ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 2,
    1976
    CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—131
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Zeitlin):
    The original Variance Petition in this matter was filed on
    May
    7,
    1976.
    In an Interim Order dated June
    3,
    1976,
    the Board
    found that Petition inadequate, and allowed Petitioner to file the
    required information.
    Caterpillar thereafter filed an Amended Petition on July 15,
    1976.
    The Board entered a further Interim Order, dated July 22,
    1976, directing Caterpillar to expand on
    a certain statement in
    the Amended Petion,
    and also directing Respondent Environmental
    Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    to respond.
    The statement in question
    was,
    Caterpillar asserts that compliance
    schedules should not be necessary whenever:
    (a)
    There are no regulations with which to
    comply
    (i.e.,
    sulfur dioxide and particulate
    emission limitations)
    Both
    Caterpillar
    and
    the
    Agency
    responded
    to
    that
    Interim
    Order
    on August
    9,
    1976.
    The difficulty with this matter stems from the Illinois Supreme
    Court’s reversal,
    in Commonwealth Edison Co.
    v. Pollution Control
    Board,
    ____
    I11.2d
    ____,
    343 N.E.2d 549
    (1976), of certain of the
    Board’s Air Pollution Control Regulations concerning particulate
    and sulfur dioxide emissions.
    Until that reversal the Agency had been issuing operating
    permits under the Air Pollution Regulations upon a showing that
    the then applicable rules would be complied with.
    (See, Agency
    Response,
    filed August
    9,
    1976,
    at 2.)
    23
    —
    385
    —2—
    Subsequent to the Court’s decision, the Agency, claiming the
    absence of applicable emission limitations, has required, pursuant
    to Rules 103(b) (6)
    and 102 of the Air Pollution Regulations, that
    a permit applicant show its emissions will not “cause or threaten
    or allow,” either “alone or in combination with contaminants from
    other sources,” the prevention of “attainment or maintenance of any
    applicable ambient air quality standard.”
    Caterpillar’s Petition and Amended Petition here claim that
    the requirement of such
    a showing presents an arbitrary and unrea-
    sonable hardship,
    in that compliance with this requirement would
    make “expensive modeling and monitoring
    .
    .
    .
    a prerequisite to
    obtaining an operating permit.”
    Caterpillar consequently requests
    a Variance from Rule 103(b) (6).
    As noted above and in our Interim Order of July 22,
    1976,
    Caterpillar further requests that the Board find the compliance
    plan requirement unnecessary in the absence of applicable emission
    limitations.
    The Agency disagrees, and is of the opinion that the
    compliance plan requirement should be applied in this situation.
    Caterpillar has not presented the Board with a valid reason to
    excuse the compliance plan requirement for its Variance Petition
    and Amended Petition,
    or the showing requirement of Rule 103(b) (6)
    itself.
    To excuse those requirements in this case would,
    if the
    requested Variance were granted, mean that the Agency would be
    effectively required to grant Caterpillar the requested permits,
    and Caterpillar would be bound to no emission limitation.
    Effectively, no measurement of the emissions’
    effects on the
    environment would have been made prior to issuance of the permit.
    It is the purpose of the permit system to prevent just such a
    situation.
    The submittal requirements of the permit system are
    designed to allow assurance that operation under a permit will not
    cause or contribute
    to environmental damage.
    If we were to grant
    a Variance from those requirements without requiring eventual
    compliance with
    an emission or air quality standard,
    the permit
    would serve no purpose whatsoever.
    Petitioner would
    be subject
    to
    no standards either before or after issuance.
    We shall dismiss the instant matter, giving leave
    to Caterpillar
    to institute such future proceedings as may be applicable to its
    individual plant emissions and their individual components
    (i.e.,
    particulates, SO2).
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Dumelle dissents.
    23
    —
    386
    —3—
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Boa d, hereby cer ify the above Order was adopted
    on the~
    day of
    _________,
    1976, by a vote of
    4/I
    Christan L. Moffett, Cle
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    23
    —
    387
    .

    Back to top