ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    22,
    1988
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    ORGANIC MATERIAL EMISSION
    STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS:
    )
    R86—18
    ORGANIC EMISSION GENERIC RULE
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    3.
    Marlin):
    On June
    13, 1988, Viskase Corporation
    (Viskase)
    filed
    a
    Motion for Withdrawal
    and Reconsideration.
    Allsteel,
    Inc.
    (Alisteel)
    and Stepan Company
    (Stepan)
    each
    filed
    a Response
    to
    that Motion on June
    27,
    1988.
    By
    its Order of June
    30,
    1988,
    the Board granted
    the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s
    (Agency)
    request for
    an extension of time
    to file
    a response.
    The Agency then filed
    a
    Motion
    to Stay
    on July 12,
    1988 which requested
    that
    the Board
    stay its decision until further notification.
    The July 12th
    motion stated that recent legislation could obviate
    the need for
    the Board
    to rule on
    the motion.
    Viskase concurred
    in the
    Agency’s
    request to stay the decision.
    The Board stated
    in its
    Order
    of July 13,
    1988
    that
    it would defer
    its ruling on
    Viskase’s motion until either Viskase
    filed
    a motion
    to withdraw
    its June 13th motion or the Agency filed
    a response to the June
    13th Viskase motion.
    On September
    20,
    1988,
    The Agency filed
    such
    a respons entitled “Agency Motion
    to Deny Viskase’s Request
    for Withdrawal and Reconsideration”.
    In its June 13th motion, Viskase requests that the Board
    withdraw the generic
    rule which was adopted on April
    7,
    1988 from
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (U.S.
    EPA)
    review.
    Viskase
    then wants
    the Board
    to incorporate
    into
    a new*gene~ricrule
    a
    specific emission limitation for Viskase which would
    be
    determined by the Board after hearing.
    Viskase claims that an
    Adjusted RACT limitation adopted pursuant
    to procedures
    set set
    forth
    in the existing generic
    rule would be viewed by U.S.
    EPA
    as
    an
    impermissable relaxation and therefore unapprovable.
    Evidently,
    Viskase believes
    that
    a specific emission limitation
    for Viskase which
    is written
    into the generic
    rule would not be
    viewed as
    an impermissable relaxation by the U.S.
    EPA.
    As
    evidence of U.S.
    EPA’s view,
    Viskase cites
    a U.S. EPA notice of
    a
    proposed disapproval concerning
    a site—specific emission
    lirnitiation for Ford Motor.
    That notice appeared
    in the Federal
    Register on April
    21,
    1988.
    53 Fed.
    Reg.
    13135.
    Specifically,
    Viskase points to the U.S.
    EPA’s reliance,
    in
    the notice,
    on
    a
    July 29,
    1983 U.S.
    EPA memorandum concerning emission
    relaxations.
    Viskase claims that this memorandum sets forth
    a
    “no—relaxation”
    policy for U.S.
    EPA.
    The Federal Register Notice
    and 1983 memorandum are appended
    to Viskas&s
    motion.
    92—555
    2
    In their Responses both Alisteel and Stepan support
    Viskase’s
    request.
    They,
    too,
    request similar action for their
    emission limitations.
    On the other
    hand,
    the Agency requests
    in its response that
    the Board deny Viskase’s motion.
    The Agency gives
    a number
    of
    reasons
    for its conclusion.
    First,
    it states that
    it
    is the
    Agency,
    not the Board •that controls the submission
    of rules
    to
    U.S. EPA for
    its review.
    According
    to the Agency,
    the Board
    cannot withdraw
    a rule from U.S.
    EPA consideration.
    Secondly,
    the Agency asserts that motions
    for
    reconsideration are inappropriate
    in
    a rulemaking context,
    because
    35
    Iii. Mm.
    Code 102 does not expressly provide
    for such
    motions.
    The Agency then alternatively argues that even
    if
    motions
    for recondsideration are allowed
    in rulemakings pursuant
    to
    35 Ill. Mm.
    Code 103.240, Viskase’s motion
    is untimely since
    it
    is filed more than
    35 days after
    the Board’s
    final order
    in
    this matter.
    Finally,
    the Agency asserts
    that the 1983
    “no relaxation”
    policy memorandum
    is not newly discovered evidence that could not
    have been discovered
    by due diligence before the Board’s April
    7,
    1988 Order.
    Consequently, Section ~l03.24l(b)(l)
    also does not
    apply,
    according
    to the Agency.
    The Agency cites
    a number
    of
    Federal Register notices, one published
    as early as August
    28,
    1984,
    for the proposition that the U.S.
    EPA’S reliance on this
    memorandum
    is not new.
    Notwithstanding
    the arguments of Viskase and the Agency,
    the
    Board simply lacks jurisdiction
    to modify the generic
    rule under
    this docket.
    On April
    22,
    1988, Viskase appealed the Board’s
    Final Order
    of April
    7,
    1988 which
    adopted
    the generic
    rule.
    Consequently, the propriety
    of the generic rule is now an
    issue
    to be decided by the Appellate Court of Illinois,
    First District,
    under case number
    1—88—1228.
    The Board hereby~denres Vislcase’s
    June 13,
    1988 motion.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gunn, Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify
    that the above Opinion and Order was
    adopted
    on the
    ~
    day of
    ________________,
    1988,
    by
    a vote
    of
    7
    -~
    .
    Dorothy
    M. ,~inn,Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Boar~1
    92—55 6

    Back to top