ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 3, 2005
     
    E & L TRUCKING COMPANY,
     
    Petitioner,
     
    v.
     
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 06-50
    (UST Appeal)
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):
     
    On October 11, 2005, E & L Trucking Company (E & L) filed a petition asking the
    Board to review a September 14, 2005 determina
    the Agency found E & L’s application for
    ncerns E & L’s leaking underground petroleum
    Court, Cook County. On October 15, 2005, the
    E & L filed a response to the motion on
     
    tition by E & L did not specify the date of
    service of the Agency’s final decision upon the petitioner or any grounds for appeal. Mot. at 1.
    The Agency contends the petition merely recites a timeline of events leading up to the issuance
    of the September 14, 2005 final decision.
    Id.
    The Agency requests that the Board dismiss the
    petition or, in the alternative, require that a petition meeting the filing and content requirements
    be filed within the time allowed by Section 40 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act).
    Mot at 2.
     
    In response, E & L asserts that although the Agency allegedly sent the September 14,
    2005 final determination by certified mail, the actual date of receipt/service of this final
    determination by E & L from the Agency is not known. Resp. at 1. E & L contends that counsel
    cy’s position that final determinations concluding
    that applications or submittals are incomplete are not subject to Board review. Resp. at 2. E & L
    contends that although the actual date of service upon E & L is unknown, it is clear that the
    petition for review filed on October 11, 2005, is timely and that E & L disputes the Agency’s
    incompleteness finding.
    Id.
     
     
    E & L contends that the final determination is both confusing and inconsistent with prior
    Agency determinations related to these same or identical costs. Resp. at 2. E & L asserts that its
    efforts to identify costs and reconcile previous reimbursements with the Agency have received
    no response from the Agency despite repeated assurances from Agency counsel that the Agency
    would identify and provide any detail necessary to address the Agency’s concerns. Resp. at 3.
     
    2
    E & L argues that it is not possible or reasonable to require it to identify all possible grounds for
    appeal at the initial time of filing and that the Agency has not alleged or established any
    prejudice as a result of the alleged deficiencies within the petition.
    Id.
    E & L asks that the Board
    deny the Agency’s motion or grant E & L leave to file an amended petition as necessary.
    Id.
     
     
    The Board grants the Agency’s motion as follows. The Board accepts this matter as
    timely filed, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.404. However, the Board finds that E & L’s
    petition is deficient. As asserted by the Agency, section 105.408 of the Board's procedural rules
    provides that a petition to appeal an Agency decision concerning a leaking underground storage
    tank must contain,
    inter alia
    , a statement specifying the date of service of the Agency’s final
    decision and a statement specifying the grounds of appeal.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.408. E &
    L’s petition merely requests that the Agency’s decision be reversed, and does not contain any
    specific grounds of appeal. Further, the petition does not provide the date of service of the
    Agency’s decision.
     
    E & L’s assertion that it is clear that the petition is timely, and that E & L disputes the
    Agency’s incompleteness finding, does not alter the fact that the petition fails to meet the
    requirements set forth in the Board’s procedural rules. The Board is not convinced by E & L’s
    contention that the actual date of service of the final determination is unknown. E & L has not
    alleged that it did not receive service of the final determination, and such information is clearly,
    then, within E & L’s realm of knowledge as well as being specifically required by Board
    regulation. In addition, the Board is not convinced by E & L’s argument that the Agency has not
    alleged or established any prejudice as a result of the alleged deficiencies within the petition. E
    & L’s petition fails to meet the minimum filing requirements set forth in the Board’s regulations.
    No showing of prejudice is necessary to find the petition deficient.
     
    E & L is hereby given 30 days to correct the deficiencies as set forth in this order. E & L
    must file an amended petition on or before December 3, 2005. If an amended petition correcting
    the deficiencies is not timely filed, this petition will be dismissed. The filing of an amended
    petition will restart the Board’s decision deadline.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 105.114(b).
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on November 3, 2005, by a vote of 5-0.
     
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top