghouse. (7)(a) A unit baghouse allowable concentration changed from 0.011 to 0.010 grain/acfto be consistent with limits in paragraph (4) for F024, P091, and P092. Stack test data supports this capabilityforthe baghouse. (9) Added "associated with cupola Nos. 1 and 7" for clarity. (21) P148 (mold conveyor) added, "casting" added to clearly describe P149 (casting shakeout), and "muller" replaced with "preparation" to match Title V description ofsource P158. (30) "Castings cooler" replaced with "casting cooling" to be consistentwith Title V equipmentterminology. (44) P099 (core curing oven) has been removed. (48) Added tapping operations associated with P901 and P902 since these sources also use stack G-36.
3745-17-04(8) 

### (6) a, e, f, and g The effective dates were adjusted for the sections of3745-17-12(1) forwhich changes are proposed." Response: All of the additional rule revisions recommended by the Ford Motor Company are acceptable and will be added to OAC rules 3745-17-04 and 3745-17-12(1).

/ i'. 

### J. Entity: USEPA, Region 5 Comment 1: "-01

- paragraphs (B)(15) and (B)(16) are somewhat confusing, especially to those of us that are used to designations being something else. I suggest the following wording, for (B)(15) as an example: (15) "PM2.5" means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as measured either by a reference method that is based on 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L and designated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53 or by an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53." (The wording in bold print is the recommended new wording.) Response 1: The proposed wording changes are acceptable; therefore, paragraphs (B)(15) and (B)(16) will be revised accordingly.Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 18 of20 

### Comment2: "-02(D)

- We rescinded the annual PM10 standard, and Ohio maywish to rescind the annual standard from the State rule." I \


### Response 2: Because USEPA has rescinded the annual ambient air quality standard for PM10, paragraph (D) will be deleted, and proposed paragraphs (E) and (F) will be changed to paragraphs (D) and (E), respectively. Comment 3: "-02(E)

- The 24-hour standard for PM2.5 is 35 ug/m3, not 65 ug/m3." Response 3: This revision will be made to what will become paragraph (D). See Comment4 and Response 4for Entity G. Comment4: "-03(A)

- Ambient PM2.5 is reported at local conditions, not standard conditions. The provision for adjustment to standard conditions applies onlyto PM10." Response 4: This difference in the measurement procedures for PM2.5 and PM10 requires a change in the wording of the second sentence in paragraph (A). That sentence will be revised to read as follows: "Such measurements for PM10 shall be corrected to standard conditions for purposes of comparing measurements with the ambient air quality standards set forth in rule 3745-17-02 of the Administrative Code."
The newwording in the sentence is shown in bold print. Comment 5: "-03(B)(10)(c) - I suspectthatyou need to retain the reference to the 15th edition. I'm not sure that subsequent editions have the propertest method; they may not have the method at aiL" Response 5: The 20th 

### Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater is now referenced in paragraph (C)(2)(t) of rule 3745-17-01. Total dissolved solids is a very common test for wastewater; therefore, this test procedure would be included in any updated editions of the reference book. Because the edition number is cited in rule 3745-17-01, it is no longer necessary to cite that number in paragraph (B)(10)(c) of rule 3745-17-03. Comment 6: "-07(A)(3)U) - I have of course not reviewed the justification for opacity exemptions for Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties. I am consulting someone here that is more knowledgeable on the subject, and I will provide additional comments soon." 

### (



## (Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 190'20 

## (



## ( Response 

### 6: If USEPA has comments on the proposed opacity exemptions, they can be submitted after the proposed rulemaking for Chapter3745-17 is issued. Comment 

### 7: "-11

- The surface coating provisions seem like a reasonable approach forthis type ofsource." Response 

### 7: (No response is necessaryforthis comment.) Comment 

### 8: "-12 - I have no comments on the particular provisions for Ford. We have been having separate discussions regarding Ford. I encourage Ohio to obtain the information needed to address whether the revisions might interfere with attainment. I will continue to engage in discussions regarding this issue, and I encourage Ohio to continue to pursue resolution of this issue and to incorporate the results into 3745-17-12 in this rulemaking if possible." Response 

### 8: The Ford Motor Company has modified its comments on the proposed revisions to OAC rules 3745-17-04 and 3745-17-12. See the comments and response for the Ford Motor Company [Entity I.] The modified comments eliminate the need for a demonstration that the rule revisions will not jeopardize the PM10 attainment demonstration for Cuyahoga County. Comment 9: "-13 - I have no comments other than to note that the acceptability of the justification will largely depend on the acceptability of the revised modeling analysis, along with a demonstration that the result that applies for PM10 (Le., noninterference with attainment) also applies for PM2.5."



### ( Response 

### 9: A modeling analysis has been performed that demonstrates that the proposed, revised emission limitations for Wheeling

- Pittsburgh Steel Corporation do not jeopardize the PM10 attainment demonstration for Jefferson County. That modeling demonstration will be provided to USEPA for review. Concerning PM2.5 emissions, all the significant sources of PM2.5 emissions that are currently cited in paragraph (C) forthe Steubenville facility have been permanently shut down. Also, several of the significant sources of PM2.5 emissions that are currently cited in paragraph (0) for the Mingo Junction facility have been permanently shut down; several other significant sources cited in the paragraph have revised allowable emission limitations that are more stringent 

### than the existing limitations; and only two sources cited in the paragraph have revised allowable emission limitations that are less stringent than theRule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- DraftRule Language September12, 2007 Page 200(20 

### existing limitations. Therefore, the proposed revisions for paragraphs (C) and (D) will not exacerbate the PM2.5 nonattainment problem for Jefferson County. Nevertheless, more detailed information will be provided to USEPA to demonstrate the impact of the proposed rule revisions on the PM2.5 ambient airquality. Comment 10: 

### "-14

- As noted above, we no longer have an annual average PM10 standard. This raises the question whether to retain a contingency measure trigger based on annual PM10 concentrations. Call me or email me ifyou would like to discuss this question further." Response 10: 

### Because the annual PM10 standard has been rescinded by USEPA, paragraph (C) of rule 3745-17-14 will be revised to delete the references to the annual average ambient air concentration as a possible "trigger" for implementation of the contingency measures required in paragraph (A) ofthe rule.



### (

## ( Division ofAir Pollution Control Response to Comments Proposed Rule Language Comment Period
Rules: OAC Chapter3745-17 (Particulate MatterStandards) Agency Contactforthis Package:
Division Contact: James A. Orlemann, DAPC (614-644-3592; jim.orlemann@epa.state.oh.us)
Ohio EPA provided a 3Q,-day, comment period forthe proposed rules which ended on October 19, 2007. This document summarizes the comments received during the comment period.
Ohio EPA reviewed and considered all ofthe comments received during the public comment period. By law, Ohio EPA has authorityto consider specific issues related to the protection ofthe environment and public health.
Each comment is stated verbatim, followed bythe Agency's response. A. Entity: Environmental Committee ofthe Ohio Electric Utilities Comment 1: Clarify OAC 3745-17-03(C)
The current language in OAC 3745-17-03(C) is potentially confusing regarding the Ohio SIP requirements forexisting sources. Read in avacuum, it could convey a misleading impression as to the scope and breadth ofthe requirements to install continuous opacity monitors ("COMs"). Ohio EPAcan clarifythese requirements, either by revising lherule or providing a "comment" explaining the rule and reference to Appendix P. Appendix P, as referenced in OAC 3745-17-03(C), applies to regulatory programs in a state SIP adopted pursuantto 40 CFR 51.165(b). 40 CFR 51.165 Permit Requirements or, more specifically, 40 CFR 51.165(b)(1), dictates the minimum terms thatthe rules ofa state preconstruction review permit program must require in all new majorstationarysource or major modification permits issued underthe state's program. Appendix P literallystates that any new major stationarysource oranysource subjectto a major modification applying for and obtaining a preconstruction permitfrom a state permit program must install and operate a COM if it meets the applicability requirements laid out in the Appendix. Any existing source, new minorsource, orsource not meeting the applicability requirements in Appendix P does not have an obligation to install and operate a COM, either underthe Appendix orthe Ohio SIP.Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- ProposedRule Language November13, 2007 Page 2 of3
When first proposed in 1985-1986, U.S. EPA intended Appendix P to ( applyto existing sources. The Appendix originally referenced 40 CFR 51.19(e) which, atthat time, made COMs a requirementforsources meeting Appendix P's applicabilitysection in the state. However, in the November7,1986 rulemaking, 51 FR 40656, U.S. EPA removed the reference to 40 CFR 51.19(e) and changed itto 40 CFR 51.165(b) instead. Hence, the Appendix as referenced in the current Ohio SIP, as of 1994, only applies to newor modified sources. Prior existing sources are not "subjectto" Appendix P. Ohio EPAshould consider revising the current language (specifically referencing the limitation to new majorsources or major modifications and additional applicability criteria in Appendix P) oradd a comment to clarifythis question of applicability. This clarification will not result in the use offewer COMs in the utility sector, since most ofthese operations still have an obligation to install and operate COMs under40 CFR Part 75. However, the requirements for COM installation, certification, exemptions, etc. under40 CFR Part 75 are more up to date than the historic requirements ofAppendix P, and this clarification will avoid any potential misinterpretation orconflict between these existing programs. Existing utility units are currently required to complywith, and onlywith, the Part 75 requirements. The Ohio rules should reflect that. Response 1:
As stated in rule 3745-17-03(C)(1), any emissions unitthat is subjectto 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix P, must operate and maintain a continuous opacity monitoring system. Rule 3745-17-01 clarifies thatthe version ofAppendix P cited in rule 3745-17-03 is the version thatwas amended on November7, 1986 (at 51 FR40675). Thatversion ofAppendix P "sets forth the minimum requirements forcontinuous emission monitoring that each State Implementation Plan must include in orderto be approved underthe provisions of40 CFR 51.165(b)." 40 CFR 51.165(b) pertains to "any new majorstationarysource or major modification." In addition, 40 CFR 51.214 requires existing sources to meet the requirements ofAppendix P. 40 CFR 51.214(a) states the following: "The plan must contain legallyenforceable procedures to: (1) Require stationary sources subjectto emission standards as part ofan applicable plan to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate equipmentfor continuously monitoring and recording emissions; and (2) Provide other information as specified in appendix P ofthis part." Appendix P is not applicable only newsources as indicated in the comment; therefore, no revisions to the wording in OAC rule 3745-17-03 are necessary. (The applicabilityofAppendix P to both newand existing sources also was confirmed by USEPA, Region 5.) Comment 2: Revise OAC 3745-17-10
The second clarification Ohio EPAshould make is the inclusion ofan explicit "start up/shut down" exemption for PM emissions. Such an exemption is consistent with the requirements for newand modified sources under40 CFR 

### (



## (Rule Package: Chapter3745-17 (5-yearrule review) Response to Comments

- ProposedRule Language November13, 2007 Page 3 0(3



## ( 60.8, and existing sources have been required to demonstrate compliance under the existing Ohio SIP requirements during "representative normal operating conditions" using the same Reference Method testing requirements forthese limitations. Such tests cannot be performed during startup/shutdown. The Ohio SIP should make this clarification explicitly. OAC 3745-17-07(A)(3) currently articulates this exemption forsources subjectto the opacity requirements used as indicators ofgood performance forthe particulate emission control equipment. Ohio EPAshould incorporate this language into OAC 3745-17-10.
UnderOhio's current SIP, the only method of measuring compliance with the PM limits is the prescribed Reference Method5 stacktest, set out in OAC 3745-17-03. The Reference Method prohibits the performance ofa stacktest during start up orshutdown. However, additional methods have been approved by U.S. EPAand, in the future, the installation ofother measuring techniques or devices may become more prevalent. Such alternative devices or methods may, in fact, be capable oftaking measurements orgathering data during start up/shutdown despite the inapplicability ofthat data, much as COMs do currently. In that circumstance, the Ohio SIP should be clearthat such data are not indicative ofcompliance, as the PM limits do not apply during these time periods. Ohio EPAshould take the current language in OAC 3745-17-07(A)(3) and repeat it in OAC 3745-17-10. This is consistent with the usage and application of the current Reference Method used to determine compliance with the Ohio SIP limits, as well as 40 CFR 60.8. Itwould avoid confusion aboutthe use ofany data collected byfuture devices and make the installation ofalternative techniques less daunting or risky. 

### Response 2:
The Ohio EPA does not require emission tests to be performed during startup orshutdown conditions. Such conditions would not be representative of the normal operating mode for an emissions unit. Compliance demonstrations typically are performed while an emissions unit is operating at or near its maximum capacity so that the emission test results reflect the worst case emission rates. This has been the Agency's practice for decades. Ifcontinuous particulate emission monitors are used in the future for direct compliance purposes, we would not expect ourconsideration ofstartup and shutdown conditions to change. Therefore, atthis time, we do notsee a need to add wording to the rule to clarify howcompliance demonstrations should be performed and howstartup and shutdown should be considered. Nordo we see a need to clarify howcontinuous emission monitoring datafrom startup or shutdown periods should be evaluated in determining the compliance status of an emissions unit. We do not believe there is or has been a problem that would warrant such clarifying wording.

12/05/07