ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    2,
    1983
    CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PC3
    79—180
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    J.
    Anderson):
    On May
    6,
    1983,
    Caterpillar moved to dismiss this appeal on
    the grounds that on April
    18,
    1983 the Agency had issued
    a permit
    “incorporating the components of the agreement between the parties”
    resolving the issues of this appeal.
    This motion indicates that confusion still exists concerning
    the ability of the Agency to modify a permit by issuing yet
    another permit during the pendency of
    its appeal to the Board.
    In Album,
    Inc.
    v.
    IEPA, PCB 81—23,24
    (March
    19,
    1981 as reaffirmed
    May
    1,
    1981),
    the Board considered the effect of the Agency’s
    purported “issuance”
    of
    a new permit covering the same operation
    of the same facility which was the subject of an earlier,
    still
    pending, permit denial appeal.
    The Board found that the earlier
    issued permits “could not be nullified by Agency modification or
    reissuance until dismissal of the petitions.”
    To put this more clearly, the Board finds that the Agency has
    no jurisdiction to issue any subsequent permits once the disputed
    permit has been appealed to the Board,
    just as the Board has no
    authority to modify its Orders once they have been appealed to
    the courts.
    The April
    18,
    1983 “permit’
    “issued” to Caterpillar
    is
    a nullity.
    It is clear from this and other recent cases that, once
    settlement negotiations have been concluded between the Agency
    and the contesting permittee,
    the permitteewishes
    the Board
    in some fashion to insure that the Agency will
    in fact issue
    the “negotiated” permit exactly as agreed to between the parties.
    The Board has held that
    it
    will not rubberstamp a “negotiated”
    permit which is presented to
    it
    with the bare assertion that
    “this
    is what we have agreed upon”.
    Should the parties wish to
    have a permit appeal resolved by a Board Order that a particular
    negotiated permit
    issue,
    a stipulation and proposal for settlement
    should be presented at hearing setting out sufficient technical
    —2—
    facts and legal assertions to allow the Board to exercise
    its independent judgment and to make proper
    findings
    of
    fact: and
    conclusions
    of
    law.
    While the Board notes that the court system does
    not always
    impose such requirements to its acceptance of settlements,
    the Board believes that for
    it to do otherwise would he
    to
    unlawfully delegate
    its statutory charge to “determine,
    define,
    and implement the environmental control standards applicable
    in
    the State
    of Illinois”
    fSection 5(b) of the Act.
    As Caterpillar’s motion to dismiss was based on the faulty
    premise that the April
    18,
    1983 “permit” would be in effect upon
    dismissal of this action,
    decision on the motion will
    he deferred
    until June 30,
    1983.
    The parties
    are directed to file any
    supplements to the motion on or before June
    20,
    1983.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk of
    the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,~hereby certify that the above Order
    was adopted
    on the _________________day of
    ~
    ____
    ,
    1983
    by a vote of
    _____
    L.
    Illinois Pollut
    Control Board
    52-268

    Back to top