ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    7,
    1993
    SANGANON
    COUNTY,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    V.
    )
    AC 93—30
    (Administrative Citation)
    THE ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK OF
    )
    (SCDPH 93-AC-5)
    SPRINGFIELD, N/K/A FIRST OF
    )
    AMERICA TRUST CO.
    AND
    RAY
    LANDERS,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER
    OF THE BOARD
    (by B. Forcade):
    On September 7,
    1993, Ray Landers filed a letter requesting
    a hearing on this Administrative Citation.
    In this type of
    proceeding before the Board,
    the respondent
    (Mr. Landers) 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
    ~.
    ~q.
    (1992)), and applicable
    regulations.
    The Board hearing is not an informal informational hearing
    at which Sangamon 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
    (Sangainon County).
    (415
    ILCS 5/31..l(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
    (Mr. Landers) 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,
    2
    the Board wishes to make it clear that if a petition for review
    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 hearina 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 he
    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 November 15,
    1993, this matter will be set for hearing.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby certi
    t the above order was adopted on the
    ?~1~’day of
    _________________,
    1993, by a vote of
    7c
    Dorothy M/’/3unn, Clerk
    Illinois ~llution
    Control Board

    Back to top