1
1 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2 Volume II
3 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
4 WOOD FURNITURE COATING ) R97-31
AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. ) (Rulemaking-Air)
5 CODE PARTS 211, 218, AND 219 )
SUBPART F )
6
7
8 The following is the transcript of a
9 hearing held in the above-entitled matter, taken
10 stenographically by
Caryl L. Hardy, CSR, a Notary
11 Public within and for the County of Cook and State
12 of Illinois, before
Audrey Lozuk-Lawless, Hearing
13 Officer, at 100 West Randolph Street, Room 9-031,
14 Chicago, Illinois, on the 13th day of August 1997,
15 A.D. Commencing at the hour of 1:00 p.m.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
2
1 A P
P E A R A N C E S:
2 HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
3 100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
4 Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 814-4925
5 BY: MS. AUDREY LUZUK-LAWLESS
6
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
7
Ms. Kathleen M.
Hennessey
8
Mr.
Anad Rao
9
10 ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MEMBERS
PRESENT:
11
Ms. Christina L. Archer
12
Mr. David E.
Bloomberg
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
3
1 I N D E X
2
3 GREETING BY HEARING OFFICER 4
4 GREETING BY MS. HENNESSEY 4
5 OPENING STATEMENT BY MS. ARCHER 6
6 TESTIMONY BY MR. BLOOMBERG 10
7 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 12
8 CLOSING STATEMENTS BY HEARING OFFICER 24
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
4
1 THE HEARING OFFICER: Good morning and welcome.
2 My name is
Audrey Lozuk-Lawless, and I'm the hearing
3 officer in this matter entitled Wood Furniture
4 Coating, Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211, 218,
5 and 219 Subpart F. This proposal is docketed as
6 R97-31. It's an air rulemaking, which was submitted
7 to the board by the Illinois Environmental
8 Protection Agency on June 3rd, 1997.
9 The board did conduct the first hearing in
10 this matter on Tuesday, August 5th in Edwardsville,
11 Illinois. At that time, there was one member of the
12 public present. That would be Mark Homer from CICI,
13 as well as the agency. At that time, the board
14 member, Dr. Ronald
Flemal, asked questions, as well
15 as did Mr. Homer.
16 Today on behalf of the board is board
17 member Kathleen
Hennessey seated to my right.
18 MS. HENNESSEY: Good afternoon.
19 THE HEARING OFFICER: And seated to my left on
20 behalf of the board is our environmental scientist,
21 Anad Rao.
22 Today is the second and final hearing in
23 this rulemaking, and what will happen today is the
24 agency will go ahead and give an opening statement,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
5
1 and that will be followed by a summary of the
2 prefiled testimony of Mr. David
Bloomberg.
3 Seeing that there is only one new member in
4 the audience today who is already on service list,
5 if there is anyone else that you know of that wants
6 to be on the service list or the notice list, please
7 contact me at the board, or you may sign their name
8 up at the back of the room.
9 The service list persons receive copies of
10 any orders that the board or I, as the hearing
11 officer, put out in this matter, as well as any
12 prefiled testimony. Considering that there would be
13 no additional
prefiled testimony, if there were any
14 posthearing briefs, then you would also receive
15 copies of those. Persons on the notice list only
16 receive copies of the board's orders and the hearing
17 officer orders.
18 Any information which is relevant and not
19 repetitious will be admitted into the record today.
20 This hearing will be conducted pursuant to the
21 board's rulemaking procedures. If there is anyone
22 in the audience who would like to ask a question of
23 Mr.
Bloomberg, please raise your hand, and I will
24 call on you. You can stand and state your name for
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
6
1 the record, as well as any agency that you may
2 represent.
3 Ms.
Hennessey, would you like to say
4 anything for the record?
5 MS. HENNESSEY: Just thanks for being here, and
6 let's get started.
7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
8 The counsel for the Illinois Environmental
9 Protection Agency is Ms. Tina Archer.
10 Ms. Archer?
11 MS. ARCHER: Good afternoon. My name is
12 Christina Archer, and I'm an assistant counsel the
13 Bureau of Air Regulatory Unit with the Respondent,
14 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. With me
15 today is Mr. David
Bloomberg of the Air Quality and
16 Planning Section of the Illinois Environmental
17 Protection Agency.
18 The purpose of this hearing today is to
19 amend Illinois' air pollution control requirements
20 at 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 218 and 219 Subpart F
21 regarding wood furniture coating operations, as well
22 as adding definitions related to wood furniture
23 coating and 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 211.
24 As indicated by the hearing officer, this
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
7
1 is the second hearing. The first hearing was held
2 in Edwardsville, Illinois, on August 5th, 1997.
3 This rulemaking proposal is being submitted
4 to the Illinois Pollution Control Board pursuant to
5 Section 27 of the Illinois Environmental Protection
6 Act, as well as Federal Clean Act requirements.
7 Section 182(b)2 of the Clean Air Act as
8 amended in 1990 requires Illinois to submit a
9 revision to its state implementation plan to include
10 provisions to require the implementation of
11 reasonably available control technology, or RACT,
12 for each category of volatile organic material, or
13 VOM sources, covered by a controlled techniques
14 guideline or CTG document.
15 Pursuant to Section 183 of the Clean Air
16 Act, wood furniture coating operations are one of
17 the 11 stationary source categories of VOM emissions
18 for which a CTG must be issued by U.S. EPA.
19 On May 20th, 1996, U.S. EPA published its
20 final CTG for wood furniture coating operations.
21 This proposal is intended to satisfy Illinois'
22 adoption of RACT rules required to be developed in
23 response to the CTG.
24 In developing this rulemaking proposal, the
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
8
1 Illinois EPA sent outreach packages to potentially
2 affected facilities, U.S. EPA, and trade
3 associations and offered to meet with any entity to
4 discuss this rulemaking. Illinois has not received
5 any comments on the proposal to date.
6 The rulemaking itself affects both the
7 Chicago and the metro east St. Louis ozone
8 nonattainment areas. The Illinois EPA believes that
9 approximately 27 facilities are affected in the
10 Chicago
nonattainment area and has not identified
11 any affected sources in this metro east
12 nonattainment area.
13 The compliance date for the rulemaking is
14 March 15th, 1998. The rulemaking will change the
15 limits for topcoats and sealers only, and those
16 limits will be measured in pounds of VOM per pounds
17 of solid. This is a different unit of measurement
18 than what the current rule requires, which is pounds
19 of VOM per gallon of coating.
20 Effective sources may also elect to use an
21 averaging approach and still add on controls or may
22 use a combination of these methods to achieve
23 compliance. All other coatings may continue to be
24 utilized at their current levels and in their
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
9
1 current units of measurement.
2 In addition, several work practice and
3 recordkeeping reporting requirements have been added
4 to the current rule pursuant to the CTG.
5 As stated earlier, Mr. David
Bloomberg of
6 our Air Quality and Planning Section is with me
7 today. Mr.
Bloomberg prepared the technical support
8 document for this rulemaking proposal. The Illinois
9 EPA has also
prefiled Mr. Bloomberg's testimony in
10 this matter, and the
prefiled testimony has already
11 been entered into the record at the first hearing as
12 Exhibit 1, I believe.
13 THE HEARING OFFICER: That's right.
14 MS. ARCHER: Mr.
Bloomberg has also prepared a
15 short summary he would like to read, and he will
16 also respond to some questions raised at the first
17 hearing.
18 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
19 Would you please swear in the witness?
20 (Witness sworn.)
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
10
1 WHEREUPON,
2 DAVID E. BLOOMBERG,
3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly
4 sworn, was examined upon oral interrogatories, and
5 testified as follows:
6 MR. BLOOMBERG: Good afternoon. My name is
7 David
Bloomberg. I'm employed by the Illinois
8 Environmental Protection Agency as an environmental
9 protection engineer in the ozone regulatory unit of
10 the Air Quality Planning Section, Division of Air
11 Quality, Bureau of Air.
12 I have been employed by the Illinois EPA in
13 this capacity for over five and a half years. My
14 responsibilities include development of the ozone
15 precursor emissions inventory for stationary sources
16 and preparation of technical support for proposed
17 ozone regulations.
18 My academic credentials include a Bachelor
19 of Science degree in ceramic engineering at the
20 University of Illinois at Champaign-
Urbana.
21 As part of the assignments in my current
22 position, I prepared the technical support document,
23 or TSD, for the proposed regulation regarding wood
24 furniture coating operations.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
11
1 The Illinois EPA is proposing that the
2 board adopt changes in the wood furniture coating
3 rules corresponding to requirements in U.S. EPA's
4 control techniques guidelines, or CTG, for this
5 category.
6 CTG was developed through a consensus
7 process involving members of industry, environmental
8 groups, states, and local agencies. My
presubmitted
9 written testimony summarizes the findings from the
10 TSD.
11 During the previous hearing in
12 Edwardsville, Mr. Homer of the Chemical Industries
13 Council of Illinois asked about that assuming that
14 the Illinois EPA used in evaluating the coatings
15 being used by wood furniture
coaters. I will answer
16 that question now.
17 Illinois EPA relied on information provided
18 by Paul
Almodavar of U.S. EPA. Mr.
Almodavar was
19 the technical contact and main author for the wood
20 furniture coating CTG.
21 He provided the information that some
22 members of the
reg-neg team had used while
23 developing the CTG limits. This information relied
24 on solvent densities ranging from 7.0 to 8.0 and
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
12
1 solid densities of 9.5 and 10.5.
2 This provided a range of VOM content
3 volumes which Illinois EPA compared to coating VOM
4 content information found in the CAP applications
5 for wood furniture coating sources.
6 Also, during the previous hearing,
7 Dr.
Flemal asked about industry's agreement with the
8 new units of measurement for VOM limits on topcoats
9 and sealers. I discussed this further with
10 Mr.
Almodavar since that hearing, and he informed me
11 that industry was the proponent for the new units to
12 which U.S. EPA agreed.
13 I am now available to answer any additional
14 questions regarding the TSD and my testimony.
15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,
16 Mr.
Bloomberg.
17 Are there any questions from any members of
18 the audience for Mr.
Bloomberg?
19 Yes. Could you please state your name for
20 the record?
21 MR. DOLAN: Sure. Last name is
Dolan. First
22 name is David. That's D-o-l-a-n. I'm a coating
23 manufacturer.
24 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
13
1 MR. DOLAN: The 27 that was mentioned earlier,
2 I don't think by yourself -- the 27 facilities
3 affected in the metro Chicago ozone
nonattainment
4 area, what is the threshold limit of emissions that
5 triggers them being affected?
6 MR. BLOOMBERG: It's 25 tons potential to emit,
7 which is the same that is in the current rule, so
8 there is no change of applicability here. If you
9 are affected by the current rules, you will be
10 affected by the new rules. If you are not, you
11 won't.
12 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any other questions?
13 MR. DOLAN: No.
14 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
15 Mr. Homer?
16 MR. HOMER: I just have a couple of questions.
17 My name is Mark Homer with the Chemical Industry
18 Council of Illinois.
19 Is it true that during the
reg-neg process
20 that U.S. EPA and industry agree to regulate only
21 topcoat and sealers?
22 MR. BLOOMBERG: That was the agreement for the
23 CTG, yes.
24 MR. HOMER: In Illinois, opaque stain,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
14
1 nontopcoat pigmented coat, repair coat,
2 semi-transparent stain, and wash coat are all
3 currently regulated; is that correct?
4 MR. BLOOMBERG: Yes, it is.
5 MR. HOMER: Can you give me Illinois EPA's
6 perspective on whether or not it would be
7 appropriate due to the fact that the
reg-neg process
8 did not indicate these types of coatings should be
9 regulated, whether or not it would be appropriate to
10 remove the current regulatory burden placed on those
11 particular coatings?
12 MR. BLOOMBERG: We did not feel it would be
13 appropriate for several reasons. One is that it
14 could be considered backsliding. We would have a
15 regulation in place that it appears almost everybody
16 or everybody is complying with, and removing that
17 would allow for people to emit more VOM emissions.
18 Because it is in the current rule and we do
19 not know of any serious problems complying with
20 that -- with those rules, we see -- we saw no reason
21 to remove it and, therefore, like I said, allow
22 additional VOM emissions.
23 We believe that although we have not
24 actually checked, Region 5 of U.S. EPA may also
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
15
1 consider it backsliding, and additionally, because
2 of the increased VOM emissions, it would hurt the
3 rate of progress, three percent that were going to
4 have to continue to reduce and, of course,
5 eventually coming into attainment.
6 MR. HOMER: Thank you. That's all I have.
7 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,
8 Mr. Homer.
9 Yes. Could you please state your name for
10 the record?
11 MR. CASTANARES: My name is
Rizalino
12 Castanares.
13 THE HEARING OFFICER: Could you spell that?
14 MR. CASTANARES:
Rizalino Castanares,
15 C-a-s-t-a-n-a-r-e-s.
16 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr.
Castanares.
17 MR. CASTANARES: I have just one simple question
18 maybe I can just follow-up on. Is there any
19 difference between the CTG regulation and the NESHAP
20 regulation, and if there is, can you tell us what
21 the difference is?
22 MR. BLOOMBERG: I'm sorry.
23 Is there any difference between the NESHAP
24 and the CTG, was that the question?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
16
1 MR. CASTANARES: Yes.
2 MR. BLOOMBERG: Well, the NESHAP only covers
3 HAPs, hazardous air pollutants, whereas the CTG
4 covers all VOM.
5 So, for example, if you were -- and many
6 wood furniture
coaters will be affected by both, and
7 they were developed together by U.S. EPA and the
8 reg-neg.
9 So, for example, you won't find work
10 practices in ones that aren't in the other in
11 general. But -- actually, let me backtrack on that
12 a little.
13 You will find some in the NESHAP that are
14 not in our rules because we felt it would be
15 redundant to put them in our rules when they were
16 aimed at the NESHAP.
17 Because the NESHAP only covers hazardous
18 air pollutants, it's possible for somebody to
19 convert their coatings away from hazardous air
20 pollutants, but still use VOM material, and so the
21 CTG covers all VOM, whether they are
HAPs or
22 non-HAP.
23 THE HEARING OFFICER: Do you have any follow-up,
24 Mr.
Castanares?
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
17
1 MR. CASTANARES: The limits for NESHAP and CTG,
2 are they the same, or are they different?
3 MR. BLOOMBERG: I'm not entirely sure. I would
4 have to check, but again, the limits -- you really
5 can't compare the limits because one is a limit on
6 HAP content, and one is a limit on all VOM content.
7 So I'm not sure if, for example, they're
8 both .8 or something like that, but once again, one
9 covers only
HAPs, and the other covers all VOM.
10 THE HEARING OFFICER: Mr.
Dolan?
11 MR. DOLAN: One additional question, and I'm
12 looking at Page 18 of the Illinois Register Notice
13 of Proposed Amendments. There are several options
14 that are listed.
15 MS. HENNESSEY: Do you have a section number?
16 MR. DOLAN: Actually, this might be a
17 condensed. Maybe you can just answer the question
18 without looking at the page. There are options for
19 topcoats in terms of kilogram VOM per kilogram
20 solids of .8.
21 THE HEARING OFFICER: Excuse me, Mr.
Dolan. Is
22 it 218.204?
23 MS. ARCHER: Yes. It's Page 18 of our notice of
24 proposed amendments 218.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
18
1 MR. DOLAN: Just by way of clarification, Option
2 A, which lists topcoat, I'm inferring from that that
3 if the topcoat meets the .8 criterion that the
4 subsequent coatings can meet the current
reg, and
5 that would include sealers at 5.6?
6 MR. BLOOMBERG: Actually, if the topcoat meets
7 the .8, there is no limit for sealers. All of the
8 others still have to meet the same requirements that
9 are in the rules currently.
10 We are changing the topcoat and sealer
11 limits. Those are the only ones that are being
12 changed, and pursuant to the CTG, they basically
13 said either you can do a topcoat that has very low
14 VOM and not worry at all about the sealer, or you
15 can use one of these combinations, topcoat sealer
16 combinations. They apparently believe those were
17 equivalent.
18 MR. DOLAN: So if you elected to comply with
19 Option A, it's virtually carte blanche with sealer
20 except that you would still comply with the
21 NESHAP?
22 MR. BLOOMBERG: Correct.
23 MR. DOLAN: And one additional question
24 regarding Option Top B, there is small Roman
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
19
1 numerals I through -- or 1 through 4. The nonacid
2 curette versus the acid
currette, I presume, implies
3 some degree of heat so that if you are using the
4 force dry system --
5 MR. BLOOMBERG: To be honest, I'm not entirely
6 sure.
7 MR. DOLAN: Because these are the same products,
8 and I'm wondering why you are so graceful with
9 limits on some and not others.
10 MR. BLOOMBERG: Basically, those are directly
11 out of the CTG, which are directly out of the
12 reg-neg. So I would have to check and see if there
13 was a heat involved in those.
14 MR. DOLAN: Thank you.
15 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
16 Mr.
Bloomberg, is that something that you
17 would want to put into the record after the
18 hearing?
19 MS. ARCHER: We will address that at comments.
20 THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you.
21 Mr.
Castanares?
22 MR. CASTANARES: I see all the limits like
23 for -- specific limits for opaque stain, topcoats,
24 repair coats, and wash coats, but under the Illinois
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
20
1 rules, would averaging be still applicable to these
2 limits?
3 If I meet some and I don't meet the others,
4 could I average out all the --
5 MR. BLOOMBERG: When you say still, actually,
6 averaging -- except for specific cross line
7 averaging, which is a separate section of this rule,
8 of the overall coating rules, the only thing you can
9 do right now really is in line averaging.
10 But this rule does have an averaging
11 provision. 218, 215 does have an equation --
12 actually, several equations regarding averaging, and
13 it does allow for averaging of the different
14 coatings.
15 In return for the averaging, you have to
16 meet .9 of the overall standards. So it's not a
17 direct average. It's a 90 percent of everything,
18 and that also is directly out of the CTG, which is
19 out of regulatory negotiation.
20 THE HEARING OFFICER: And I might add,
21 Mr.
Castanares, that if you would like a copy of
22 the agency's proposal, you can obtain that from the
23 board in a disk form if you wanted to look
24 specifically at all of those equations as well.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
21
1 You can just contact the board's office.
2 MS. ARCHER: We have actually got additional
3 copies here today we would be happy to provide you
4 with.
5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Are there any further
6 questions from anyone in the audience of
7 Mr.
Bloomberg?
8 Mr.
Rao?
9 MR. RAO: I have just one question. Actually,
10 Dr.
Flemal may have asked you this question, but he
11 asked me to ask you one more time. This question
12 deals the U.S. EPA deadline for this rulemaking. I
13 think in their Federal Register announcement that
14 said that these RACT follow must be adopted by May
15 20th, 1997, and we wanted the agency to comment on
16 the implications of adopting this rule after the
17 date set by the federal U.S. EPA.
18 MR. BLOOMBERG: After the -- well, obviously we
19 have already passed that.
20 MR. RAO: Yes. We are passed the date, so is
21 there any other --
22 MR. BLOOMBERG: It was a very short time period
23 because they were -- the
reg-neg took somewhat
24 longer than they expected, and it was a short time
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
22
1 period, and that was complicated by the fact that
2 the date did not appear in the first Federal
3 Register notice.
4 The notice that it appeared in was in
5 September. The overage notice, I believe, appeared
6 in May 20th of '96. So we didn't even know we had
7 this deadline until the end of September.
8 There shouldn't be any implications if the
9 rule is adopted. U.S. EPA Region 5 is aware that we
10 were in the board hearing process now, and so I
11 don't foresee any implications if the rule is
12 adopted. It has the necessary parts, and it has the
13 proper compliance date.
14 MS. ARCHER: And our compliance date, if I may
15 add, will be before the compliance date as specified
16 in the Federal Register.
17 MR. RAO: That's the May 28th, 1998, date?
18 MS. ARCHER: Right. We are asking that the rule
19 have an effective date of March 15th, 1998.
20 Compliance date, I'm sorry.
21 THE HEARING OFFICER: The Federal Register that
22 they are referring was admitted as Exhibit Number 2
23 in the first hearing in Edwardsville. That's the
24 Federal Register, Volume 61, Number 189 of Friday,
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
23
1 September 27th, 1996, Page 50823.
2 MR. RAO: Thank you.
3 THE HEARING OFFICER: Yes, Mr.
Castanares?
4 MR. CASTANARES: What are the implications of
5 this rulemaking relative to the Title 5 applications
6 that are already in the agency's hands?
7 MR. BLOOMBERG: As I understand it -- and I will
8 preface this by saying I do not work in the permit
9 sections.
10 As I understand it, what will be necessary
11 is that you submit simply a change form. There are
12 forms that you submit to say that this has changed
13 or that has changed. So once the rule becomes
14 effective, as I understand, you will have to submit
15 such a form to our permit section saying that you
16 are subject to the new limits. So I don't -- I hope
17 that won't be too big of an effort.
18 MR. CASTANARES: Who is going to initiate the
19 amendment process? You said the agency?
20 MR. BLOOMBERG: No. I believe you are
21 responsible. As I understand it, you are
22 responsible for that, and certainly what would
23 happen if you didn't is since the permit section is
24 in the process of reviewing those Title 5
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
24
1 applications now, they are aware of this rule, and
2 if they open up the permit application and see that
3 your information still is focused on the older rule,
4 then, certainly they will contact you.
5 THE HEARING OFFICER: Any further questions for
6 Mr.
Bloomberg?
7 Thank you, Mr.
Bloomberg.
8 Is there anyone in the audience that would
9 like to give testimony on the record today with
10 regard to this proposal?
11 If you would like to in the future provide
12 comments to the board on this proposal, I believe
13 that the record will close at approximately
14 September 20th.
15 If you would like to provide public
16 comment, please address those comments to the clerk
17 of the board noting that this is Rulemaking R97-31.
18 The address for the board is James R.
Thompson
19 Center, 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500, Chicago,
20 60601.
21 If you could, please contact me before you
22 submit those to the board so that I could give you
23 an updated service list. All comments need to be
24 filed on those persons listed on the service list.
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
25
1 I believe there are approximately five people on the
2 service list right now, so I don't think that will
3 be too onerous.
4 If you would like to sign up for the
5 service list and you haven't done so since some
6 people did arrive after my introductory statements,
7 the lists are on the back of the table right there.
8 Please just sign your name and address.
9 As I mentioned, this is the last hearing in
10 this matter. If you would like to request any
11 additional hearings, please consult the board's
12 procedural rules and file any motion with the board
13 stating the reasons why you would like to do so.
14 And if you need any copies of the proposal, please
15 see Ms. Archer today.
16 When the board does, if they do go to first
17 notice on this proposal, it would be put on the
18 board's Web page, and you could down load that free
19 of charge. If you want any copies of any of the
20 filings from the board, it's 75 cents per page after
21 the first filing.
22 Are there any other comments from anyone
23 today?
24 Seeing none, then I would like to thank
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
26
1 everyone for coming, and this hearing is adjourned.
2 (Whereupon, the hearing was
3 adjourned at 1:25 p.m.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292
27
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
2 COUNTY OF C O
O K )
3
4 I, CARYL L. HARDY, CSR, do hereby state
5 that I am a court reporter doing business in the
6 City of Chicago, County of Cook, and State of
7 Illinois; that I reported by means of machine
8 shorthand the proceedings held in the foregoing
9 cause, and that the foregoing is a true and correct
10 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken as
11 aforesaid.
12
13
14
15 _________________________________
CARYL L. HARDY, CSR
16 Notary Public, Cook County, IL.
17
18
19
20 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before me this ______day
21 of ____________,
A.D., 1997
___________________________
22 Notary Public
23
24
L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292