ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 18,
    1995
    TNT HOLLAND MOTOR EXPRESS,
    INC.,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 94—133
    (UST Fund)
    OFFICE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (J. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on a TNT Holland Motor
    Express
    (TNT) Motion for Summary Judgment filed March 27,
    1995.
    Respondent,
    Office of the State Fire Marshal
    (OSFM),
    filed its
    Response to Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment on April
    10,
    1995.
    In this matter, TNT contests OSFM’s denial of eligibility,
    specifically, OSFM’s ability to reconsider a prior final
    determination.
    In a letter dated March 15,
    1994, OSFM issued a
    final determination finding petitioner eligible to seek
    reimbursement.
    OSFM subsequently sent a second final
    determination letter to petitioner dated March 17,
    1994 denying
    eligibility, stating that no release had been reported.
    Each
    letter stated that it was a final determination.
    Summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings,
    affidavits,
    admissions and other items
    in the record show that
    there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving
    party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
    (Williamson
    Adhesives,
    Inc.
    v.
    IEPA,
    (August 22,
    1991),
    PCB 91-112.)
    The Board is persuaded that no genuine issue of material
    fact exists as to the letters sent to petitioner by OSFM.
    OSFM
    sent a final determination letter to TNT on March
    15,
    1994,
    and
    attempted to reverse that determination two days later.
    Unless
    statutorily authorized,
    an administrative agency may not
    reconsider its final determination, even in the face of mistake
    or error.
    (Reichhold Chemicals,
    Inc.
    v. Illinois pollution
    Control Board,
    204 Ill.App.3d 674,
    561 N.E.2d 1343
    (3rd Dist.
    1990).)
    In clarifying this statement, the court in Reichhold
    pointed out that the Board is statutorily authorized to review
    its orders.
    Id.
    Since appellate case law is uncontroverted regarding the
    inability of an administrative agency such as OSFM to review its
    own final determination, we are compelled to grant summary
    judgment.
    However, we do so reluctantly because, based on the
    2
    record before us,
    it appears that TNT would not be eligible to
    access the UST fund.
    Therefore, the Board hereby grants TNT’s motion for summary
    judgment, and closes the docket.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
    5/41 (1992)) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within
    35 days of the date of service of this order.
    The Rule os the
    Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    (See
    also 35 Iii. Adm. Code 101.246.
    “Notions for Reconsideration”.)
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board
    hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    _____
    day of
    __________________,
    1995,
    by a vote of
    ~2
    Dorothy M./ftunn, Clerk
    Illinois 1~llutionControl Board

    Back to top