BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE

MATTER OF:

.)

R07-18

(Rulemaking - Air)

FAST-TRACK RULES UNDER NITROGEN

OXIDE (NOX) SIP

CALL PHASE II:

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM.

CODE

SECTION

201.146, PARTS 211 AND 217

IN THE MATTER

OF:

SECTION

27 PROPOSED RULES FOR

NITROGEN OXIDE (NOX)

EMISSIONS

FROM

STATIONARY RECIPROCATING

INTERNAL COMBUSTION

ENGINES AND

TURBINES: AMENDMENTS TO

35 ILL.

ADM. CODE PARTS

211 AND 217

R07-19

(Rulemaking - Air)

NOTICE

OF FILING

TO: Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn

Clerk of the Board

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(VIA

ELECTRONIC MAIL)

Tim

Fox, Esq.

Hearing

Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100

James R. Thompson

Center

100 West Randolph

Street

Suite

11-500

Chicago, Illinois

60601

(VIA FIRST CLASS

MAIL)

(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 MOTION TO

STRIKE AND RESPONSE

TO MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

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: July 9, 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. Hodge

One of Its Attorneys

THIS FILING

SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE

I, Katherine

D. Hodge, the undersigned,

hereby certify that I have

served the

attached

MOTION TO STRIKE

AND RESPONSE TO

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

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 July 9, 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 July 9, 2007.

/s/

Katherine D. Hodge

Katherine

D. Hodge

I ERG:00I/R Dockets/R07-18/COS-Motion

to Strike

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE MATTER OF:

FAST-TRACK

RULES UNDER NITROGEN

OXIDE (NOX) SIP CALL PHASE

II:

AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILL. ADM.

CODE

SECTION

201.146, PARTS 211 AND 217

IN

THE MATTER OF:

SECTION 27 PROPOSED

RULES FOR

NITROGEN OXIDE (NOX) EMISSIONS

FROM

STATIONARY RECIPROCATING

INTERNAL

COMBUSTION ENGINES AND

TURBINES: AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILL.

ADM. CODE PARTS 211 AND

217

R07-18

(Rulemaking - Air)

.)

R07-19

(Rulemaking - Air)

MOTION

TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE

TO MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

NOW COMES the Illinois

Environmental Regulatory

Group ("IERG"), by and

through

its attorneys, HODGE DWYER ZEMAN,

and submits its motion to

strike and, in

the alternative, its response

to the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency's (the

"Illinois EPA") Motion

For Reconsideration (the

"Motion") with regard to the Illinois

Pollution Control Board's ("Board")

order dated, May 17, 2007,

(the "Order") which

bifurcated the

above-captioned rulemakings.

As set forth in detail

below, IERG moves the Board to strike

the Motion because

it is procedurally

inadequate under 35 Ill. Admin.

Code 102.Subpart

G.

Motions

for

Reconsideration and Appeal ("Subpart

G"). In the alternative,

IERG hereby responds to

the Motion

and requests that the Board

deny the Motion because

the Motion does not

provide any basis, under

Subpart G, for the Board to reconsider

the Order.

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

In Board regulatory proceedings,

"[m]otions for

reconsideration or modification

of any Board

order taking substantive

action on a regulatory proposal must

be filed in

accordance with 35 Ill. Admin.

Code § 101.902. The contents

of such motions

are

governed

by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101. Subpart I."

35 Ill. Admin.

Code § 102.700. 35 Ill.

Admin. Code l01.Subpart

I provides, in pertinent part,

that ". . . The motion

must be

supported

by oath or affidavit or other appropriate

showing as to

matters not of record...

." 35 Ill. Admin.

Code § 101.904. (Emphasis added.)

The Motion is not supported

by

oath or affidavit

or other appropriate showing

as to matters not of record.

See Motion.

As discussed in

more detail below, before a motion

for reconsideration can be

granted by

the Board, such motion must include

"newly discovered

evidence which was

not available at the time of hearing,

changes in the law or

errors in the court's previous

application of the

existing law." See 2007 Ill.

ENV LEXIS 87 (Ill. ENV

2007). In the

matter

at issue here, if the arguments

brought by the Illinois

EPA in the Motion are

matters of record,

the Motion is a mere rehashing

of arguments upon which

the Board has

already made its decision. Therefore,

the Motion is technically

inadequate because

the

Board could

not grant the Motion. On the other

hand, if the arguments

made by the

Illinois EPA in the Motion are,

in fact, new arguments,

such arguments must necessarily

constitute new

matters not of record. If so,

such arguments must

be supported by oath or

affidavit or other appropriate

showing. The Motion is

not supported by oath or affidavit

or other appropriate

showing. In such case,

the Motion has been improperly

filed and

may not be considered by the

Board.

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

In addition,

throughout the Motion, there are statements of

alleged fact that are

not part of the record, quotations from documents

that are not publicly available and not

part of

the

record

and conclusions of law that are not supported by citations

or the record.

See generally Motion. The following

example is not intended to be a comprehensive

listing of matters raised in

the Motion that are not supported by the record.

In section B of the Argument portion

of the Motion, the Illinois EPA builds an

argument regarding the intent

of the legislature at the time it promulgated

415 ILCS

5/28.5. Motion at 9-11, 13. The foundation

of the Illinois EPA's argument is a document

entitled Report of the Attorney

General's Task Force on Environmental Legal

Resources

(1992)

(the "Report"). See Motion at 9-11. The Report is not

available through the

Illinois EPA's website, the Illinois

Attorney General's website or through

the internet.

Further,

the Report is not part of the record in this matter.

1

The Report is mentioned, but

not included, in the response

of the Illinois EPA to IERG's objection

to the use of Section

28.5 for

this rulemaking (the "Illinois EPA's

Response

2,,).

IERG did not object to the

mention of the Report in the

Illinois EPA's Response because the Illinois EPA's

1 On Friday, July 6, 2007, IERG received a copy

of a Motion for Leave to Supplement and Supplement

to

Motion for Reconsideration

(the "Supplement") related to the rulemakings

captioned above. Motions in

rulemaking proceedings are governed by 35111. Admin.

Code Part 102. See 35 Ill. Admin. Code §

102. 100.

Part 102 provides that "[m]otion practice,

production of information and the issuance

of subpoenas in

regulatory proceedings is governed by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101."

35

Ill.

Admin. Code § 102.402. With

regard to motions, Part 101 provides

that "[a]ll motions and responses must clearly state the

grounds upon

which

the motion is made and must contain a concise statement

of the position or relief sought. Facts

asserted that are not of record in the proceeding

must be supported by oath affidavit

or certification in

accordance

with Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure [735

ILCS 5/1-109]...... 35 Ill. Admin.

Code § 101.504. (Emphasis added.) The

Supplement attaches a copy of the Report and

states that the copy

is "in the same form

as the copy currently maintained by the Illinois EPA

in its public library. . . ."

Supplement at 2. As with the Motion, the Supplement

is not supported by oath, affidavit,

or certification.

Therefore, IERG maintains

its position, as discussed herein, that the Report

is not a part of the Record in

the matter at hand.

2 At the time the Illinois EPA responded

to IERG's objection to the use of

Section 28.5 for the original

R07-18 rulemaking, it also responded to an objection by

a pipeline consortium. In this document,

the

phrase "Illinois EPA's Response"

is intended to include both the response to IERG

and the response to the

pipeline

consortium unless otherwise stated.

3

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

Response was supported by a properly sworn affidavit.

See

Illinois

EPA's Response. As

stated above, the Motion is not supported

by any oath or affidavit or other appropriate

showing as to matters not of record.

For the reasons stated above, IERG respectfully

moves the Board to strike the

Motion in its entirety.

II. RESPONSE

Recently the Board

specifically stated the factors that it must consider

when

making a determination regarding a motion

for reconsideration. The Board stated:

In ruling

on a motion for reconsideration, the Board will

consider factors

including new evidence

or a change in the law, to conclude that

the

Board's decision was in error. 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 101.902. In Citizens

Against Regional Landfill v. County Board of

Whiteside. PCB 93-156

(Mar. 11, 1993),

we observed that "the intended purpose of

a motion for

reconsideration is

to bring to the court's attention newly discovered

evidence which was not available at the time

of hearing, changes in the

law

or errors in the court's previous application of the

existing law."

Korogluyan

v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 213 Ill. App. 3d 622,

627, 572

N.E.2d 1154, 1158 (1st Dist. 1992).

2007 Ill. ENV LEXIS

87 (Ill. ENV 2007)

Thus, in order to prevail on a motion to reconsider,

the movant must demonstrate

that one of the three

criteria has been met to justify reconsideration

of an order. The

questions the Board must ask are: 1) did the movant

provide convincing new evidence

that was

not available at the time of hearing; 2) did the movant demonstrate

an applicable

change in law; or 3) did the movant

establish that the Board made errors in its previous

application of existing

law. In the matter at hand, the answer to

each of these questions is

clearly "no." The questions are addressed

individually below.

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

A. New Evidence

The Motion does not

specifically claim to, and in fact,

does not provide any new

evidence that was not available at the

time of hearing. Even if the Motion were to be

based on some new

evidence, such evidence, being "new,"

would necessarily be matters

not of record. Since matters not of record

must be supported by oath or affidavit

or other

appropriate showing,

and the Motion is not so supported,

any new evidence could not be

considered by the Board.

B. Change in Law

The Motion does not specifically

claim to, and in fact does not, include

any

reference to or discussion

of any change in any law that was not in

effect at the time the

Illinois

EPA last addressed the issue of the

applicability of Section 28.5 in

the Illinois

EPA Response.

C. Errors in the Board's

Previous Application of

Existing Law

The "Illinois EPA

contends that the Board is gravely

mistaken in its interpretation

of the Section 28.5 provisions." Motion

at 2. The Illinois EPA also contends

that "the

Board fell victim to an

artificial construct that which [SIC]

has no support in the statutory

language and eschews the legislative purpose

of the fast-track provisions."

Id. at 4.

However, the Illinois EPA

does not offer any convincing

argument that the Board erred

in its

application of Section 28.5. The Motion

is divided into several sections

wherein the

Illinois EPA claims

that the Board erred in the application

of Section 28.5. IERG

addresses

the claims made by the Illinois EPA

in each of these sections

below.

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

1.

Claimed incorrect application of plain meaning

of Section 28.5

In a section of the Motion entitled "A. Plain

meaning of the relevant statute", the

Illinois EPA reiterates its argument

that, in addition to the Phase II NOx

SIP Call

Engines,

"its original rule proposal was also meant

to satisfy attainment demonstrations,

as well as the accompanying obligations

of Reasonably Available Control

Technology

("RACT")

and Reasonable Further Progress ("RFP"),

for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS." Motion at 6. See also R07-18

Statement of Reasons and Illinois

EPA

Response. IERG

has already addressed the arguments raised in

this section in its

Objection to Use of Section 28.5 "Fast

Track" Rulemaking for the Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency's

Proposed Rules (the "Objection") and

its Reply to Response to

Objection to Use of Section 28.5 "Fast-Track"

Rulemaking for the Illinois

Environmental

Protection Agency's Proposed

Rules (the "Reply"), both of

which are part of the record in

the R07-18 rulemaking. Rather

than reiterate its arguments that the rules in question

here

are not required by

the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), IERG incorporates

the documents

referenced in the preceding sentence herein by reference.

Since the Illinois EPA's

claims

in this section are no more

than a repetition of its earlier arguments

regarding the

applicability

of Section 28.5, the Illinois EPA has not

established that the Board made

any error in its application

of Section 28.5.

2.

Beyond the plain

meaning of Section 28.5

In a section

of the Motion entitled "B. Other aids to statutory

construction," the

Illinois

EPA "contends that its proposed rule

falls within the plain meaning

of the

statute's text." Motion at

8. The Illinois EPA then concedes

that the Board has already

found otherwise and makes the following

unsupported, uncited statement:

"If two

6

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

possible interpretations of the statute's text are reasonably

possible, a reviewing court or

administrative tribunal should consider

other aids in statutory construction." Id. Actual

case law indicates

that: "The language of the statute is the most reliable

indicator of the

legislature's objectives in enacting a particular

law. We give statutory language its

plain

and ordinary meaning,

and, where the language is clear and

unambiguous, we must apply

the statute without resort to further

aids of statutory construction." Alternate

Fuels, Inc.

v. Dir. of the IEPA,

215 Ill. 2d 219, 237-238 (2004) (citations

omitted). The Board

already has applied the clear,

unambiguous language of section 28.5 in the matter

at

hand. The mere

fact that the Illinois EPA disagrees with

the Board's holding does not

allow the Board to "resort to further aids of statutory

construction."

The Illinois

EPA proceeds to argue that the legislature

intended that Section 28.5

would allow the Illinois EPA to pursue all of the

rulemakings at issue here under the fast-

track process.

See

generally

Motion at 8-12. The Illinois EPA gleans

the intentions of

the legislature

exclusively from the Report (as defined

above). See Motion at 9-11.

Other than noting

that the "statute was enacted by the Illinois

General Assembly on the

heels of the completion of a final report

and

recommendations

compiled by

an Attorney

General's Task Force in 1992",

the Illinois EPA does not provide

any evidence that the

legislature relied on the Report at all when

enacting Section 28.5. In fact,

a

review

of the

legislative process with regard

to Section 28.5 does not indicate

that the legislature relied

on the Report.

The bill that created

Section 28.5 was Senate Bill 1295

of the 87th Illinois

General Assembly ("SB 1295"). See 1992 ILL. ALS

1213. House Bill 4037 of

the 87th

Illinois General Assembly ("HB

4037") was eventually included

in SB 1295. 111. Senate

7

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

Tr., 87th Illinois

General Assembly, 132nd Legislative Day,

July 2, 1992, p. 24. It must

be noted that, although the Senate

discussed SB 1295 several times during

1991 and

1992, not once

was the Report mentioned with respect to

SB 1295. See Ill. Senate Trs.,

87th Illinois General Assembly.

SB 1295 passed the Senate on July 2, 1992.

Ill. Senate

Tr., 87th Illinois

General Assembly, 132nd Legislative Day,

July 2, 1992, p. 25.

SB 1295 also was passed by the Illinois

House of Representatives on

July

2, 1992.

Ill. House Tr. Debate,

87th Illinois General Assembly, 168th

Legislative Day, July 2,

1992, p.

44. Representative Ryder, the House sponsor

of SB 1295, stated, in pertinent

part, as follows:

This Bill

represents the culmination of negotiations

for several months in

which many

interested parties participated, and I

take particular pride in

expressing to you

that the folks who are now in support

of this legislation

include such diverse folks as the

Illinois Environmental Council

and the

Illinois Manufacturing Association, the

Illinois Petroleum Council and

Steel Group Petroleum Marketers and the

Chicago Lung Association.

Truly, we have

a piece of environmental law in which the interested

parties have created something meaningful

on behalf of the Illinois

General Assembly and the people of Illinois.

Id. at 42. (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy

that Representative Ryder did not mention

the Attorney General,

the Attorney General's Task Force on Environmental

Legal Resources (the "Task Force")

or the Report. See Id. As with

SB 1295 in the Senate, although

the House discussed HB

4037 and

SB 1295 several times during 1991 and 1992, not

once was the Report

mentioned with respect to either

bill. See Illinois House Transcription

Debates, 87th

Illinois

General Assembly. Based on this review

of the legislative history

of Section

28.5, the Illinois EPA's reliance

on the Report as an indication

of the legislative intent

with regard to

Section 28.5 is misplaced.

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

In fact, when discussing

Senate Bill 232, the bill that created the Task Force,

Senator

Welch stated "[w]hat this bill does is create a task force

under the authority of the

Attorney General to combine environmental legal

resources throughout the

State

to

determine where we're

spending our money on environmental

problems.... [s]o it's

mainly

a task force for trying to oversee the money

that's spent, not to tell the Pollution

Control Board what to

do." Ill. Senate Tr., 87th Illinois

General Assembly, 30th

Legislative

Day, May 21, 1991, pp. 275-277.

(Emphasis added.) This statement

offers

no indication that

the purpose of the Task Force was related to the

enactment of Section

28.5. It is unclear upon which, if any, basis

the Illinois EPA used language in

the Report

to represent the intent of the

legislature during the enactment of

Section 28.5.

3.

Claim that Board's

Order was based on a subjective

element

In Section B.2. of the

Motion, the Illinois EPA contends

that the Board's holding

is "clearly

erroneous" because it "rests on a mistaken

impression that the statute's text

authorizes a subjective element

by which one can assess the threat or immediacy

of

USEPA-sponsored sanctions." Motion at 12. Following a

careful review of the Order of

the Board, dated May 17, 2007 (the

"Order"), IERG is unable to determine

how the

Illinois EPA has

construed the language in the Order to provide

that the Board's opinion

was based on an assessment

of the threat or immediacy of

USEPA-sponsored sanctions.

See

generally

Order. The Board merely states that it

"is not persuaded that the State faces

sanctions as a consequence

of failing to adopt regulations other than those

addressed in

the

NOx SIP Call Phase II as an element of those

submissions." Order at 34. IERG

does

not understand how this statement indicates

that the Board based its decision

on any

assessment

of the threat of sanctions or any temporal

element. Section 28.5 rulemakings

9

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

are only available for rules

"required to be adopted." 415 ILCS

5/28.5(a). "'[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).

The language in

the Order merely

correctly stated that certain portions of the

originally proposed rules

were not required to be adopted by

the CAA and, therefore, could not

legally be

promulgated under

Section 28.5.

4.

Claim

that the Board may not reconsider

its April 19 Order

The final substantive

section of the Motion is enumerated

as B.3. See Motion at

13.

In the first part of section B.3., the Illinois

EPA states that the Board issued

an order

on April 19, 2007 (the "April

19 Order"). Id. The Illinois

EPA argues that the Board is

not

authorized to reconsider the April 19

Order because an "administrative

agency may

`undertake a reconsideration

of a decision only where

authorized by statute."' Id. at 14.

The Illinois

EPA cites the case Reichhold

Chemicals, Inc., v. Illinois Pollution

Control

Boar 561 N.E.2d 1343

(3d Dist. 1990), in support

of its argument. Id. The Illinois

EPA

badly misreads Reichhold. Fortunately,

the Third District Appellate

Court, the

same court involved

in Reichhold, later provides a succinct

explanation of its holding in

Reichhold.

Three years after the decision

in Reichhold, the Court stated

"[t]his court has

previously recognized that,

while there is no authority for

the Illinois Environmental

Protection

Agency to reconsider its rulings,

the Board does have that

authority.

Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.

v. Pollution Control Board (3d

Dist. 1990), 204 Ill. App.

3d

674,

678, 561 N.E.2d 1343, 1345, 149

Ill. Dec. 647." Land & Lakes

Co. v. Pollution

Control Bd., 245 Ill. App.

3d 631, 640-641 (1993). (Citation

included in original.)

10

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

(Emphasis added.) Based

on the applicable case law, the Illinois EPA's position, as

stated in the first part of Section B.3. of the Motion, is

simply incorrect.

5.

Claim that the Board improperly revised the initial

proposal

The Illinois EPA concludes the Motion by arguing

that the Board has revised the

Illinois EPA's proposed rulemaking

without the permission of the Illinois EPA.

See

Motion

at

15.

However, the Board has not revised the proposal.

The Board merely

attached a strikethrough copy of the proposal

to indicate which materials would be

considered in

the separate rulemakings. The Board makes its intention

clear by stating:

For

the convenience of the participants in this proceeding,

and in the interest

of focusing testimony and questions at hearing

upon the language the Board

will continue to consider

under "fast-track" procedures, the Board attaches to

this order Attachment A. That

attachment, based upon the Agency's original

proposal, strikes

through language the Board will no longer

consider in R07-

18.

Order at 37. (Emphasis added.)

Therefore

the Board has not revised the Illinois EPA's

rulemaking and the Illinois

EPA's argument is not accurate.

III. PROCEDURAL

INADEQUACY OF ORIGINAL

PROPOSAL

As discussed above, IERG filed the

Objection and the Reply with regard to the

original R07-18 rulemaking.

The Objection and the Reply have

been incorporated herein

by reference. The Objection and the Reply

raise certain objections based on procedural

inadequacies

of the original R07-18 rulemaking with regard

to the portions of the original

rulemaking that are now part of rulemaking

R07-19. In the Order, the Board

stated that,

with regard

to IERG's procedural arguments, "[t]o the extent

that these arguments may

apply in the bifurcated docket R07-19,

IERG or another participant may

renew them

11

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

there."

Order

at 36. IERG reiterates each of these arguments as each may apply to any

potential recombined rulemaking.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Motion is based on matters not of record in this rulemaking and is not

supported by oath or affidavit or other appropriate showing as to such matters not of

record. Therefore, IERG respectfully requests that the Board strike the Motion in its

entirety. In the alternative, the Motion does not provide new evidence that was not

available at the time of hearing; demonstrate an applicable change in law; or, establish

that the Board made errors in its previous application of existing law. Thus, IERG

respectfully requests

that the

Board

deny the Motion. Finally, IERG reiterates its original

arguments regarding the procedural filing inadequacies with regard to any potential

recombination of rulemakings R07-18

and R07-19.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATORY

GROUP,

By: /s/ Katherine D. Hodge

One of Its Attorneys

Dated: July 9, 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:001\R DocketTlecTilings

R07-18\Response to Motion for Reconsideration

12

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

IN

THE MATTER OF:

FAST-TRACK RULES UNDER

NITROGEN

OXIDE (NOX)

SIP CALL PHASE II:

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM.

CODE

SECTION 201.146, PARTS 211 AND 217

IN THE MATTER

OF:

SECTION

27 PROPOSED RULES FOR

NITROGEN OXIDE (NOX)

EMISSIONS

FROM STATIONARY RECIPROCATING

INTERNAL

COMBUSTION ENGINES AND

TURBINES: AMENDMENTS

TO 35 ILL.

ADM. CODE PARTS 211 AND 217

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

SS

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

.)

R07-18

(Rulemaking

- Air)

R07-19

(Rulemaking -

Air)

AFFIDAVIT

Under penalties

as provided by law pursuant to Section

1-109 of the Code of Civil

Procedure

[735 ILCS 5/1-109], the undersigned certifies that

the statements set forth in this

instrument

are true and correct, except as to matters therein

stated to be on information and belief

and as to such matters the undersigned certifies

as aforesaid that she verily believes

the same to

be true.

Deirdre K. Himer, Executive rector

Illinois Environmental

Regulatory Group

3150 Roland Avenue

Springfield, Illinois 62703

Subscribed and sworn to before me

th day of,J.tily, 2M7.

WICIAL

SEAL[."

Path

L. Tucker

w ar$ tuthlie,

dale

of

Illinois

I ERG:001/R

Dockets/R07-18/Affidavit of DK Hirner - Response

Electronic filing, Received, Clerk's Office, July 9, 2007