ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    24,
    1974
    IN
    THE
    MATTER
    OF THE PETITION OF THE
    ILLINOIS STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
    )
    R72-2
    FOR STAY
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Henss)
    The Illinois State Chamber of Commerce filed Motion for Stay
    of the Noise Regulations
    (R72—2)
    on October 19,
    1972.
    The Motion
    for Stay
    is denied.
    We agree with the Attorney General
    that Petitioner does not
    having standing to attack the Regulation.
    The Illinois State Chamber
    of Commerce is not in the same position as the trade associations,
    such
    as the Railroad Association or the Forging Industry Association.
    The trade associations are legitimately able to contend that they
    represent companies which are similar in nature and that all of
    those companies
    are adversely affected by the Regulation.
    An appeal
    by
    a trade association seems to us
    to be a sound method of debating
    issues,
    since the trade associations represent companies which have
    common problems and technology.
    The State Chamber of Commerce,
    on the other hand, claims to
    represent the “interests of businessmen in Illinois”.
    The Chamber
    contends that the Noise Regulation threatens the business climate
    and,
    indirectly, the operating revenues of Petitioner.
    Apparently
    this sweeping assertion would include the railroads and forge shops
    (which already are conducting
    a separate appeal)
    in addition to
    businessmen who might favor the Noise Regulation,
    i.e.
    retailers of
    insulation or noise measuring equipment or businessmen involved in
    health care.
    When the Chamber speaks on appeal,whom shall it
    represent?
    Is Petitioner really speaking for hospital managers, for
    instance?
    Or does Petitioner just represent part of
    the. business
    interests?
    And which part?
    We
    believe that the issues involved in the Noise Regulation
    are sufficient without the additional confusion injected by Petitioner.
    The issues will be more easily resolved if each appellant is in
    position to advise the Court regarding its individual
    technology and
    any difficulties which it might have in complying with the Regulation.
    11—61
    —2--
    Further,
    it appears that Petitioner would stay the effect of
    this Regulation as
    to all business interests
    in Illinois without
    even identifying the hardships
    the various business interests
    might have in complying with the Regulation.
    It may be true that
    some hardship exists.
    It probably also
    is true that some businesses
    are already in compliance and others will be able to comply with
    very little effort.
    How are we
    to determine which businesses are
    to receive
    a stay.
    In short,
    we feel Petitioner lacks standing and the Motion
    for Stay is inadequate.
    IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Stay be denied.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, here~ycertify
    the above Opinion and Order was ado ted
    this
    ~
    day of~dr~L~d
    ,
    1974 by
    a vote of ____to
    p
    •11
    —62

    Back to top