ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

20, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

)

4~72—7l

AIRPORT LANDFILL

OPINION

& ORDER OF THE BOARD ON MOTION TO DISMISS

(BY MR.

CURRIE):

Respondent moves

to dismiss on the ground that a hearing

date was set without consulting the respondent and that the

date was more than 60 days after the complaint was filed,

contrary to our proce&ural rule 307.

The hearing officer’s

letter transmitting the motion indicates that he asked the

Agency’s attorney to arrange a suitable date with the respondent,

and that the respondent refused to agree to any date because

of

the

60-day rule.

This course of dealing clearly satisfies

the consultation requirement, whose violation in any case

~ould be grounds only for setting a new date upon a showing

of inconvenience, not a dismissal.

As for the 60—day rule

itself,

that too is not a jurisdictional requirement~it is

a reminder to hearing officers to avoid delay,

for the benefit

of the general public.

There is no showing that the delay in

this case in any way prejudiced the respondent.

The motion

to dismiss

is hereby denied.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board,

certify that the Board adopted the above 0 inion

&

Order

on Motion to Dsmiss this

day of

,

1972,

byavoteof

.0

4

—