ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

December 15,

1988

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

RES 88—4

35

ILL.

ADM. CODE

201,

)

R 87—38

SUBPARTS J

& L (Self—Monitoring)

RESOLUTION

IN RESPONSE TO JCAR OBJECTION.

RESOLUTION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.D.

Dumelle):

This Resolution

and Order constitutes

the Pollution Control

Board’s

(Board)

formal response

to the November

15,

1988

Statement

Of Objection issued by the Joint Committee on

Administrative Rules

(JCAR).

Section 7.06(c)

requires that

an

Agency respond within 90 days of such objection.

Section 7.06(c)

of the APA states

that an Agency may modify the proposed rule

or

amendment(s)

to meet the Joint Committee’s Objection or withdraw

the proposed rule or amendment

in its entirety

or may refuse

to

modify or withdraw the proposed rule or

amendment.

For the

reasons set forth below the Board hereby refuses

to modify or

withdraw the proposed rules.

The JCAR objection reads,

in pertinent part,

as follows:

“....

the Board could have provided the Joint

Committee with

a more detailed analysis of the

economic effects

of these

rules.

Although

only the monitors are required by the rules,

the other costs associated with installation

can vary,

and specific examples were provided

to the Board by facilities

that are already in

compliance.

The Board also knew what

facilities would have

to install monitors and

boilers as

a result

of these

rules,

and

the

number of monitors and boilers required at

each facility.”

The Board strongly disagrees with the JCAR Objections.

Question A(l)

of the Agency Analysis Of Economic And Budgetary

Effects

Of Proposed Rulemaking

asks questions regarding the

effect of the proposed rule on the tegulated community.

The

Board,

seeking

to answer the question in the most comprehensive

manner,

fairly stated that any economic impact would be different

for each facility depending on whether extensive

infrastructure

construction

is needed

or

not.

Obviously,

different plants and

facilities, with different characteristics will encounter

different costs of

installation.

Nonetheless,

the Board notes

that some actual,

discrete dollar figures were submitted

at

hearing but were

not set forth

in the answer

to question A(l).

94—263

---

—2—

In addition,

the Board notes that this rulemaking

is

a joint

proposal by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the

Illinois

Manufacturers Association

and the Citizens

For.. A Better

Environment.

Government,

industry and environmental groups were

all represented and have forged

a consensus manifested.:•in the

proposed

rule.

Similarly this proposal

is the resultof-à

federal lawsuit which,

by way of

settlement agreement,

re.quires

adoption of the proposed rule.

C.B.E.

et

al.

v.

USE?A,~8O..C 0003

US

Dist.

Court

(N.D.

Illinois).

Refusal

to adopt the-proposed

rule would undermine

the consensus reached,

nullify- the’agreed

settlement

in the federal lawsuit, result

in vastly ~nef-ficient

use of scarce resources and make government regulation~of..certain

air pollution sources more difficult

and costly.

The Board does not take

a Joint Committee Objection

lightly.

Section

7.06

of the APA sets forth the un~tvers•e~of

possible Board responses.

As neither modification

fl0f

withdrawal

of the proposed rule

is practical,

the Board’s on1y~recourse. is

to refuse

to modify

(although that

is not an accuraL~estatement)

the proposed rules.

The Board regrets

that this

is -thecase, but

believes that

it

is

in the best

interests of the state

to do-so.

IT

IS SO RESOLVED.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

of the Illinois. Pollu.tion’:Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

the

above R~plution and

Ordet-

was

adopted~n the

_____________

day of

~

,

1988:-by a vote

of

__________

Dorothy M./Gunn, Clerk

Illinois pollution Control Board

94—264