ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 30,
    1992
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
    )
    ILLINOIS.,
    )
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    AC 92—24
    )
    (NCHD 9201—AC—i)
    )
    (Administrative Citation)
    WHITE
    & BREWER TRUCKING,
    )
    INC.,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.C. Marlin):
    The Board closed this docket by entry of
    a default order on
    May
    7,
    1992.
    On May
    26,
    1992,
    the
    Board received
    a letter
    from
    counsel which states:
    Our office represents
    White
    &
    Brewer
    Trucking,
    Inc.
    They
    received an
    order of the Board on May
    7 which indicates no
    petition from the original citation was filed.
    On behalf of White
    & Brewer I prepared a petition, a copy of
    which
    is enclosed,
    and mailed it per the proof
    of
    service.
    Also from my file I can’t prove by certified mail receipt that
    we mailed this petition, however, seldom do we use certified
    mail.
    Nor do
    I believe it was required in this case.
    My only
    thought was that our letter was misrouted somewhere along the
    way.
    A “cc” notation indicates that this letter was sent to the
    County,
    the Agency, and the respondent.
    By
    order of June 23, 1992, the Board noted that the Office of the
    Board’s Clerk has no record of receipt of this petition.
    In
    response
    to
    directions
    in that order,
    on July
    2,
    1992
    respondent filed
    an affidavit
    in support of its earlier motion.
    The County filed a response on July 22, 1992,
    supported by its own
    affidavit as well as one submitted by the Agency.
    The
    respondent’s
    April
    14,
    1992
    certificate
    of
    service
    indicates that the petition was served on the Board,
    the County,
    and the
    Agency.
    In
    his
    July
    2,
    1992
    affidavit,
    respondent’s
    counsel states:
    Our mail
    is prepared throughout
    the day and regularly
    delivered to the post office
    in Hillsboro between 5:00
    0135-0205
    2
    p.m.
    and 5:15 p.m.
    daily.
    I did not personally deliver
    the mail to- the post office, however, this is done under
    my supervision.
    To the best of my knowledge standard
    procedure was followed and the petition and certificate
    mailed.
    The County states:
    That respondent has searched the appropriate files at the
    office of the Montgomery County State’s Attorney and has
    been unable to
    locate any Petition
    for Administrative
    Review
    or
    Certificate
    of
    Service
    which
    respondent
    represents it mailed on or about April
    14,
    1992.
    That although complainant
    is unable to locate copies of
    the Motion to Reconsider and Petition for Administrative
    Review in her files, complainant acknowledges that such
    pleadings may have been received
    and misfiled
    in her
    office.
    That
    the
    appropriate
    officer
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency searched its records at
    the request of Attorney for the Complainant, and that the
    Agency was unable to locate a copy of the Petition for
    Administrative Review,
    represented to be mailed by the
    respondent on or about April
    14,
    1992.
    This case is unusual in that none of the person listed on the
    certificate
    of
    service have
    received
    the petition
    for
    review.
    Section 101.144(c) of the Board’s procedural rules “Effective Date
    of Service” provides that “there
    is a rebuttable presumption that
    service by First Class mail is complete four days after mailing”.
    All evidence
    in
    this case
    is that service was
    never made.
    The
    Board might be inclined to give respondent the benefit of the doubt
    if only the Board were to have failed to receive the petition,’ in
    light
    of mail disruption
    in the Chicago area due to the Chicago
    flood, which began April 13, 1992.
    However, since no one received
    the mailing,
    it would appear that, whether in respondent’s office
    or
    in
    the Hillsboro post
    office,
    standard procedures
    were
    not
    followed.
    The 35 day appeal period established by Section 31.1(d)
    of
    the
    Act
    is
    jurisdictional,
    the
    Board
    may
    not
    enlarge
    its
    appellate jurisdiction beyond that granted by statute.
    Landfill,
    Inc.
    V.
    IPCB
    (1978)
    74
    Ill.
    2d 541,
    387 N.E.
    2d 258.
    Under these
    circumstances, the Board declines to reopen this case.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    1See County
    of Jackson v.
    Leslie Norman Fred
    Sr.
    (July
    30,
    1992), AC 92-39, reopening the case when the County, but not the
    Board, received a timely filed petition for review.
    0 135-0206
    3
    Section
    41
    of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Ill.
    REv.
    Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    111
    1/2,
    par.
    1041)
    provides
    for the appeal
    of
    final Board orders within 35 days.
    The Rules of the Supreme Court
    of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Bo~r~,hereby certif
    that the above order was adopted op the
    ~1O’P
    day of
    __________________,
    1992, by a vote of
    ~‘
    ~
    ~
    ~,
    Dorothy M.
    G~Vr~,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pol’~I4tionControl Board
    0135-0207
    0135-0208

    Back to top