ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November
    8,
    1990
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    LIMITS TO VOLATILITY
    )
    R88-30(B)
    OF GASOLINE
    )
    (Rulemaking)
    CONCURRING OPINION
    (by J. Anderson):
    I concur because the record indicates that we could be
    creating
    a disproportionate hardship on the retail stations and
    other—end users as distinct from the rest of the distribution
    network.
    This
    is due to the Order setting one start—up
    compliance deadline for both groups.
    I believe
    it would have
    been more appropriate for
    the Board to have set a later
    deadline
    for the end—users,
    for the same reasons expressed as
    follows by the tJSEPA
    in providing such a later deadline in its
    regulations:
    However,
    the
    Federal
    regulation
    makes
    a
    distinction between
    retail
    stations and other
    end-users
    and
    the
    rest
    of
    the
    distribution
    network.
    Enforcement
    is delayed until June
    1
    for
    retail
    stations
    and
    other
    end—users
    to
    prevent
    outlets
    with
    slower
    turnovers
    from
    needing
    advance
    supplies
    of
    RVP
    controlled
    gasoline from suppliers
    over which
    they often
    have
    little
    control.
    The
    Board may
    wish
    to
    incorporate this distinction
    in its
    regulation
    to
    make
    it
    consistent
    with
    the Federal
    rule
    and
    to
    eliminate
    any
    potential
    hardship
    for
    end—users.
    (P.C.#7l, p.1)
    The USEPA set up the 1992 RVP control start—up at May
    1,
    with delayed enforcement for the end—users until June
    1, as noted
    above.
    The Board,
    however,
    set up its 1991 RVP control phase—in
    at June
    1
    for both groups,
    thus giving the distribution network
    a
    one month phase—in grace period for 1991, but leaving
    the end—
    users with no phase-in grace period at all.
    The USEPA obviously
    recognized not only the potential hardship, but also,
    implicitly,
    the enforcability problems of
    a simultaneous phase—in.
    I believe
    we should have done likewise, and particularly so because
    Illinois
    is “going
    it alone”
    in 1991, as opposed
    to the whole
    country coming under
    the federal umbrella
    in 1992.
    Also,
    the
    record indicates that giving a one month grace period
    in 1991
    until July
    1,
    from a practical marketing distribution standpoint
    end—users will not affect the June ozone picture all that much.
    The large quantity end users will get their supplies
    in a timely
    manner
    in either phase—in setting.
    However,
    those gas stations
    with little control over their suppliers will either be unable
    to
    comply with the June 1st deadline or will singularly be placed in
    a poor competitive
    situation, assuming
    in the latter
    instance
    116—145
    —2—
    that they are indeed able to get advance supplies.
    I don’t
    think
    it is realistic
    to argue that these small operations could get
    their problem addressed by seeking variance relief,
    nor does this
    approach lead to real ozone reduction benefits
    in any event.
    As a second observation,
    it seems to me that lowering the
    psi RVP in Illinois from this year’s 9.5 to 9.0 next year is
    misleading
    insofar as appearing to drop the volatility limit by
    0.5 psi RVP,
    which is not the case.
    This year’s 9.5 limit
    in
    Illinois was an absolute limit.
    Since
    there were no testing
    tolerance or other variability leeways before enforcement,
    the
    applicable and enforceable standard were the same,
    9.5 psi RVP.
    As a result, the record shows that
    the gasoline distributed this
    year reflected a “play
    it safe” factor;
    it was, with rare
    exception, actually at 9.0 or less psi RVP.
    However,
    the Board
    in 1991 and the USEPA in 1992 have added a testing tolerance of
    0.3 psi RVP to the 9.0 standard.
    This means
    that they will not
    enforce unless they test
    at greater
    than 9.3 psi RVP,
    as long as
    the regulated person’s measurements are no greater than 9.0.
    This suggests, admittedly imprecisely but arguably realistically,
    that those who this year already dropped to a “play it safe”,
    8.7
    would not need to do more next year;
    those who this year dropped
    to 9.0 would need only to drop further next year by 0.3, not by
    0.5, psi RVP.
    Also,
    from an enforcement perspective,
    I believe
    that
    it usually
    is far more effective not to make distinctions
    between a standard as applied and as enforced.
    It would appear
    here that a similar result,
    the 9.0 limit, would have been
    achieved by setting the standard as an absolute limit, perhaps at
    9.3 or 9.2 psi RVP, and let the “play
    it safe” factor again “take
    hold”.
    On balance, however,
    I recognize the benefits of staying
    compatible with the USEPA approach,
    in spite of my concerns over
    its standard—setting methods.
    For these reasons
    I respectfully concur.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify ~iat
    the ab
    Concurring Opinion was
    submitted on the
    /~P day of
    _____________,
    1990.
    4.
    ,~
    Dorothy
    M. ~ann,
    erk
    Illinois P~~llutionControl Board
    I 16—146

    Back to top