ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

NOTICE
INFORMATIONAL DEFICIENCIES
CONCLUSION

March 17, 2005

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY

FOR AN ADJUSTED STANDARD FROM

35 ILL. ADM. CODE 218.586

)

AS 05-5

Adjusted Standard - Air

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.P. Novak):

On February 25, 2005, Ford Motor Company (Ford) filed a filed a petition (Pet.) for an

adjusted standard from the Board’s organic material emission standards applicable to motor

vehicle fueling operations in the Chicago area. Specifically, Ford “petitions the Board to grant it

an adjusted standard from the provisions for Stage II vapor recovery (Stage II), codified at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code § 218.586, and to require, in place of Stage II vapor recovery, that Ford comply with

the standards of the federal onboard refueling vapor recovery regulations (ORVR).” Pet. at 1.

Ford owns a motor vehicle assembly plant, the Chicago Assembly Plant (Plant), located

at 12600 South Torrence Avenue in Chicago. Pet at 3. Final assembly “includes providing the

vehicle with sufficient fuel to be moved from the assembly area to a holding area prior to

transport to the customer.”

. Under a Title V permit issued through the Clean Air Act Permit

Program, Ford is allowed annually to dispense as much as 3.93 million gallons of gasoline at the

Plant.

The Board’s regulations provide that specified operations dispensing gasoline must

install, use, and maintain a vapor collection and control system certified by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB). 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.586(c); Pet. at 1. Ford reports that it installed

a Stage II vapor recovery system at the Plant before the adoption of Section 218.586 and then

upgraded it to meet CARB standards in 1994. Pet. at 4. Ford further reports that “[t]he existing

system utilizes a specialized gasoline-dispensing nozzle that is designed to capture any displaced

gasoline vapor from the motor vehicle tank during the initial filling operation and to route the

captured vapors through a pipeline to an afterburner (flare) located on the roof of the plant. The

afterburner ignites and combusts the vapors, using natural gas as a supplemental fuel as

necessary.”

. Although Ford states that “[u]ncontrolled emissions from the initial fueling

would be approximately 22 tons of volatile organic material (VOM) per year,” the use of Stage II

vapor control measures removes approximately 21 tons per year.

. Ford states that “[t]he

Stage II vapor recovery system at the Plant is nearing the end of its life (

.), and it estimates that

a replacement system would require $81,538 in annual costs. Pet. at 6.

Ford notes that, as required by the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(6)), all motor

vehicles manufactured by Ford at the Plant are now equipped with ORVR systems recovering at

least 95% of vapors displaced during fueling. Pet. at 2, 4. “ORVR is designed to draw or retain

displaced gasoline vapors in the car’s carbon canister.” Pet. at 4. “Over time, as the engine runs,

the vapors are desorbed by engine heat and used as fuel for the engine.” Pet. at 7. Ford argues

that operating two separate vapor recovery systems causes them to compete with one another and

makes both less effective.

. Ford concludes that “the control achieved by the ORVR-equipped

vehicles assembled at the Plant is at worst equivalent to and at best better than the existing Stage

II system used to satisfy the requirements of Section 218.586.” Pet. at 8.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) has not yet filed its

recommendation on the adjusted standard petition.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.416. Ford

requests that the Board hold a hearing on its petition in order to satisfy the public participation

requirements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Pet. at 10.

In this order, the Board first determines whether Ford has satisfied the statutory notice

requirement for adjusted standard petitions.

See

35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408; 35 Ill. Adm. Code

104.410. The Board then identifies informational deficiencies in Ford’s petition and directs Ford

to address specific deficiencies at hearing.

NOTICE

Section 28.1(d)(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2002))

and Section 104.408(a) of the Board’s procedural rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408(a) (quoting

the Act)) require the adjusted standard petitioner to publish notice of the filing of the petition by

advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the area likely to be affected by the

proposed adjusted standard. Publication must take place within 14 days after the petition is filed.

See, e.g.

In re

Petition of SCA Tissue North American, L.L.C. for an Adjusted Standard from 35

Ill. Adm. Code 218.301 and 218.302(c), AS 05-1 (Jan. 6, 2005) (dismissing petition for adjusted

standard for lack of jurisdiction when publication of notice occurred after the 14-day period).

The newspaper notice must indicate that any person may cause a public hearing to be

held on the proposed adjusted standard by filing a hearing request with the Board within 21 days

after publication. 415 ILCS 5/28.1 (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.408(b). Within 30 days after

filing the petition, the petitioner must file a certificate of publication with the Board. 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 104.410. On March 9, 2005, Ford filed a certificate of publication documenting that

the required notice of the petition was provided in the

Daily Southtown

on March 4, 2005. The

Board finds that Ford has met the notice requirements of the Act and the Board’s procedural

rules.

INFORMATIONAL DEFICIENCIES

The Board finds that Ford has not provided all of the information required by the Act for

an adjusted standard petition. 415 ILCS 5/28.1(c) (2002). Ford notes that the regulation of

general applicability does not specify a level of justification required of a petitioner for an

adjusted standard.

.; Pet. at 2. In the absence of that specified level of justification, the Board

cannot grant an adjusted standard unless, “upon adequate proof by the petitioner,” it determines

that Ford has satisfied the four factors contained in Section 28.1(c) of the Act. 415 ILCS

5/28.1(c) (2002);

identifies those informational deficiencies and directs Ford to cure them.

Under Section 28.1(c)(1) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(1) (2002)), the

petition does not specifically address whether factors relating to Ford “are

substantially and significantly different from the factors relied upon by the

Board in adopting the general regulation applicable to that petitioner.”

Under Section 28.1 (c)(2) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(2) (2002)), the

petition does not specifically address whether “the existence of those

factors justifies an adjusted standard.”

Under Section 28.1 (c)(3) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/28.1(c)(3) (2002)), the

petition does not specifically address whether “the requested standard will

not result in environmental or health effects substantially and significantly

more adverse than the effects considered by the Board in adopting the rule

of general applicability.”

Unless Ford offers adequate proof at hearing, the Board cannot determine that these

factors have been satisfied and cannot grant the petition for an adjusted standard. 415 ILCS

5/28.1(c) (2002). Accordingly, the board directs Ford to address these informational deficiencies

at hearing. The Board recognizes that Ford may have provided some or all of the requested

information to the Agency, but it must be developed in the record of this proceeding in order for

the Board to satisfy its statutory obligations.

As noted above, the Agency has not yet filed its recommendation. Under the Board’s

procedural rules, that recommendation is not generally due until 45 days after the filing of the

petition or amended petition, unless ordered otherwise. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.416(a). Under

the Board’s procedural rules, Ford may file a response to the recommendation within 14 days

after the date of service of the recommendation. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.416(d).

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that Ford has satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of providing

newspaper notice of its petition for an adjusted standard from the Board’s organic material

emission standards applicable to motor vehicle fueling operations for the Chicago area.

However, as described above, the Board finds that Ford has not provided all of the necessary

information in its petition and directs Ford to cure those deficiencies at hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board

adopted the above order on March 17, 2005, by a vote of 5-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board