Toyal America v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 966 N.E.2d 73

Toyal America, Inc. operated a Chicago facility in an ozone nonattainment area since 1996.
Regulatory regime required VOM emissions control of at least 81% for facilities >25 tons/year under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a).
From 1995 to 2003, Toyal allegedly failed to comply with 218.986(a).
IEPA investigations and permit proceedings led to installation attempts (RCO, later CRO) and multiple extensions, with testing delays.
In May 2000, the State filed a seven-count complaint; penalties were determined after contested economic-benefit testimony.
Board imposed a $716,440 civil penalty (economic benefit plus per-year penalties) and a cease-and-desist order; one member dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the penalty within statutory authority?	Toyal argues the Board misapplied sections 33(c) and 42(h), excessive.	Board contends penalty reasonable, supported by factors and must equal/even exceed economic benefit.	Penalty not arbitrary or unreasonable; affirmed.
Should economic-benefit be offset by forgone-cost savings?	Toyal claims offsetting with solvent-recovery savings negates benefits of noncompliance.	Board rejects forgone-benefit offset as deterrence undermined.	Forgone-benefit theory rejected; economic-benefit amount upheld.
Did the Board properly apply section 33(c) factors?	Toyal asserts misreading weightings under 33(c).	Board weighed injury, social value, suitability, practicability, and subsequent compliance properly.	Board’s application of 33(c) not clearly arbitrary or unreasonable.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 386 Ill. App. 3d 375 (2008) (standard of review and deference to Board's penalty discretion)
ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 286 Ill. App. 3d 325 (1997) (penalty authority and deference to Board decisions)