ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 1, 1993
    FINKS & AUSTMAN,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 93—83
    )
    (UST Fund)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on three motions. On June
    17, 1993, the law firm of Feliheimer, Travers & Engelman, Ltd.
    (law firm), filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for
    petitioner Finks & Austinan. The motion states that it is filed
    pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13, that on or about June 1, 1993,
    the law firm terminated its representation of Finks & Austinan in
    all legal matters, and that Finks & Austman has been notified of
    the law firm’s intent to withdraw as counsel. The law firm also
    filed, on June 17, 1993, a motion to continue the hearing
    currently set for July 8, 1993.
    Initially, the Board notes that its procedural rules
    specifically provide for an attorney who has appeared in a
    representative capacity to simply file a notice of withdrawal.
    (35 Ill.Admn.Code 101.107(d).) Thus, the law firm need not cite
    Supreme Court Rule 13 in its motion for leave to withdraw. That
    motion to withdraw is granted. Unless Finks & Austman notifies
    the Clerk of another address, all future mailings from the Board
    to Finks & Austman will be sent to the San Diego post office box
    listed on the law firm’s notice of filing of its motion.
    However, the Board cannot grant the motion to continue the
    July 8 hearing. Pursuant to the 120—day statutory decision
    deadline, the Board must render a decision on this case by
    September 3, 1993. The last regularly-scheduled Board meeting
    before that date is August 26, 1993. In the absence of a waiver
    of the decision deadline by Finks & Austman (see 35 Ill.Adm.Code
    101.105), the July 8 hearing must proceed.
    Finally, on June 23, 1993, the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency (Agency) filed a motion to file the record
    instanter. This petition was filed with the Board on May 6,
    1993, and the Agency states that it received notice of the
    petition on May 6, 1993. Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    105.102(a) (4), the Agency record is to be filed with the
    2
    Pollution Control Board within 14 days “upon notice of the
    petition”. The record was therefore due to be filed on May 20,
    1993. This motion and the record are 34 days late.
    The Board is concerned about the delay in filing this
    record. The Board also notes with concern the absence of any
    earlier motion requesting an extension of time. However, because
    the Agency’s record is necessary for the decision of this
    proceeding, the motion to allow filing of the Agency record
    instanter is hereby granted.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby cer fy that the above order was adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ____________________,
    1993, by a vote of
    7—ti
    ~
    A. L’~
    Dorothy M. Gup~?, Clerk
    Illinois Poliy’tion Control Board

    Back to top