ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 16, 2002
     
     
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
     
    Complainant,
     
    v.
     
    JOE DECICCO DEMOLITION, INC., an
    Illinois corporation,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
    PCB 00-110
    (Enforcement – Air)
     
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by N.J. Melas):
     
     
    This matter is before the Board on a Motion for Clarification filed by complainant on
    April 26, 2002. Complainant requests that Board clarify its interim order of April 18, 2002, in
    this matter. For the reasons provided below, the Board grants complainant’s motion.
     
     
    Complainant filed a complaint on December 29, 1999, alleging that Decicco violated
    asbestos notification requirements for demolition projects. On November 19, 2001,
    complainant filed a motion for summary judgment. Decicco did not answer the complaint or
    respond to the motion for summary judgment.
     
    In its April 18, 2002 interim order, the Board granted complainant’s motion for
    summary judgment in part and denied it in part. The Board applied Sections 103.204 (d) and
    (e) of its procedural rules. Sections 103.204(d) and (e) were promulgated when the Board
    adopted its new procedural rules which went into effect on January 1, 2001.
    See
    Revision of
    the Board’s Procedural Rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101-130, R00-20 (Dec. 21, 2000). Section
    103.204(d) and (e) state that all material allegations in a complaint are deemed admitted if a
    respondent does not file an answer within 60 days or does not file a motion to stay the 60-day
    deadline.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204(d) and (e).
     
     
    In the motion for clarification, complainant asked if the new procedural rules at
    Sections 103.204(d) and (e) apply in this situation.
     
     
    The Board held that the new procedural rules “will apply to all proceedings pending as
    of that date and to all proceedings initiated after that date.” Revision of the Board’s
    Procedural Rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101-130, R00-20, slip op. at 1 (Dec. 21, 2000).
    However, even after the new rules took effect, the former procedural rules still applied to
    filings made or due when the former rules were in effect.
    See
    People v. John Crane, Inc.,
    PCB 01-76, slip op. at 2 (May 17, 2001).
     
     
      
     
     
    2
     
    The former procedural rule addressing answers to complaints stated that a respondent
    could file an answer to a complaint within 30 days. The former rule also stated that material
    allegations would be deemed
    denied
    if not specifically admitted in the answer or if no answer
    is filed. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.122(d) (repealed Jan. 1, 2001). The complaint here was filed
    December 29, 1999, and any answer was due January 28, 2000 while the former procedural
    rules were in effect. Decicco’s lack of an answer constituted a denial of the material
    allegations in the complaint.
    See
    People v. American Disposal Co., PCB 00-67 (Feb. 7,
    2002).
     
     
    Complainant has not filed any requests to admit or any amended complaint under the
    new procedural rules.
     
    The Board finds that Decicco, by operation of the former procedural rule, denied the
    material allegations in the complaint. Since there are genuine issues of material fact in this
    matter, a finding of summary judgment would be precluded. The Board therefore rescinds its
    interim order of April 18, 2002, denies complainant’s November 19, 2001 motion for
    summary judgment in its entirety, and directs the parties to hearing.
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the
    Board adopted the above order on May 16, 2002, by a vote of 7-0.
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top