ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
9,
1992
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA
)
R89-17(C)
MOTOR VEHICLE CONTROL PROGRAM
)
(Rulemaking)
IN ILLINOIS
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter
is
before
the
Board
on
its
own
motion.
On
November
21,
1991,
the Board proposed,
for second first notice,
rules which would adopt the California Low Emission Vehicle
(LEV~)
program
in
Illinois.
The proposed rules were published in the
Illinois Register on December 13,
1991,
at 15 Ill.Reg.
17863.
In
its
November
21
opinion,
the
Board
recognized
that
there
are
unanswered
questions
in
this
rulemaking,
and
indicated
its
willingness
to hold further hearings.
The Board
established
a
comment
period,
until
December
31,
1991,
to
allow
interested
participants to comment on the need for additional hearings, what
subjects might
be discussed,
and suggested timeframes
for these
hearings.1
This order is
in response to those comments.
The Board received comments from the Illinois Department of
Energy
and
Natural
Resources
(ENR)
(P.C.#36),
Uno-Ven
Company
(P.C.#38),
the Illinois Petroleum Council
(P.C.#39
and #40),
the
Chicago Lung Association and the Illinois chapter of the Sierra
Club
(P.C.#41
and
#46),
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency)
(P.C.#42),
General Motors Corporation
(P.C.#43),
the Illinois New Car and Truck Dealers Association
(P.C.#44), the
Illinois Manufacturers’ Association
(IMA)
(P.C.#45), and Mobil Oil
Corporation
(P.C.#47).
All
commenters
except
the
Chicago Lung
Association and the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club believe
that further hearings are necessary.
The Board agrees that further
merit and economic impact hearings should
be held.
The hearing
officer is directed to schedule hearings, taking the comments
on
subjects and locations of hearings into consideration.
Several commenters asked the Board to formally request that
ENR prepare an economic impact study
(EcIS)
on the proposal.
On
May 24,
1990, the Board asked
ENR
to prepare an EcIS on the first
proposals in this docket.
(R89—17(A)
&
(B).)
On June 18,
1990,
ENR filed a two page “economic impact statement”.
Subdockets
(A)
1
The Board notes
that this
comment
period,
which
is now
closed, is distinct from the statutory 45-day first notice comment
period.
That
first
notice
comment
period,
which
began
after
publication in the Illinois Register on December 13, 1991, expires
on January 27,
1992.
129—13
7
2
and
(B) were dismissed on February 7,
1991.
Section
27(a)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act
(Act)
(Ill.Rev.Stat.
1989,
ch.
111
1/2,
par.
1027(a))
and
Part
102,
Subpart
E
of
the
Board’s
procedural
rules
(35
Ill.Adm.Code
102.Subpart E) require the Board to determine, within 60 days after
the Board accepts
a proposal for hearing, whether an EcIS should
be conducted.
The Board finds nothing in the Act or regulations
which require it to make more than one EcIS determination
in
a
regulatory
proceeding.
The Board
finds
that
it satisfied
its
statutory obligation to make an EcIS determination on May 24, 1990.
However, Section 27(a)
of the Act and 35 I1l.Adm.Code 102.180(b)
allow the Board,
at any time prior to the close of the record, to
determine that an EcIS should be prepared,
“if the proposal has
been
substantially
modified
or
if
information
in
the
record
indicates that an (EcIS
would be advisable.”
(Ill.Rev.Stat. 1989,
ch.
111 1/2, par. 1027(a).)
Therefore, the Board will consider the
recent requests that an EcIS be prepared.
In sum, the commenters who ask that an EelS be prepared voice
concern about the cost—effectiveness of the California LEV program
in reducing ozone, the direct and indirect impacts of the program
on Illinois auto dealers,
consumers, and industry in general, the
cost per vehicle, possible lost revenue to the state,
and other
economic
questions.
These
commenters
believe that an
EelS
is
necessary to adequately answer these questions.
The Board agrees
that some economic questions remain unanswered.
However, after
a
review of the record, the Board declines to request the preparation
of
an
EcIS.
The
record
already contains
some
information
on
economic questions,
and both the Agency and ENR have committed to
provide additional economic analysis.
The Board believes that the
economic
questions can
be
readily explored through the hearing
process
and
through
written
comments,
so
that
all
interested
participants can submit their views and information.
In order to
facilitate
this
process,
the
hearing
officer
is
directed
to
schedule
at least one hearing solely on the subject of
economic
impact.
All participants are encouraged to participate in these
hearings to the fullest extent possible, so that the Board may base
its future decisions in this proceeding on a complete record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Bo~r~~
hereby
c~.r-t4~fythat the above
Order was adopted
on
the
~/~-i~-
day of
1992, by a vote of
~
‘lution Control Board
129—138