ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 20,
    1993
    THE OK TRUCKING COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v
    )
    PCB 92—108
    )
    (UST Fund)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONNENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B.
    Forcade):
    This petition for review was filed on July 21,
    1992.
    The
    petitioner submitted a status report to the Board on
    November 13,
    1992.
    The status report states that the Office of
    the State Fire Marshal
    (OSFM)
    has denied OK Trucking’s appeal of
    the order denying registration of two underground storage tanks.
    OK Trucking has appealed the OSFM’s denial of registration to the
    Circuit Court of Cook County.
    The petitioner notes that Board of
    Education
    V.
    Armstead 91 CH 4963
    (Circuit Court of Cook County,
    County Department, Chancery Division)
    in which the court issued
    its memorandum opinion on September 11,
    1992 addresses a similar
    question and disposes of the issue in OK Trucking’s
    administrative review with the OSFM.
    The Board notes that Board of Education v. Armstead has been
    appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial
    District.
    (See Community Consolidated School District No.
    15 v.
    IEPA (December 17,
    1992), PCB 91—075.)
    A status report filed in
    Weyerhasuer Co.
    v.
    IEPA,
    PCB 92-105, states that appellee’s brief
    in board of Education v. Armstead,
    No. 92-4145
    (Ill. App.
    Ct.,
    1st Dist.)
    is due on June 2,
    1993; and that a cross-appeal has
    been filed so additional briefing will be allowed and the State
    has requested oral arguments.
    This a deadline case where
    3 limited waivers have been
    submitted and
    1 hearing has been cancelled.
    The continual filing
    of limited waivers and the cancellation of hearings taxes the
    administrative resources of the Board.
    Further, the cancellation
    of a hearing that has already been noticed in newspapers of
    general circulation wastes the Board’s resources and misinforms
    the public.
    To allow adequate time for the filing of briefs and Board
    deliberation before the deadline,
    the Board requires that
    hearings be scheduled approximately 120 days prior to the
    decision deadline.
    It is the responsibility of the petitioner to
    provide adequate waivers and proceed with the matter in a timely
    fashion, yet not to cancel hearings after notice has been
    published without substantial justification.
    Ut L~.2-O53
    I
    2
    The Board notes that the decision date in this matter
    is
    presently September 16,
    1993.
    Based on this deadline, the
    hearing officer must schedule the hearing on or before June
    4 and
    complete hearings by July 16,
    1993.
    However,
    the hearing officer
    is authorized to modify this schedule by order in the event that
    an additional waiver is received.
    If an additional waiver is filed,
    the parties are directed
    to submit status reports to the Board.
    Status reports should be
    submitted to the Board by June
    4,
    1993.
    Failure to provide the Board with an adequate waiver or
    cancellation of noticed hearings may subject this matter to
    dismissal for want of prosecution.
    The Board reiterates its concern over the filing of limited
    waivers in cases where a date for completion of the case cannot
    be determined.
    The approaching deadline requires the Board to
    monitor the progress of the parties and order the scheduling of
    hearings.
    Given the present briefing schedule before the
    Appellate Court
    in Board of Education v. Armstead it is unlikely
    that a decision from the Court would be available before the
    September 16,
    1993 deadline in the case pending before the Board
    and certain that a decision will not be reached prior to the time
    when hearings must be scheduled in this matter.
    Yet, an
    additional waiver has not been filed.
    This situation creates a
    burden on the Board in tracking cases where no action is taking
    place and there is an approaching deadline.
    The Board must order
    this case to hearing to meet the deadline.
    The use of limited
    waivers especially for short periods of time, may be
    inappropriate in this type of case.
    The Board also notes that if
    the petitioner wishes to file limited waivers,
    it is the
    responsibility of the petitioner to file an additional waiver in
    a timely manner or schedule the hearing as required to meet the
    deadline.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boar~,hereby certify that, the above order was adopted on the
    day of
    ,7~2~)
    Ct~
    ,
    1993, by a vote of
    I
    Dorothy N.
    Illinois
    Control Board
    at
    Li.2-C’532

    Back to top