ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August
    5,
    1993
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL)
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    AC 93—27
    )
    (IEPA Docket No.
    444-93-AC)
    OLIVER A.
    SMITH,
    )
    (Administrative Citation)
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B. Forcade):
    On August
    2,
    1993,
    Oliver Smith filed a letter which appears
    to be in the nature of a petition for review of an Administrative
    Citation regarding his property located in Macoupin County,
    Illinois.
    Attached to the letter from Mr.
    Smith is
    a copy of a
    portion of a handwritten note.
    The Board cannot determine the
    relevance of the note to the petition of review.
    A review of the
    correspondence filed to date in this matter indicates there may
    be some confusion as to the nature of a proceeding of this type
    before the Board.
    In this type of proceeding before the Board,
    the burden is
    upon the Petitioner
    (Mr. Smith)
    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, and applicable regulations.
    In order to prevail at hearing, the Petitioner must present
    facts and arguments as to why no violation should be found.
    The
    Board hearing is not an informal informational hearing at which
    the Agency 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 Petitioner.
    The Petitioner
    bears the burden of providing information to support its
    position.
    The initial burden at hearing to explain why the
    violation should be upheld is not upon the Agency.
    To avoid any confusion about what could happen in this case,
    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.
    OIE~6-OI
    I
    2
    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 hearing costs.
    Hearing costs usually average from $200.00 to
    $1,000.00,
    and must be paid in addition to the penalty.
    If Petitioner does not wish to proceed with this matter he
    may file a motion to dismiss
    (reference Sections 101.241 and
    101.242 of the Board’s rules and regulations for filing
    procedures.)
    If a motion to dismiss is not received by the Board
    prior to October 15,
    1993 this matter will be set for hearing.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Bo~rd,hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    __________________,
    1993, by a vote of
    _______
    Dorothy N.
    Illinois
    Control Board
    OI~$-O
    120

    Back to top