ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 11, 1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL

)

R82—14

EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY

)

SOURCES: RACT III

)

DISSENTING OPINION (by J. D. Dumelle):

Section 215.612(b) as proposed here by the majority appears

to contravene both the Administrative Procedure Act and the

doctrine of non—delegation.

A Federal action designating an Illinois county as non—

attainment (presumably for ozone) would make any petroleum dry

cleaner in that county or in contiguous counties subject to these

rules. This dry cleaner would have a year or less to comply

since December 31, 1987 is given as an outside date.

How would the dry cleaner even know that it is subject to

this rule? There would be no publication in the Illinois

Register of this Federal designation of non—attainment. What if

it were inordinately expensive to comply with these rules? There

would have been no opportunity for a hearing on the economic

hardship created. And what happens after December 31, 1987? Is

no time given to comply?

The Pollution Control Board is assigned the environmental

rulemaking function by the Environmental Protection Act. That

function, once assigned, cannot be redelegated. A Federal action

cannot impose the triggering of a rule in Illinois unless the

Legislature has expressly provided for that by statute. That has

not been done.

Finally, Section 215.612(b) does not specifically designate

“non—attainment for ozone” as the action at issue. It could be

read that any non—attainment designation, whether for particulate

or sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide or oxides of nitrogen would

trigger the rules.

~/

Jacob D. Dumelle, P.E.

Chairman

72-357

---

—2—

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby

c~~Q~ifythat

the ~tove Dissenting Opinion was filed

on the

—

day of

____________

1986.

~orothy M. Guhn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

72-358