ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 24,

1990

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA

)

R89-1~(A) &

(B)

MOTOR VEHICLE CONTROL PROGRA14

)

(Rulemaking)

IN ILLINOIS

ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by J. Theodore Meyer):

This matter is before the Board for a determination of whether

the

Board

should

direct

the

Department

of

Energy

and

Natural

Resources

(ENR)

to prepare an economic impact study

(EcIS)

on this

proposal.

On October

18,

1989,

the Board opened this docket to

gather information on whether Illinois should adopt the California

motor vehicle

control

program.

An

inquiry

hearing was held

on

December

12,

1989,

and

written

public

comments

were

accepted

through January

5,

1990.

On April

12,

1990,

the Board proposed,

for

First

Notice,

that

portions

of

the

California

program

be

adopted in Illinois.

Section

27

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

(Act)

(Ill.Rev.Stat.

1987

and

1988

Supp.,

ch.

111

1/2,

par.

1027)

requires that the Board determine,

within 60 days

of accepting

a

regulatory proposal for hearing, whether an EcIS should be prepared

by ENR.

Pursuant to Section 27, the Board accepted public comments

on the issue until Nay

3,

1990--2l days after the Board proposed

the rules for First Notice.1

The Board received two

cortunents

on

the

advisibility

of

ordering

an

EcIS:

one

from

the

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

(P.C.

9)

and one from

ENR

(P.C.

10).

Both. cbmmeñts were filed on May

3,

1990.

In

its

comments,

the

Agency

does

not

specifically

state

whether

it

believes

that

an

EcIS

should

be

prepared

on

this

proposal.

However,

the Agency comments address

the scope

of

an

EcIS and list several issues which the Agency believes should be

included

in an EcIS.

Among other things,

the Agency recommends

that

an

ECIS

evaluate

the

differences

between

the

California

program, the program which might be implemented on

a federal basis

1

The Board

finds

that April

12,

the date upon which

the

Board proposed the rules for First Notice,

is

equivalent

in this

proceeding to the date upon which the proposal was accepted

for

hearing.

The

April

12

date

is

the

point

at

which

the

Board

decided,

for

the

first

time,

to

proceed

with

the

docket

as

a

proposal for rulemaking rather than simply an inquiry proceeding.

Thus, the Board must make its EcIS determination within 60 days of

April 12.

111—513

---

2

if pending amend~ents to the Clean Air Act

(CAA)

9-e passed and

signed

into

law,

and the proposal

in

this

docket.

The Agency

believes that these three programs should be

evaluated for costs

and

environmental

impacts.

Additionally,

the Agency

recommends

that

an

EcIS

should

include

identification

of

all

affected

“sources”,

study

of

the

variety

of

costs

associated

with

the

proposed rules,

and further,

detailed study

of the environmental

impact of the proposal in Illinois.

The Agency also notes that the

Board has established two subdockets in this proposal, which differ

as to when 100

compliance with the rules would be required.

Thus,

the Agency recommends that an EcIS assess any increased cost of the

elimination of

a phase-in period.

In contrast to the Agency’s comments,

ENR states that

a formal

EcIS

is

not appropriate

for this

proceeding.

This

statement

is

based upon ENR’s contention that

the proposal

is

“ill-suited”

to

examination through an EcIS due to “deficiencies”

in the proposal.

ENR claims that the proposal contains scant economic information,

carries no list of affected sources, and rio discussion of potential

impacts.

ENR contends that the Board has not followed the Act or

its own procedural rules,

and that it is premature to undertake an

EcIS

until

further

information

is

forthcoming.

Finally,

ENP.

maintains that it is willing to work with any prospective proponent

of

a

regulation

to

develop

the

required

information,

before

a

proposal is filed, but does not believe that an EcIS should provide

information which should be provided when the proposal is filed.

The Board disagrees with ENR’s statements that this proposal

is not suitable for an EcIS due to “deficiencies”

in the proposal.

First,

ENR does not have authority

to make

determinations

as to

the adequacy of any regulatory proposal filed with the Board.

The

Act

gives

the

Board

authority

to

determine the

adequacy

of

a

regulatory proposal.

(See Sections 27 and 28 of the Act.)

Second,

the Board

finds that

the record

in this docket

is

sufficient

to

merit

consideration

as

a

proposal

for

rulemaking.

An

inquiry

hearing was held

in December,

and the Board

received a number

of

exhibits and written comments.

This is not a case where the only

information before the Board

is the bare proposal.

There is quite

a bit of information

in this record,

and the Board believes that

the proposal is clearly adequate to merit further consideration and

2

This program will be referred to as the “CAA amendments”.

The Board notes that the pending

CAA

amendments

passed the U.S.

House

of Representatives

last night.

The Senate

and House bills

must

be

reconciled,

and

sent

to

the

President

for

signature.

Therefore,

it

is possible that the bills may not become

law.

The proposal

in

this docket

will

be

referred to

as

the

“Illinois proposal”.

111—514

---

3

exploration.4

Third,

the Board rejects ENR’s contention that the

Board has not followed the Act or

the procedural rules

in this

docket.

The Act requires the proponent to “describe, to the extent

reasonably

practicable,

the

universe

of

affected

sources

and

facilities and the economic impact of the rule.”

This requirement

is

“to aid the Board

in

determining whether

an economic impact

study

is

needed and

to

assist

the public

in

determining which

facilities

will

be

impacted.”

(Section 27(a)

of the Act.)

The

Board finds that the record

in this docket clearly fulfills these

two purposes.

Finally,

the Board was unaware

that ENR

has

a

policy of assisting

in developing information only before filing

of a proposal.

After

consideration

of

the record

in

this

proceeding,

the

comments received

from the Agency

and

ENR,

and the factors

set

forth

in

Section

27(a)

of the Act,

the

Board determines that an

EcIS should be prepared.

The Board recognizes that this proposal

may have far-reaching effects, both economic and environmental, and

believes that these effects need further study so that the Board

may make an informed decision on the proposal.

Without limiting

the scope

of the EcIS,

the Board identifies the following

issues

to be addressed in the study:

1.

The environmental benefits and economic costs of adoption

of the Illinois proposal,

as

compared with the status

quo,

the

California

program

and

the

pending

CAA

amendments;

2.

Identification

of and consideration of the effect upon

all

affected

classes

of”sources

and

facilities”,

including

but

not

limited

to

consumers,

vehicle

manufacturers,

dealers,

rental and leasing businesses,

parts

manufacturers,

and

other

supporting

services

to

parts and vehicle manufacturing;

3.

The economic costs

of the proposal,

including costs

to

the consumer, manufacturers, dealers, rental and leasing

businesses,

and the State of Illinois;

4.

The environmental impact of the proposal in Illinois; and

5.

The costs and benefits of proceeding with Docket B, which

requires

100

compliance

in 1993,

if the

CAA

is amended

to establish the California standards nationwide.

For example,

there

is

economic information in Exhibits 2A

and

9 and

in P.C.

6.

There was also oral testimony on economic

issues at the December 12,

1989 inquiry hearing.

Exhibits 2A,

6,

7,

and

9,

as

well

as

P.C.

4,

contain

extensive

technical

information.

This is not an exhaustive listing of all information

in the record.

111—515

---

4

ENR may wish to

refer to the comments

filed by the Agency

(P.C.

9)

for more specific ideas on other aspects which may be covered

in the EcIS.

Pursuant to Section

27(a)

of the Act, the Boz~rddirects

ENR

to prepare an EcIS on this proposal, including but not limited to

the

issues

listed above.

The Board

requests that the EcIS

be

delivered

on or

before January

15,

1991,

so that

the Board may

proceed with this docket

in

a timely manner.

No further hearings

will be held on this proposal until after the EcIS is submitted,

at which time the Board will hold at

least two hearings

on the

merits and the economic impact of the proposal.

The Board notes

that

this

proposal

is

currently

in

First

Notice,

and that

the

public comment period runs until June

25,

1990.

The Board will

extend this comment period,

so that interested persons may submit

any

information which

may aid

in the

preparation

of

the

EcIS.

Written comments may be submitted until August

1,

1990.

Copies of

those comments should be sent directly to ENR and the Agency.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy N. Gum,

hereby certify that the above Order was

adopted on the

~4/Z2-

day of

______________,

1990,

by a vote

of

7c~.

/

L~/~

22.

~

Dorothy N. ,Cunn, Clerk

Illinois Pci~lutionControl Board

111—516