ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 29,
    1983
    PEOPLE
    OF THE STATE
    OF ILLINOIS
    )
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 76—84
    SANTA FE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC.
    )
    Respondent,
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    Anderson):
    On September 23,
    1983,
    the Board, by a 3~2vote,
    decided to
    reinstate this action, which essentially charges Santa Fe with
    continuing noise violatlons of Section 25 of the Environmental
    Protection Act
    (Act) and Rules
    101(j)
    and 102 of the Board’s
    Chapter
    8:
    Noise regulations
    (since codified as
    35 Iii. Mm.
    Code 900,101
    & 900.102)~
    Grounds for the reinstatement were the
    Board’s finding that P.A,
    82—654, which amends
    Section 25 of the
    Act to remove the Board’s jurisdiction
    in this and other sporting
    activity noise cases,
    is an unconstitutional
    infringement of the
    “right to a healthful environment” guaranteed by Article XI,
    Section
    2 of the Illinois Constitution,
    On November
    30,
    1983,
    Santa
    Fe moved for reconsideration of
    the September 23 Order or, alternatively,
    issuance
    of
    a
    statement
    (also known as
    a Certificate of Importance)
    to allow for imme-
    diate interlocutory appellate review
    of
    the Board’s Order
    pursuant to Supreme Court Rule ~SCR) 308,
    On December
    12
    1983,
    the Attorney General filed a response opposing reconsideration.
    As
    to SCR 308 certification,
    the
    Attorney General objects
    only
    to
    the question
    which Santa Fe
    has suggested be certified.
    Santa Fe
    filed a
    reply
    to the response on December
    22,
    1983.
    Santa Fe’s
    motion
    to
    reconsider
    is
    denied,
    as appointment of
    new Board Members
    is
    insufficient reason
    to
    justify reconsideration.
    5CR 308(a)
    provides,
    in pertinent part that
    ‘When
    the
    trial
    court,
    in
    making an interlocutory
    order
    not
    otherwise appealable,
    rinds
    that the
    order involves a question of law
    as
    to which there
    is substantial ground
    for difference
    of opinion
    and that an immediate appeal from the order may
    55-439
    materially
    advance
    the
    ultimate
    termination of the
    litigation,
    the court
    shal.l
    so state
    in
    writing,
    identifying
    the question of law
    involved.
    The
    Appellate Court may thereupon
    in its discretion
    allow
    an appeal
    from the
    order.”
    The Board has authority
    to issue
    such a statement
    (see
    ~
    nthetic
    Fuel
    v.
    PCB,
    104
    Ill.
    1~pp. 3d 285
    (1st
    Djst.
    1982).
    Pursuant
    to 5CR i08,
    the Board
    finas tnat
    certitication
    that
    its
    September
    23,
    1983
    Order
    a)
    ~involves
    a
    question
    of
    law
    as
    to
    which
    there
    is
    substantial
    oround
    for
    difference
    of
    opinion”,
    and
    b)
    immediate
    appeal
    ~may
    materially
    advance
    the
    ultimate
    terminaton
    of
    thisl
    litigation”.
    The
    question
    of
    law
    certified
    for
    appeal
    is
    as
    follows
    Whether
    the
    Board
    correctly
    determined
    that
    P,A,
    82—654 is a
    constitutionally
    impermissible
    legislative
    enactment.
    IT
    IS
    SO
    ORDERED,
    I,
    Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk
    of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    ~oard,
    hereb~’certify that
    -the above Order was adopted
    on
    tne
    _~I~
    day
    of
    \~jJ~
    ,
    by
    a
    vote
    of~~-~O
    _____
    Christan
    L.
    Moff~t~
    Clerk
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board.
    AAA

    Back to top