ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    25, 1987
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    )
    NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
    )
    R87-3
    STANDARDS
    )
    R87-4
    RESOLUTION IN RESPONSE TO JCAR OBJECTION
    RESOLUTION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelle):
    This matter comes before the Board upon a June 3,
    1987,
    Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) Objection to
    rulemaking.
    The Pollution Control Board, by this resolution and
    order,
    respectfully declines to modify the New Source Performance
    Standards,
    35
    Ill. Adm. Code 230.440 and 230.Appendix A in
    response to the objection of JCAR.
    This response is made in
    accordance with Section 7.07 of the Illinois Administrative
    Procedure Act (“APA”).
    A notice of refusal
    to modify will be
    timely filed with the Secretary of State for publication
    in the
    Illinois Register.
    The JCAR objection of June 3,
    1987,
    reads
    in pertinent part,
    as follows:
    The
    Joint
    Committee
    objects
    to
    Sections
    230.440
    and
    230 Appendix A of
    the Pollution
    Control
    Board’s
    peremptory
    rulemaking
    entitled
    “New
    Source
    Performance
    Standards”
    (35
    Ill.
    Adm.
    Code 230)
    because, contrary to
    Section
    5.03
    of
    the
    Illinois Administrative
    Procedure
    Act,
    the
    Board
    did
    not
    file
    the
    notice
    of
    peremptory
    rulemaking
    within
    30
    days after a change in rules was required.
    The rationale for the objection is summarized
    as follows:
    1.
    Section
    5.03
    of
    the
    APA
    states
    that
    peremptory
    rulemaking may be adopted by
    an
    agency
    when
    rulemaking
    is
    required
    “as
    a
    result
    of
    federal
    law,
    federal
    rules and
    regulations,
    or an order
    of a
    court”;
    2.
    Section
    5.03
    of
    the
    APA
    states
    that,
    “the
    agency
    shall
    file
    the notice
    of
    peremptory
    rulemaking
    with
    the
    Secretary of State
    within 30 days after
    a change
    in rules
    is required;”
    7g.590

    —4—
    3.
    The New Source Performance Standards,
    35
    Ill Adm. Code 230.440 and 230.Appendix A
    appeared
    in
    the
    Federal
    Register
    on
    February
    17,
    1987
    (Vol.
    52,
    No.
    31,
    p.
    4773)
    and February 19,
    1987
    (Vol.
    52 No.
    33,
    p.
    5105)
    respectively;
    4.
    These
    two
    peremptory
    amendments
    were
    filed
    with
    the
    Secretary
    of
    State
    on
    April 15,
    1987,
    i.e.
    after
    30 days after
    publication
    in the Federal Register;
    5.
    Therefore,
    these
    rulemakings
    do
    not
    constitute
    a
    valid
    use
    of
    peremptory
    rulemaking authority.
    First,
    the Board questions the accuracy of JCAR’s
    interpretation of the applicable statutes that a peremptory
    amendment must be filed with the Secretary of State within 30 days
    after publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
    The Board
    recognizes the APA’s statement that notice shall
    be filed “within
    30 days after
    a change
    in rules is required.” However,
    the APA
    does not state with clarity when such change
    is required.
    For
    guidance as to when the change
    is required,
    the Board notes that
    Section 9.1(c) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act sets
    forth
    the authority and procedures for adopting peremptory
    amendments to Sections 111 and 112
    of the Clean Air Act.
    The
    schedule the Board
    is to follow in adopting and filing these
    peremptory amendments is expressly set forth.
    Section 9.1(c)
    mandates that, at the “next scheduled Board meeting following
    promulgation of the corresponding federal regulations,” the Board
    adopt by resolution the peremptory amendment and then file the
    amendment with the Secretary of State “in accordance with the
    IAPA
    within 60 days thereafter.”
    The Board believes, therefore,
    that the change in rules
    is required 60 days after the next
    scheduled Board meeting following promulgation of the rule in the
    Federal Register.
    The Board understands the basis for JCAR’s position, but
    points out the seeming inconsistency in the statutory provisions
    relating
    to the filing of these peremptory amendments.
    The Board
    believes that Section 9.1(c)
    of the Act provides the more
    reasonable schedule
    in which to promulgate these amendments.
    While
    the Board endeavors
    to hold bi—weekly meetings when
    practicable, Section 5(c) of the Act requires the Board to hold at
    least one meeting a month.
    It is conceivable that the 30 day
    period,
    as advocated by JCAR,
    could fall entirely between Board
    Meetings such that it would
    be impossible for the Board to adopt
    the required rule.
    The ability of meeting a 30—day deadline is
    further diminished by the fact that the Board does not receive the
    Federal Register until days after
    its publication date, depending
    on the mails.
    Section 9.1(c)
    recognizes the time constraints
    involved
    in
    this process and authorizes a reasonable time for the
    Board to prepare, adopt, and file these amendments.
    Furthermore,
    78-591

    —3—
    the Board believes that the specifically prescribed schedule of
    Section 9.1(c)
    controls over the generally applicable Section
    5.03.
    It
    is
    a fundamental principle of statutory construction
    that where two rules may both apply,
    the more specific rule
    prevails.
    Section 5.03 of the APA is a rule of general
    applicability
    ——
    it applies to all administrative agencies of the
    State.
    Section 9.1(c) of the Act, however, applies only to the
    Board in a specifically prescribed manner.
    Therefore, Section
    9.1(c) controls.
    Second,
    the Board declines to modify these amendments because
    the only remedy would be to follow regular rulemaking procedures
    which,
    for this type of proceeding, would be unreasonably costly
    to the public, unnecessarily time consuming for the Board and
    apparently against the expressed intent of
    the General Assembly.
    Section 9.1(a) of the Act states:
    The General Assembly
    finds
    that
    the
    federal
    Clean
    Air
    Act,
    as
    amended,
    and
    regulations
    adopted
    pursuant
    thereto
    establish
    complex
    and
    detailed
    provisions
    for
    State—federal
    cooperation
    in
    the
    field
    of
    air
    pollution
    control,
    provide
    for
    a
    Prevention
    of
    Significant Deterioration program to regulate
    the
    issuance
    of
    preconstruction
    permits
    to
    insure
    that economic growth will
    occur
    in
    a
    manner
    consistent
    with
    the
    preservation
    of
    existing
    clean
    air
    resources,
    and
    also
    provide
    for
    plan
    requirements
    for
    nonattainment
    areas
    to
    regulate
    the
    construction,
    modification
    and
    operation
    of
    sources
    of
    air
    pollution
    to
    insure
    that
    economic
    growth
    will
    occur
    in
    a
    manner
    consistent
    with
    the
    goal
    of
    achieving
    the
    national
    ambient
    air
    quality
    standards,
    and
    that the General Assembly cannot conveniently
    or
    advantageously set
    forth
    in
    this Act
    all
    the
    requirements
    of
    such federal Act or
    all
    regulations
    which
    may
    be
    established
    thereunder.
    Is
    is
    the
    purpose
    of
    this Section
    to
    avoid
    the
    existence of duplicative, overlapping or
    conflicting
    State
    and
    federal
    regulatory
    systems.
    To avoid duplicative, overlapping or conflicting State and
    federal regulatory systems,
    the General Assembly authorized the
    adoption of regulations “in substance identical” to the federal
    regulations.
    The General Assembly’s intent seems
    clear:
    it
    wanted a regulatory system for New Source Performance Standards
    (NSPS)
    and National Emission Standards
    for Hazardous Air
    Pollutants (NESHAPS) consistent with the federal system,
    but it
    did not want the Board
    to incur
    the expense,
    in time and money,
    78-592

    —4—
    associated with general rulemaking proceedings.
    The General
    Assembly realized that it would be inefficient to go through the
    motions of regular rulemaking,
    with First Notice comment period
    and Second Notice JCAR review,
    where the final outcome was
    statutorily preordained.
    In short,
    the General Assembly
    authorized the peremptory amendment process for NSPS and NESHAPS
    amendments,
    in the first instance, to avoid regular rulemaking
    proceedings.
    These same considerations apply where strict adherence to
    the formalities
    of adopting peremptory amendments has not been
    achieved.
    The Board has demonstrated time and again
    a good faith
    approach to adopting and filing these amendments.
    On occasion,
    strict compliance with the schedule is not attainable.
    In these
    instances, however, the Board believes that
    it acts within the
    spirit of the law.
    Surely the General Assembly did not intend to
    require regular rulemaking formalities as
    a remedy where its
    original objective was to avoid those formalities altogether.
    So
    long as rules identical in substance to the federal regulations
    are adopted
    in an efficient manner, the intent of the General
    Assembly is accomplished.
    It therefore appears contrary to the General Assembly’s
    intent
    to recommend the adoption of these NSPS amendments via
    regular
    rulemaking proceedings.
    It would accomplish nothing more
    than has already been accomplished.
    The goal is to incorporate
    the federal NSPS and NESHAPS rules
    into Board rules as
    efficiently as possible, and that has been done.
    The Board
    is
    certainly dedicated
    to an effective, efficient system of
    regulation, and to that end will endeavor to adopt and file these
    peremptory amendments as swiftly as possible.
    But the Board
    concludes that it would
    be inappropriate to adopt these
    statutorily required amendments via regular rulemaking,
    as JCAR
    recommends.
    The Board therefore,
    respectfully declines to modify
    the amendments
    in response to JCAR’s Objection.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Resolution and Order was
    adopted on the
    _______________
    day of
    _____________,
    1987 by a vote
    of
    ~—
    /
    lution Control Board
    78-593

    Back to top