ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 15, 2006
    IN THE MATTER OF:
    PROPOSED NEW CLEAN AIR
    INTERSTATE RULES (CAIR) SO
    2
    , NO
    x
    ANNUAL AND NO
    x
    OZONE SEASON
    TRADING PROGRAMS, 35 ILL. ADM.
    CODE 225. SUBPARTS A,C, D and E
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    R06-26
    (Rulemaking – Air)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
    On May 30, 2006, the Board received a rulemaking proposal submitted by the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) pursuant to Section 27 and 28 of the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27 and 28 (2004)). Motions for expedited
    review, to hold the required hearings in Springfield and Collinsville, and for waiver of certain
    filing requirements accompanied the petition.
    The Agency proposes a new Part 225 to reduce intrastate and interstate transport of sulfur
    dioxide (SO
    2
    ) and nitrogen oxides (NO
    x
    ) emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electric generating
    units (affected units), on an annual basis and on an ozone season basis of each calendar year. As
    explained in the statement of reasons (Statement), the Agency proposes the adoption of the Clean
    Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SO
    2
    trading program, the CAIR NO
    x
    Annual trading program and the
    CAIR NO
    x
    Ozone Season trading program to accomplish this objective. Stat. at 1.
    The proposed rule contains five subparts. As proposed, Subpart A includes general
    provisions, Subpart B is reserved, Subpart C contains the CAIR SO
    2
    trading program, Subpart D
    details the CAIR NO
    x
    Annual trading program, and Subpart E addresses the CAIR NO
    x
    Ozone
    Season trading program.
    The Agency asserts that its proposal is intended to satisfy Illinois’ obligations under the
    United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport
    of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NO
    x
    SIP Call, (CAIR), 70
    Fed. Reg
    . 25162 (May 12, 2005). Stat. at 1. The proposal is also intended
    to address, in part, the Agency’s obligation to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the
    control of fine particulate matter (PM
    2.5
    ) and ozone in the Chicago and Metro East/St. Louis
    nonattainment areas. Stat. at 2.
    As previously stated, the Agency has filed three motions with the proposal. The motion
    for expedited decision requests that the rule be promulgated by April 2007, and that the Board
    proceed to first notice without reaching a decision on the merits of the proposal. Mot. to Exp. at
    3. The Agency asserts that the USEPA has adopted a CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
    effective on June 27, 2006, and that the first “action of consequence” will be USEPA’s making
    NOx allocations for the 2009 control period on July 30, 2007. Mot. to Exp. at 2. The Agency
    asserts that the rule needs to be adopted by April 2007, to allow Illinois to control the allocation
    2
    for 2009, and to timely submit NOx allocations to avoid the USEPA start of a “FIP sanctions
    clock.” Mot. to Exp. at 3.
    The motion to hold hearings in Springfield and Collinsville (Mot. to Hold) asserts that
    there are 229 electric generating units (EGU) that will be subject to the proposed rule. Mot. to
    Hold at 1. The Agency argues that the city of Springfield is not only an affected area, but is
    centrally located for all the affected areas of the State and is an appropriate first hearing location
    pursuant to Section 102.412 (a) of the Board’s procedural rules.
    Id.
    The Agency contends that
    state administrative and financial constraints favor a Springfield forum for the first hearing in
    that both the Board and the Agency maintain offices in Springfield, and a large number of the
    Agency’s technical staff located in Springfield will be testifying and providing technical
    assistance in the rulemaking. Mot. to Hold at 2. The Agency asserts that the expenses to the
    State of Illinois due to transportation, food, and lodging for a non-Springfield venue will be
    considerable, and that holding at least one hearing in Springfield will allow for the Board and the
    Agency to conserve resources.
    Id.
    The Agency further asserts that the city of Collinsville is an appropriate location for the
    second hearing as it is located with respect to affected units in the Southern portion of the state.
    Mot. to Hold at 3. The Agency contends that Collinsville is a reasonable commute from
    Springfield, and that the same factors favoring a hearing in Springfield favor the second hearing
    be held in Collinsville.
    Id.
    The Agency concludes that holding the hearings in Springfield and
    Collinsville would provide diversely located forums for input from the public throughout the
    State. Mot. to Hold at 4.
    In the motion for waiver of requirements, the Agency asserts that the entire proposal
    consists of over 2,000 pages, and requests leave to file an original and four copies of the proposal
    plus five partial copies, instead of the original and nine copies generally required. Mot. to Waive
    at 1. The Agency states that the partial copies will consist of the table of contents, the statement
    of reasons, pleadings, and the proposed rules, but not the documents relied upon or the
    incorporations by reference.
    Id.
    The Agency also requests leave to serve partial copies on the
    Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). Mot. to
    Waive at 2. The Agency asserts that both the DNR and the AGO have informed the Agency that
    partial copies of the proposal are sufficient.
    Id.
    Leave is also requested to file no copies of five
    documents incorporated by reference, as well as no copies of various documents relied upon in
    drafting. Mot. to Waive at 3.
    The Agency’s proposal, including its statement of reasons and the full text of the
    proposed rule language, is available through the Clerk’s Office in Chicago (312-814-3620) and
    on the Board’s Web site (www.ipcb.state.il.us
    ) using the Clerk’s Office On-Line or “COOL.”
    Responses to the Agency’s motions are generally allowed within 14 days after service of
    the motions.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(d); 102.402. The motions were filed concurrently
    with the proposal on May 30, 2006. In order to allow potential interested participants time to
    respond to the motions, the Board will reserve ruling on all three motions.
    The Board accepts the proposal for hearing, finding that the proposal generally satisfies
    the content requirements of the Act and the Board’s procedural rules for rulemaking proposals.
    3
    However, the Agency may have to file or serve additional copies and documents depending on
    the ultimate disposition of the Agency’s motion to waive requirements. The assigned hearing
    officer is directed to proceed expeditiously under the rulemaking provisions of the Act (415
    ILCS 5/27, 28 (2004)) and the Board’s procedural rules. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 102.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on June 15, 2006, by a vote of 4-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top