BEFORE THE ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER
OF:
STATIONARY RECIPROCATING
INTERNAL
COMBUSTION
ENGINES AND
TURBINES:
AMENDMENTS TO
35 ILL.
ADM. CODE SECTION 201.146,
AND
PARTS 211 AND 217
(Rulemaking - Air)
R07-18
NOTICE OF
FILING
T
O:
Tim Fox, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R.
Thompson Center
100 West Randolph
Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
(VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL)
(VIA FIRST
CLASS MAIL)
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph
Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(SEE PERSONS ON ATTACHED
SERVICE LIST)
PLEASE
TAKE NOTICE that I have today
filed with the Office of the
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution
Control Board a REPLY TO RESPONSE
TO OBJECTION TO
USE OF SECTION 28.5 "FAST-TRACK"
RULEMAKING
FOR THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S PROPOSED
RULES and
AFFIDAVIT
OF DEIRDRE K. HIRNER, on
behalf of the Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group, copies of
which are herewith served upon you.
Respectfully
submitted,
Dated: May 8, 2007
Katherine
D. Hodge
N. LaDonna Driver
Gale W. Newton
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland
Avenue
Post Office Box
5776
Springfield, Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY GROUP,
By:
/s/ Katherine
D. Hodize
One of Its Attorneys
THIS FILING SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I, Katherine D. Hodge, the
undersigned, hereby certify that I
have served the
attached
REPLY TO RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
TO USE OF SECTION 28.5
"FAST-TRACK" RULEMAKING FOR
THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED RULES
and AFFIDAVIT OF DIERDRE K.
HIRNER upon:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via electronic mail on May 8, 2007, and upon:
Tim Fox, Esq.
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson
Center
100
West
Randolph
Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Rachel L. Doctors, Esq.
Assistant Counsel
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue
East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Elizabeth A. Leifel, Esq.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
7800 Sears Tower
233 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago,
Illinois
60606-6404
Kathleen C. Bassi, Esq.
Schiff Hardin, LLP
6600
Sears Tower
233 South
Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606-6473
by depositing said documents in the
United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield,
Illinois, on May 8, 2007.
/s/
Katherine
D. Hodge
Katherine D. Hodge
IERG:001
/R Dockets/R07-18/COS - Reply
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
STATIONARY RECIPROCATING
)
INTERNAL COMBUSTION
) R07-18
ENGINES AND TURBINES:
)
(Rulemaking
- Air)
AMENDMENTS
TO 35 ILL.
)
ADM.
CODE SECTION 201.146,
)
AND PARTS 211 AND
217
)
REPLY TO
RESPONSE TO
OBJECTION TO USE
OF SECTION 28.5
"FAST-TRACK"
RULEMAKING FOR THE
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S PROPOSED
RULES
NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Regulatory
Group ("IERG"), by and
through its attorneys, HODGE DWYER
ZEMAN, and submits its reply
to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency's
(the "Illinois EPA") response
(the "Response") to
IERG's
Objection (the "Objection") to the Illinois
EPA's improper use of
Section 28.5 of
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act (the "Act") in the Stationary
Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines and Turbines
Proposal (the "Proposed Rule"). IERG
incorporates the
Objection herein by reference.
As set forth in detail below, IERG reiterates its
Objection to the use of
Section
28.5 "fast-track" rulemaking proceedings
for the propagation of
the Proposed Rule.1 The
proposal filed in support of the Proposed Rule
is procedurally inadequate under
Section
28.5(e) and does not present a set of rules that
are "required to be adopted by the State
under the Clean Air Act ["the "CAA"] . . ."
as provided by Section 28.5. The
Response
does not adequately address any of the issues discussed in the
Objection. In fact, the
Response: 1) ignores a recent Illinois
Pollution Control Board ("Board") holding
1 Except for the use
of Section 28.5 rulemaking for the 28 internal combustion engines ("IC
engines") that
are affected by the NOx State Implementation Plan Call Phase II (the
"Phase II NOx SIP Call Engines") as
discussed in the Objection.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
regarding the extent of its ability to review
Section 28.5 proposals; 2) fails to
adequately
explain
the procedural shortcomings of the proposal; 3) raises
an additional procedural
omission; and, 4) does not provide
a sufficient basis for the Illinois EPA's assertion
that
the specific Proposed Rule is required to be adopted by the
CAA. For the convenience of
the Board, the issues raised in
the Response will be addressed in the order
listed in the
Response, rather
than in the order of importance to the matter at hand.
I. PROCEDURAL REOUIREMENTS
The Illinois EPA indicates that the Board may only make
a cursory examination
of a proposal under
Section
28.5
to determine if the items listed in a "statutory checklist"
found in
Section 28.5(e) have been included in the proposal.
See, R07-18 Illinois EPA's
Response to the Illinois Environmental Regulatory
Group's Objection to Use of Section
28.5
Fast Track Procedures for Consideration of Nitrogen
Oxide Proposal ("Response"),
at 2-4. The Illinois EPA
states that "[t]he Board has held that its review of a rulemaking
proposal submitted by the Illinois EPA pursuant to
Section 28.5 of the Act is limited to a
procedural review so as to ensure that all
components of a rulemaking package are
present
in the submission. The Board discussed this issue in a Board resolution
docketed
as Board Resolution 92-2,
dated October 29, 1992." Id. at 2. While IERG would agree
that the Illinois EPA must strictly adhere to the requirements
of Section 28.5(e), the
Board has specifically recognized
that it has considerably more authority over the
decision of whether to proceed under Section 28.5 than a mere
glance at a checklist.
Recently,
the Board has stated that "[w]hen the Agency argues that the Board's
review of this proposal [under Section 28.5] is
limited to technical or procedural issues, it
disregards well-settled
case
law
providing an agency has authority to determine
whether
2
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
it has jurisdiction over a proceeding." R06-25, In
the Matter of: Proposed New 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 225 Control of Emissions from Large Combustion
Sources (Mercury) at 14,
2006 Ill. ENV LEXIS 232 (I11.Pol.Control.Bd. April 20,
2006). In that matter, the Board
held that "[t]he Board finds
that the language of the Act and case law clearly
authorize
the Board to consider whether or not a proposal filed
pursuant to Section 28.5 may
proceed under
that provision. Neither Board Resolution 92-2 nor
the Board's procedural
rules restrict the Board to a technical review of
the Agency's proposal." Id. at 15.
Clearly, the Board recognizes that
it has the authority, and in fact the
duty, to
review a proposal under Section 28.5 in more detail than
a mere review of the proposal to
ensure that certain checklist items
are included. The Illinois EPA's position
on this issue
is simply incorrect.
A. The Illinois EPA
has failed to Clearly Identify the Basis for
the Rule
The Response identifies
"references" in the Technical Support
Document (the
"TSD") to certain provisions of the
CAA and certain regulations promulgated thereunder.
However, the "references" are merely generalizations
that certain provisions of the CAA
require general
emission reductions. With the possible exception of the Phase II
NOx
SIP Call Engines, the Illinois EPA has failed to "clearly identify
the provisions and
portions of the federal statute, regulations,
guidance, policy statement, or other
documents upon which the rule is based." 415 ILCS
5/28.5(e)(3). (Emphasis added.)
General
references
to portions of the CAA that require a state implementation
plan or
reasonable further progress do not provide a basis for
the Proposed Rule.
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
B. The Illinois
EPA has failed to Identify Known Affected
Units
In the Response, the Illinois EPA clarifies that
a portion of the Proposed Rule
would be
applicable
to approximately 44 engines. Response at 6. The Illinois
EPA
explains that a survey was sent to 10,025 businesses and from
the responses inferred that
175 units had the potential
to be affected. Id. The Illinois EPA further "narrowed
the
estimated number of affected units to approximately 44 impacted
units." Id.
The Illinois EPA had
the
results
of a survey. From these results, it was able to
extrapolate that 44 engines from the population of 10,025
businesses would be affected
by the Proposed Rule.
Clearly, some number of responses must have included
information
on engines that would be affected by the Proposed Rule,
or the Illinois EPA
would have been unable to make any extrapolation
at all (i.e., if the Illinois EPA's survey
would not have uncovered a single affected source, the number zero
would have
necessarily been used to apply to the total population,
giving a total number of affected
engines of zero). Therefore, the Illinois EPA must have known at least
some of the small
engine sources that would be affected by the Proposed Rule.
The Illinois EPA failed to
list such known sources.
Somewhat incredibly, the Illinois EPA
argues that "[q]uestions pertaining to the
mere
use of "44" as the number, and Illinois EPA's methodology, are best left for
hearing, and not as the justification for an
objection to the Proposal utilizing Section 28.5
of the Act." Response at 6. As discussed earlier, it is the Illinois EPA's
position that the
Board may only review certain "checklist" items to make sure such items are present
before it must accept a rule for "fast track" rulemaking under
Section 28.5. It seems that
the Illinois EPA is arguing that the Board may
merely look at a proposal to see if certain
4
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
"checklist" items are present
and it may not look into the
accuracy of such "checklist"
items until
hearing.
C. Additional
Omitted Requirement
During the Illinois EPA's discussion
of
its
failure to include any list
of known
smaller engines that may
be affected by the Proposed Rule,
the Illinois EPA states
that
"because engines
less than 1,500 bhp are not currently
required to obtain permits
to
operate; hence, the Illinois EPA's
NOX inventory does not include
all the engines of this
size in its
emissions inventory." Response at 6.
Since the Illinois EPA does
not require
permits for many of these
sources, it can be safely assumed
that many of the sources are
small
businesses. Small businesses are afforded
special protections in Illinois
as
explained further below.
It must be noted
that the "checklist" items in
Section 28.5(e) include the
following: "1) The Agency shall file
the rule in a form that meets
the requirements of the
Illinois
Administrative Procedure Act [the "APA"]
[5 ILCS 100/1-1 et sec .] and
regulations promulgated thereunder."
415 ILCS 5/28.5(e)(1). The
APA provides that
"[i]n all rulemaking
to which Sections 5-45 and 5-50 [5 ILCS
100/5-45 and 5 ILCS
100/5-50] do not apply, each agency
shall comply with this Section. 2
5 ILCS 100/5-40.
The APA requires that:
The first notice
shall include all the following:
...
(4)
For all proposed rules and proposed amendments
to rules, an initial
regulatory flexibility
analysis containing a description
of the types of
small businesses
subject to the rule; a brief description of the proposed
reporting, bookkeeping, and other procedures
required for compliance
z
Sections 5-45 and
5-50 are applicable to Emergency Rulemaking and Peremptory
Rulemaking,
respectively, which are not applicable to the matter at
hand. See 5 ILCS 100/5-45 and 5 ILCS
100/5-50.
5
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
with
the rule; and a
description of the types of professional skills
necessary for compliance.
5
ILCS 100/5-40.
As stated above, rulemakings under Section 28.5 must abide
by the requirements
of the APA. The Illinois EPA did not
provide the required initial regulatory flexibility
analysis and therefore, the Board's action to move the Proposed Rules to first notice is
in
violation of the APA.
Since
the Phase II
NOx SIP Call Engines are all located at large
sources, IERG will not object to the continued application of the Section 28.5 rulemaking
process to the portion of the Proposed Rule that includes
the 28 Phase II NOx SIP Call
Engines. However, IERG does object to the use of Section 28.5 for all other portions of
the Proposed Rule for
failure to abide by the requirements of Section 28.5(e) and the
requirements of the APA that are incorporated into Section 28.5. The Illinois EPA's
failure to provide the initial regulatory flexibility analysis jeopardizes
the eventual
enforceability of the Proposed Rules.
D .
The
i
ois EPA has Failed to Provide an Accurate Summar-y7off
Economic Data
upon which it Relied
T he Illinois EPA concedes that it made an error in the data on the summary
of
economic and technical data upon which it relied in drafting the rule. The
Illinois EPA
claims that the mistake was minor and, therefore, should be overlooked. However, we
have been unable to determine the legal support for
this "minor" exception to the specific
requirements of Section 28.5 rulemaking. Further, in the Response, the Illinois EPA
clarifies that the "modifier for
the
number in question
2(a) where the Illinois EPA
indicated that the cost was $855 average annual cost per emission unit is incorrect. The
correct modifier is $855 per ton of NOx reduced annually."
Response at 7. Section 2 of
6
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
the form alluded to by the Illinois EPA
is entitled "Economic effect
on persons affected
by the rulemaking" and the specific question in question
2(a) is "Dollar amount per
person."
See
Agency Analysis
of Economic and Budgetary
Effects of Proposed
Rulemaking, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions (35 Ill.
Adm. Code Part 217), R07-18.
The
Illinois EPA's new answer, $855
per ton of NOx reduced, does not
fit the question. It is
impossible
to assess the impact of the Proposed Rule
when the cost per person has not
been supplied.
Further, the Illinois EPA alludes to extensive
economic data in the TSD.
However, it must be noted that neither
the overall projected cost of $15,270,000
per year
nor the $855
per ton figure appear anywhere in the TSD. In
short, the economic data on
which the Illinois EPA relied in drafting the Proposed
Rule is inadequate.
E. Statewide applicability and ROP
In the Response, the Illinois EPA
cites three rulemakings for the proposition
that
Section 28.5 rulemaking
is an accepted practice for rules that are not
specifically required
by the CAA or that are applicable statewide.
These rulemakings are: R94-15,
In the
Matter
of: 15% ROP Plan Control Measures-Part II: Marine
Vessel Loadine:
Amendments to 35111. Adm.
Code Parts 211, 218, and 219 (I11.Pol.Control.Bd.
Oct. 20,
1994);
ROI-11, In the Matter of. Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 217. Subpart T
Cement Kilns, and Amendment to
35 Ill. Adm. Code 211 and 217 (I11.Pol.Control.Bd.
March 1, 2001); and R98-28, In the Matter of Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills -Non-
Methane Organic Compounds
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 201.103, 201.146, and Part
220
I11.Pol.Control.Bd. June 17, 1998). However, not
one of these cases involved an
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
objection to the use of Section 28.5. Therefore, these
cases do not stand for any
proposition regarding the appropriate
use of Section 28.5.
F. Bvvassine Deliberative Process in Regular Rulemakin
The Illinois
EPA takes exception to statements made by IERG in the Objection to
the effect that Section 28.5 rulemaking provides less meaningful
opportunities for public
participation in
the
rulemaking process.
See Response at 8. The Illinois EPA states that
"[a] shortened period for public participation and review by the Board are inherent in a
proceeding under Section 28.5; however, this issue is irrelevant
to a Section 28.5
analysis." Id. at 9. In opposition to this statement by the Illinois EPA are several
statements made
by the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Sangamon
County, Illinois. In its order granting a preliminary injunction to stop a rulemaking under
Section 28.5, the Court stated:
The interests of the public may be better served by a more formal and
extensive rule making procedure under Section 27 of the Act.
***
In the present case, the use of Section 28.5 or fast track, prohibits the
Plaintiff from participation in a fair hearing.
***
the harm to ... plaintiffs ... and the public alike will likely continue
unabated unless the government body is enjoined from maintaining an
unfair hearing.
***
In
conclusion
the
public
and the Plaintiffs have an interest in
ensuring that
rule-making in the State of Illinois complies with Illinois procedural
requirements and that the public's participation rights are preserved.
Dy iegy Midwest
Generation,
Inc., et al.
v.
Illinois Pollution
Control Board and Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, 06-CH-213, (7th Cir. Ill. 2006).
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
It seems clear that the Court would disagree
with the Illinois EPA that a shortened
period of public participation is "irrelevant
to a Section 28.5 analysis."
II. THE PROPOSED RULE IS
NOT PROPER FOR SECTION 28.5
The Illinois
EPA spends the next eight pages of its Response in
an effort to
substantiate that the Proposed Rule is "required
by the CAA" and that sanctions may be
applied by the USEPA if the Proposed
Rule is not adopted. The Illinois EPA fails in its
attempt.
Section
28.5
is reserved "solely to the adoption of rules proposed by the Agency
and required to be adopted by the State under the Clean Air Act
as amended by the Clean
Air Act Amendments
of
1990
(CAAA)." 415 ILCS 5/28.5(a). (Emphasis added.)
"'[R]equires to be adopted' refers only to those regulations or parts
of regulations for
which
the
United States Environmental Protection Agency is empowered to impose
sanctions against the State for failure to adopt
such rules." 415 ILCS 5/28.5(c).
(Emphasis added.)
While reasonably available control technology ("RACT"),
the Illinois state
implementation plan ("SIP")
and
reasonable
further progress ("RFP") are clearly required
by the CAA, the Proposed Rule is not RACT,
the SIP or RFP. The most that could be
claimed for the Proposed Rule is that its provisions may someday need to be included in
NOx RACT rules, the SIP and/or for RFP purposes. However,
such potential inclusion
will require finalized modeling to ensure that the Proposed Rule will have a desirable
effect.
With regard to the modeling upon which the Illinois EPA is making
the claim that
the Proposed Rule is required by the
CAA, the
Illinois
EPA states "this work is ongoing,
9
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
and
the attainment targets for emissions reductions have not been fully
identified. . ." TSD at
19. The Illinois EPA reiterates this lack of firm modeling
information by stating "[i]t should
be
noted
that this work is ongoing, and the attainment targets for emissions reductions
have
not yet been fully identified." TSD at 21. In other
words, the modeling has not yet
progressed to the stage where the Illinois EPA
can determine how much overall emission
reduction will
be
needed.
Yet the Illinois EPA claims that these specific Proposed Rules
are
required by the CAA because they constitute RACT, the SIP and RFP.
However, with regard to any
SIP, until such modeling is complete, it will be
impossible to tell whether the requirements of the Proposed Rule are requirements
that are
"necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements of this Act." 42 USCS
§ 7410(a)(2)(A) (Emphasis added.); see also 42 USCS § 7502(c)(4)
and 42 USCS
§ 751 la(b)(I)(A)(i). Further, "[t]he
term `reasonable further progress' means such
annual incremental reductions in emissions
of the relevant air pollutant as are required by
this
part or
may reasonably
be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date."
42 USCS § 7501. (Emphasis added.)
Since
the Illinois
EPA does not yet even know
how much total reduction will be needed, it is difficult to imagine how this Proposed
Rule could "reasonably be required ... for the purpose of ensuring attainment. . . ."
The Illinois EPA's argument appears to be that preliminary modeling
indicates
that NOx emission reductions somewhere in the State will be required, the modeling
might eventually indicate that the emission reductions that would
occur due to the
Proposed Rule would be advantageous; therefore, the Proposed Rule is required by the
CAA
and the State
would
face sanctions if the Proposed
Rule is not adopted. Based on
10
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
the materials provided in the proposal, the discussion in the Objection and the discussion
herein; this argument fails.
Finally,
if the Board allows the Proposed Rule to proceed under Section 28.5,
because of the Illinois EPA's unsubstantiated claim that this Proposed Rule
is required by
the CAA, there may be no end to such claims by the Illinois EPA in the future. The
Board has expressed concern with the potential unlimited
use of the provisions of Section
28.5
by the Illinois EPA. When holding that it had the power to review a proposal
submitted by the Illinois EPA for compliance with the requirements of
Section 28.5
rather
than merely glancing at a checklist of items before accepting such a proposal, the
Board stated:
Taking the Agency's argument
to its logical conclusion, even a proposal
invoking Section 28.5 to adopt underground storage
tanks rules would
have to proceed toward adoption, consuming the resources of the Agency,
the Board, regulated entities, and other participants. Such a proceeding
would be virtually certain to be challenged and to
be invalidated as outside
the Board's authority under Section 28.5. Reviewing its own jurisdiction
helps the Board avoid the absurd result of requiring the consumption
of
resources in a proceeding in which its statutory authority has been
questioned.
R06-25 at 15, 2006 Ill. ENV LEXIS 232 (I11.Pol.Control.Bd. April 20, 2006).
A
similar analysis
is
applicable in the matter at hand. In fact, the Board's
underground storage tank example is also applicable here. Based on the Illinois EPA's
arguments in the proposal and the Response, if the Illinois EPA wished to propose a rule
that altered the way that leaking underground storage
tank cleanups were managed, the
Illinois EPA could propose the rule under Section 28.5. As discussed by the Board in the
above-mentioned rulemaking, such a proceeding under Section 28.5
would be
ripe
for
challenge.
11
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
In the matter at hand, the analysis is similar. The Illinois EPA claims that the
Proposed Rule is required by the CAA. The Illinois EPA has
no final modeling evidence
that the Proposed Rule could
reasonably be required for the purpose of ensuring
attainment. At best, the Proposed Rule could eventually
become part of an overall plan
that may be required
by the
CAA.
As in the example discussed by the Board, such a
proceeding could be ripe for review
if promulgated under Section 28.5 and is better
promulgated under
the Board's traditional rulemaking procedures.
In short, if the Illinois EPA is allowed to offer
the Proposed Rule under Section
28.5, there would seem to be no rule that would be inappropriate for rulemaking under
Section 28.5. The Illinois EPA could
propose a comprehensive statewide NOx RACT or
S02
RACT rule under Section 28.5 and thereby circumvent
the Board's regular
rulemaking process. In fact, any proposed
rule for which the Illinois EPA could make
any claim
for reductions in air pollutants could be proposed under Section
28.5. Such a
result would circumvent the public's
right to the more formal and extensive procedural
safeguards
in Section 27 of the Act.
III. CONCLUSION
The proposal that includes the
Proposed Rule has not been presented to the Board in a
form that is acceptable under Section 28.5(e). Further, the
Proposed Rule is not required by
the CAA as
required by Section 28.5. IERG does not object to the use of Section
28.5 for the
promulgation of the portions of the Proposed
Rule that would affect the Phase II NOx SIP
Call Engines.
However, IERG does object to the use of Section
28.5 for the promulgation of
all other portions of the Proposed Rule
that would affect emission units other than the Phase
12
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
II NOx SIP Call Engines. IERG requests that the Board
bifurcate and proceed in this
rulemaking
in the manner described in the Objection.
Respectfully submitted,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY GROUP,
By: /s/ Katherine D. Hodge
One of Its Attorneys
Dated: May 8, 2007
Katherine D. Hodge
N. LaDonna Driver
Gale W. Newton
HODGE DWYER ZEMAN
3150 Roland Avenue
Post
Office
Box
5776
Springfield,
Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
I ERG:00I\R DocketTlecTilings R07-18\Reply to Response to Objection
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
STATIONARY
RECIPROCATING
) R07-18
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES )
(Rulemaking - Air)
AND TURBINES:
AMENDMENTS TO )
35
ILL. ADM.
CODE
SECTION 201.146, )
PARTS 211 AND 217
)
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
SS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON )
Deirdre K.
Hirner, being first duly sworn on oath, affirms that the facts set forth in
the Reply to Response to Objection to Use of Section 28.5 "Fast-Track" Rulemaking
for
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency's Proposed Rules are true and correct.
Deirdre K. Hirner, Executive
Director
Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group
3150 Roland
Avenue
Springfield, Illinois 62703
Subscribed
and sworn to before me
this 8th day of May, 2007.
"OFFICIAL SEAL"
Vickie L. Stamper
N otary Public, State of Illinois
My Commission Exp. 07/12/2008
I ERG:001/R Dockets/R07-18/Affidavit of
DK Hirner - Reply
Electronic Filing, Received, Clerk's Office, May 8, 2007
