ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 19,
    1980
    SHEREX CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.,
    )
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 80—66
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION OF THE BOARD
    (by
    I.
    Goodman)
    The Agency’s November
    6,
    1980 Motion for Reconsideration of
    the Board’s October
    2,
    1980 Order is granted.
    I.
    INCOMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION
    Under Rule 103(b)(4) of Chapter 2,
    an Agency-determined
    incomplete application retains its original filing date if the
    Agency does not notify the applicant within 30 days of the
    incompleteness and the reasons for the incompleteness.
    If there is no statement issued under the rule, then the
    filing date of the application is unchanged and the Agency must
    proceed to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated
    nonviolation.
    If the Agency determines that there was
    incompleteness of information in the application, the §39(a)
    denial
    statement must specify what information was lacking.
    In applying Rule 103(b)(4)
    and §39(a) of the Act to the
    facts in this matter,
    the Board
    found that to deny the permit
    under §39(a) for incompleteness and not a nondemonstration of
    nonviolation was “somewhat capricious” under these circumstances.
    The Board,
    in reconsidering the scope of the Agency’s duty
    under these circumstances,
    finds that the Agency does not have an
    absolute duty under Rule 103(b) (4) to inform Sherex that the
    application was incomplete.
    However, when the Agency relied on
    information Sherex did not formally submit—-while Sherex had
    specifically asked for copies of such information under §7 of the
    Act--the Agency would have acted in better faith and afforded the
    maximum possible process of law had it informed Sherex of that
    information it had relied upon to determine nonviolation.
    40—187
    II.
    CLEAN AIR ACT ISSUES
    §S110 and 116
    The Board did not state that approval by the USEPA is
    unnecessary to effectuate a SIP revision.
    When it spoke of a
    permit “intended to be submitted as a SIP revision the Board did
    not state that any permit intended to revise the SIP is effective
    as a SIP revision when issued by the Agency.
    The permit so issued,
    however, would be in full force under state
    law upon issuance.
    The Board stated that the SIP need not be revised before the permit
    issues if it is the permit itself which is to constitute
    the
    revision.
    An analogy may be made to variances which are incorp-
    orated into the SIP as revisions thereto.
    Such a finding
    is
    contrary to neither §110(a)(3) nor §116 of the Clean Air Act.
    IT IS SO
    ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Supplemental Opinion
    was adopted on the
    ~f~day
    of
    _______
    1980 by a vote of
    Ch~i~~i~
    f~t
    ~
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    40—188

    Back to top