ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May
    23,
    1991
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—89
    (Enforcement)
    FRED JOHNSON, JOHNSON
    & BRIGGS
    TANK TRUCK
    SERVICE, a/k/a
    JOHNSON & BRIGGS TANK TRUCK
    & HEATER SERVICE
    an Illinois corporation,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.
    C.
    Marlin):
    This matter comes before the Board on the Agency’s May 16,
    1991 Motion To Reinstate Herman
    L. Loeb as
    a party respondent.
    This motion essentially requests reconsideration of the Board’s
    Order
    of September 13,
    1990 which dismissed Mr. Loeb as
    a
    respondent due to the Agency’s failure to comply with
    the notice
    requirements of Section 31(d).
    For the reasons expressed below,
    the Board on
    its own motion strikes the Agency’s motion as
    untimely filed.
    This action was filed with the Board on May 1,
    1990.
    On
    August
    1,
    Mr.
    Loeb filed his motion to dismiss.
    The
    Agency’s
    motion alleges
    that
    a 31(d)
    letter was mailed on August
    13,
    1990,
    and that a meeting had been set for September
    13, 1990.
    Having
    received no response to Mr. Loeb’s motion, the Board entered its
    dismissal Order on September
    13,
    1990.
    Mr. Loeb did not attend
    the scheduled September 13 meeting and has not met with the
    Agency since
    that time.
    Procedural
    rule 103.240 allows a party to seek relief within
    35 days of the entry of
    a final order.
    The Agency did not do so
    here.
    Procedural rule 103.241(b)
    allows a party to seek relief
    from one year after
    entry of an order where there exists:
    122—239
    —2—
    1)
    Newly
    discovered
    evidence
    which
    by
    due
    diligence
    could
    not
    have
    been
    discovered
    in
    time under Section 103.224;
    or
    2)
    Fraud
    (whether
    heretofore
    denominated
    intrinsic or extrinsic),
    misrepresentation,
    or
    other misconduct of an adverse party; or
    3)
    Void order.
    None of these conditions exist here, and the Agency has not
    explained the reasons for the delay.
    Mr. Loeb could reasonably expect that the order of dismissal
    was final to him as of October
    18,
    1990.
    Furthermore, Mr. Loeb
    most likely would not have been
    a party to any negotiations that
    may be ongoing between the Agency and the current Respondents
    in
    this proceeding.
    This would place Mr.
    Loeb at a disadvantage.
    Reopening this matter seven months
    later would simply not be
    fair.
    Again,
    the Agency’s motion
    is stricken.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    B. Forcade dissented.
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    1A~~
    day of
    ~~ha~i
    ,
    1991,
    by a vote of
    ________
    Control Board
    122—240

    Back to top