ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 19,
    1994
    SANGAMON
    COUNTY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    AC
    94—11
    (SCDPH
    94-AC-2)
    (Administrative
    Citation)
    ESG
    WATTS, INC.,
    an
    Iowa
    Corporation,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by C.
    A. Manning):
    On May 5,
    1994, the respondent,
    ESG Watts,
    Inc.
    (ESG)
    filed
    a motion to file petition for review instanter.
    Sangamon County
    filed the administrative citation against ESG on March
    2,
    1994.
    Pursuant to Section 31.1(d) (1) the Board entered a default order
    against ESG upholding the violation on April 21,
    1994.
    The administrative citation process,
    a creature of statute,
    has built—in time constraints for the complainant, the respondent
    and this Board.
    Section 31.1(d) (1)
    states:
    If the person named in the administrative citation
    fails to petition the Board for review within 35 days
    from the date of service, the Board shall adopt a final
    order, which shall include the administrative citation
    and findings of violation as alleged in the citation,
    and shall impose the penalty specified in subdivision
    (b) (4)
    of Section 42.
    Sangamon County served the administrative citation on ESG
    March 2,
    1994.
    Having received no timely filed petition for
    review, the Board entered its default order on April 21,
    1994.
    In respondent’s motion, which was filed after the Board
    entered its default,
    it states that although the administrative
    citations were received by the attorneys they were not pursued
    due to unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances.
    Respondent goes
    on to state that the responses were on the respondent’s
    attorney’s legal secretary’s desk, but she was stricken with an
    illness requiring urgent medical care and therefore the petition
    for review was not filed.
    For these reasons, the respondent
    requests the Board to allow it to file its petition for review
    instanter.
    On May 10,
    1994 complainant filed a response to the
    respondent’s motion to file its petition for review instanter.
    2
    Complainant states that the Act does not allow for the late
    filing of a petition for review.
    Moreover, complainant states
    that the affidavit supplied by the legal secretary does not
    explain why respondent’s attorneys did not respond to the
    citation by the close of the statutory time period,
    in this case
    April
    6,
    1994.
    The courts have clearly held that “an administrative agency
    is a creature of statute, any power or authority claimed by it
    must find its source within the provisions of the statute by
    which it is created.”
    (Bio—Medical Laboratories,
    Inc. v.
    Trainor, (1977),
    370 N.E. 2d 223.)
    The statute creating the
    Board’s authority to find violation through the administrative
    citation process, quite clearly states that the Board shall find
    a violation if the person named in the administrative citation
    does not file a petition for review within 35 days of service of
    the administrative citation.
    In this matter the 35 days had run
    and by operation of law respondent was found in violation.
    The
    Board finds no authority to allow respondent to file its petition
    for review in this matter after the 35 day period has run.
    The
    motion to file respondent’s petition for review instanter is
    denied.
    IT
    IS
    SO
    ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boai~,~herebycerti~ythat the above order was adopted on1the
    ~~~~_dayof
    ,
    1994, by a vote of
    ~
    Dorothy N. 9~nn,Cler~k
    Illinois Pq’~1utionControl Board

    Back to top