ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 21,
    1993
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    V.
    )
    AC 93—45
    (Administrative Citation)
    RITA HEFLEY
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B. Forcade):
    On October
    16,
    1993, Rita Hefley filed a letter concerning
    this administrative citation.
    The Board construes this letter as
    a request for hearing to appeal the administrative citation.
    In
    this type of proceeding before the Board, the respondent
    (Rita
    Hefley) has the burden to establish at a formal hearing, by oral
    testimony under oath or by properly submitted written documents,
    that the violation did not occur or was the result of
    uncontrollable circumstances, under the terms of the
    Environmental Protection Act
    (Act) (415 ILCS 5/1
    ~.
    ~g.
    (1992)),
    and applicable regulations.
    The Board hearing is not an informal informational hearing
    at which Montgomery County will explain its actions.
    The hearing
    is more in the nature of a court proceeding with testimony under
    oath and questions of the witnesses.
    This Board cannot provide
    legal advice or legal assistance to the respondent.
    The initial burden at hearing to explain why the violation
    should be upheld is
    upon the complainant
    (Montgomery County).
    (415 ILCS 5/31.1(d)(2)
    (1992).)
    At hearing, the complaint will
    provide testimony in support of the alleged violation detailed in
    the administrative citation.
    For the Board to uphold the
    administrative citation, the complainant must show that the
    alleged facts represent a violation of the provisions of the Act.
    In order for the Board to dismiss the administrative
    citation, the respondent
    (Rita Hefley) must present facts and
    arguments to show that the facts alleged in the administrative
    citation are inaccurate or that the allegations do not constitute
    a violation of the provisions of the Act or that the violation
    resulted from uncontrollable circumstances.
    A representation
    that compliance has been achieved
    (i.e.
    removal of litter)
    subsequent to the issuance of the administrative citation is not
    a defense to a finding of violation.
    (415 ILCS 5/33
    (1992).)
    The
    respondent bears the burden of providing information in an
    acceptable form to support its position.
    To avoid any confusion about what could happen in this case,
    the Board wishes to make it clear that if a petition for review
    2
    is allowed to be filed, Sections 31.1 and 42(b)(4)
    of the Act
    provide for only two outcomes:
    1.
    The Board can find that there was no violation of
    Section 21(p)
    or
    (q), or that the violation resulted
    from uncontrolled circumstances.
    Then, the person
    filing the petition pays nothing.
    2.
    If the Board finds that a violation did occur, and that
    there were no uncontrollable circumstances, the person
    filing the petition pays the fine plus hearing costs.
    Hearing costs usually average from $200.00 to
    $1,000.00,
    and must be paid in addition to the penalty.
    If respondent does not wish to proceed with this matter she
    may file a motion to dismiss
    (reference Sections 101.241 and
    101.242 of the Board’s rules and regulations for filing
    procedures.)
    If a motion to dismiss is not received by the Board
    by December 3,
    1993,
    this matter will be set for hearing.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board
    hereby cert4~ythat the above order was adopted on the
    _____
    day of
    __________________,
    1993, by a vote of
    ~
    ~
    4.,
    ~
    Dorothy M. ,~Ønn,Clerk
    Illinois P6jlution Control Board

    Back to top