ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    6,
    1995
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    )
    PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL.
    )
    R92-8
    ADM. CODE SUBTITLE C (WATER
    )
    (Rulemaking-Water)
    TOXICS
    & BIOACCUMULATION)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by R.
    C.
    Flemal):
    The Board’s last action in this matter was, by order of
    January 26,
    1995, to direct the hearing officer to:
    expeditiously schedule hearings at which all other
    participants than
    the proponent) may present their
    testimony in response to the record made by the joint
    proponents.
    Once this set of hearings is complete, the
    Board will determine whether first notice of any
    proposal, this proposal,
    or some variation of
    it, will
    be published in the Illinois Register, or whether this
    docket will be closed.
    (Order,
    p.
    4).
    Even before a hearing officer scheduling order could be
    distributed, the Board began to receive a series of filings
    requesting additional time to prepare for hearing and moving the
    Board to strike or otherwise rule on various aspects of the
    proposal in advance of any additional hearings.
    This order addresses only the most recent filings, the joint
    proponents’
    March 17,
    1995 motion to set briefing schedule.1
    On
    April 5,
    1995, IERG filed a response in support of the motion,
    accompanied by a motion for leave to file instanter,
    which is
    hereby granted.
    The joint proponents’ motion recites that:
    the joint proponents have received several motions to
    strike various parts of the R92-8 rulemaking.
    These
    motions overlap in their scope as to the Sections of
    The previous filings were the Request for Reasonable Time
    and Affidavit of Whitney Wagner Rosen by Illinois Environmental
    Regulatory Group
    (IERG)
    (2/2/95); Response to Request for Time
    and Motion to File Instanter by Joint Proponents (2/23/95);
    Motion to Conform Rule to Record and Law prior to First Notice by
    Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association
    (IFCA)
    (2/24/95);
    Motionto Strike by IERG (3/7/95); Motion to Strike by Chemical
    Industry Council of Illinois
    (3/8/95); Statement in Support of
    Notion to Strike by IFCA (3/13/95); and Motion to Strike by
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (IEPA)
    (3/16/95).
    2
    the proposed rulemaking that they seek to have
    stricken.
    Based upon the past motions that have been brought, the
    level of interest shown by the other participants, and
    comments made at the last hearings,
    it seems a
    reasonable likelihood that other participants will be
    bringing similar motions.
    To avoid multiple briefings,
    undue delay and
    duplication of efforts, the joint proponents are
    requesting the Board to set a briefing schedule to
    impose an orderly briefing of the motions that have
    been filed and will be filed....
    The proposed briefing schedule will impose an ordered
    schedule on the next phase of these proceedings, avoid
    delays, and conserve judicial resources of the Board
    (Motion p.
    1-2).
    The joint proponents suggest that other participants be given
    three weeks
    in which to file any additional motions, and that
    they themselves be given three weeks in which to respond.
    IERG,
    in its response, concurs with the joint proponents’
    request for establishment of a briefing schedule in this matter.
    Rather than the 21-day, 21-day schedule suggested by the joint
    proponents,
    IERG requests a 45-day, 45-day,
    30—day schedule.
    IERG argues that 45 days for the filing of additional challenges
    to the proposal
    is necessary to accommodate those who “have yet
    to dedicate resources and efforts to such endeavors”,
    and that a
    30-day opportunity for participants to file replies to joint
    proponents’ response to the various motions “is necessary to
    ensure that all issues raised
    ...
    are adequately addressed”
    (Response,
    p.
    7,
    9).
    IERG also asks that the Board
    1) clarify
    that other participants need file only motions/briefs “which are
    appropriate for filing at this luncture”,
    2)
    state that
    participants need not re-submit previously filed motions, and 3)
    postpone the resumption of hearings until after the
    jurisdictional and other motions filed pursuant to this order
    have been ruled upon by the Board.
    The Board had intended that its January 26 order end the
    latest pre-hearing phase
    in this proceeding, to allow the Board
    to determine the merits of the proposal on the basis
    of a
    complete hearing record as quickly as possible.
    The
    participants,
    on the other hand,
    clearly intend the Board to
    address the scope of the proposal in advance of any additional
    hearings.
    In the interests of avoiding piecemeal consideration
    of participants’ requests, and given the lack of objection to the
    proposed briefing schedule, the Board will grant joint
    proponents’ motion for briefing schedule.
    3
    As to the length of the schedule,
    in light of IERG’s
    arguments the Board will lengthen the 42-day
    (21+21) schedule
    from that suggested by joint proponents, and will allow for a
    period for replies to joint proponents’ response, but will not
    delay this proceeding for the full 120 days
    (45+45+30)
    requested
    by IERG.
    The Board instead establishes a 30—30—14
    (74 day)
    schedule.
    As to the subject matter of motions/briefs pursuant to
    this order, the Board will entertain any challenges relating to
    the scope of the proposal, the Board’s authority to adopt the
    proposed rule or any other pre—hearing matter.
    Participants need
    not re-submit the filings listed in footnote
    1 of this order,
    although they are free to supplement them.
    The Board stays
    hearing in this matter, pending its ruling on motions listed in,
    or filed pursuant to, this order.
    Given these rulings, the Board
    denies IERG’s February 2,
    1995 Request for Time as moot.
    To avoid any confusion,
    the Board calculates the briefing
    schedule dates as follows.
    Any participants who wish to file any
    additional motions,
    comments, or briefs concerning the scope of
    the R92-8 proposal, the Board’s authority to adopt the proposed
    rule,
    or any other matter in advance of hearings to receive
    testimony in response to the proposal, are directed to make their
    filings so that they are received by the Board on or before May
    9,
    1995.
    Joint proponents are directed to file their response so
    that it is received by the Board no later than June 8,
    1995.
    Participants may file any replies to the joint proponents
    response so that they are received by the Board no later than
    June 22, 1995.
    The Board would hope to rule on this matter in
    July,
    1995.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    ____________
    day of
    _____________________,
    1995,
    by a vote
    of
    _______
    Dorothy N.4~unn,Clerk
    Illinois ~.ó1lution Control Board

    Back to top