BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
. v.
TOY AL AMERICA, Inc. formerly
known as ALCAN-TOYAL AMERICA, INC.,
a foreign corporation,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 00-211
(Enforcement -Air)
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 29tht
h
day of April, 2009, the Complainant filed its
Reply
Brief with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, by electronic filing. A true and correct
copy
of the document so filed is attached and herewith served upon you.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS,
by
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General
of
State of llinois
By:
~~
______________ __
istopher Grant
Assistant Attorney General
69 W. Washington Street, #1800
Chicago Illinois, 60602
(312)814-5388
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
TOY AL AMERICA, Inc. formerly
known as ALCAN-TOY
AL AMERICA, INC.,
a foreign corporation,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB No. 00-211
(Enforcement)
COMPLAINANT'S REPLY BRIEF
NOW COMES Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General
of the State of Illinois, and hereby submits its Reply Brief.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Complainant submitted its Closing Argument and Post-Hearing Brief ("Post Hearing
Brief') on February 20,2009. Respondent Toyal America, Inc. ("Toyal") filed its Response on
April
10, 2009, and amended its Response on April 23, 2009.
In its Amended Response, Toyal admits violations of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act ("Act") and volatile organic material ("V OM") regulations, but fails to accept
responsibility. Incredibly, despite eight years
of violations, Toyal claims that "[t]he model
behavior shown by Toyal
... should be encouraged rather than discouraged"'. Toyal attempts to
offset the financial benefit from its violations with unrelated plant projects, requests penalty
credit for poor business decisions, and asks for supplemental environmental project credit for
'Toyal Amended Response,
p. 44.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
routine plant efficiency expenditures.
The Board has repeatedly articulated the purposes
of imposing penalties, particularly their
role in encouraging voluntary compliance and aiding in enforcement
of the Act. In making its
penalty recommendation, Complainant has followed the
Board's guidance. The State believes
that there cannot be a clearer case for a substantial penalty than in this matter. In this case,
Toyal, a major manufacturing company located in
an ozone noncompliance area, continued
operations for eight years in knowing violation
of Board Air Pollution regulations. The penalty
assessed by the Board must be sufficient to advise similarly situated entities that continued
operations in violation
of the law will result in a significant penalty, and that 'after the fact'
excuses will not be considered in mitigation
2
.
II.
TOYAL'S VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED
In its Post-Hearing Brief, Complainant established the violations alleged in the
Complaint. In its Amended Response, Toyal admits noncompliance from 1995 through 1998, as
well as its failure to demonstrate compliance through April
2003
3
. However, Toyal has also
admitted that as
of April 18, 2001, eighty-three (83) of its YOM emission sources were not in
compliance with 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
218.986(at
These emission sources were part of units that
2Clearly, Toyal does not understand the deterrent value
of civil penalties imposed under
the Act, as it maintains that
" ... to impose a substantial penalty in this matter would deter future
facilities subject to these rules from making the good faith efforts demonstrated by Toyal as it
strove to achieve full
compliance". Amended Response, p. 28. The penalty in this case must
send the message that compliance is expected when required by regulation, not eight years
thereafter.
3Toyal Response, p.12
4Complainant's Exhibit 17, Admitted Facts No. 34-53.
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
represented most or all of Toyal's aluminum paste and flake production process5. Clearly, Toyal
failed to control
YOM emissions throughout the relevant period.
Also, because demonstration
of compliance with the 81 % YOM reduction was a required
element
of the Subpart TT regulations6, there is no question that Toyal was in violation from
March 15, 1995 until April
30, 2003, for a total noncompliant period of eight years7.
III.
TECHNICAL ISSUES DO NOT EXCUSE TOYAL'S LACK OF DILIGENCE
In its Post-Hearing Brief, Complainant presented substantial evidence showing Toyal's
want
of diligence throughout the noncompliance period. The technical issues raised by Toyal in
its Amended Response do not counter these arguments.
A.
Failure to Seek Regulatory Relief
Throughout its Amended Response, Toyal attempts to excuse its
non~ompliance
by
claiming that its facility had 'unique' issues affecting compliance, including a claimed
"overall
complexity of its operations, and delays caused by the fires and explosions .... "8 ,9.
5Tr., 12110/08, p.118
635 Ill. Adm. Code 218.991(a)
7Toyal claims that it first learned
of the Subpart TT rules in February, 1995 but did not
realize it was subject until February, 1996. This is contradicted by the Record. Toyal has
admitted actual
YOM emissions in excess of 25 tons per year as early as 1990 (Complainant's
Exhibit 17, Admitted Fact 9), making them subject to the
81
%
control requirement as soon as the
Board promulgated the regulations in January, 1994. The regulations required demonstration
of
compliance, which Toyal knew it had not successfully performed. Toyal's violations were
'knowing' as
of March 15,1995.
8Toyal Amended Response, p.13
9While unfortunate in each instance, it appears that fires and explosions are an inherent
and accepted risk in Toyal's manufacturing process. In its Amended Response, Toyal reports
twelve separate fires and/or explosions between 1999 and August,
2008.
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
Toyal's "unique technical issues" defense is simply an attempt at avoiding responsibility.
However, even
if Toyal's "unique technical issues" argument is taken at face value, another
serious deficiency becomes evident:
royal's failure to seek regulatory relief. Toyal's failure to
seek relief pursuant to the Board's regulatory relief mechanisms while operating in
noncompliance for eight years, demonstrates its wilful indifference to the requirements
of the
Board Air
Pollution Regulations
lO
•
To obtain a variance, a regulated entity must provide data to the Board that supports its
arguments
of unreasonable hardship, as well as compliance alternatives and a description of the
environmental impact
of noncompliance
11 •
The burden of proof is on the person seeking the
However, Toyal never sought a variance from the Board, and consequently never
provided a basis for excusing its noncompliance. Notably, Toyal did not seek relief after its
initial failure to adequately control
YOM emissions, nor even after it received a violation notice
from the Agency. In fact, Toyal raises these issues to the Board for the first time in its Amended
Response, fourteen years after it became subject to the
81 % control requirements of Subpart TT.
Toyal is requesting, in essence, a 'retroactive variance' from the Board in an obvious
effort
to escape a penalty. Such an untimely request is improper: the Board commonly rejects
10
Section 35 of the Act allows the Board to grant individual variances from regulatory
requirements in cases where it is found
" ... upon presentation of adequate proof, that compliance
with any rule
or regulation, requirements or order of the Board would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship.
1135 Ill. Adm. Code 104.204
12
35 Ill. Adm. Code 1 04.238(a)
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
- -----------------------"
requests for retroactive variances, and has also held that
"one cannot qualifyfor a variance
simply by ignoring a compliance date ...
."13.
Clearly, if Toyal'had been diligent in evaluating its
obligations under Subpart TT and reasonably identified any genuine hardship in attaining
compliance, it would have sought relief over fourteen years ago.
B.
Delayed Compliance Expenditures
Despite its awareness of the YOM control requirements applicable to its facility, Toyal
only began evaluating control
ofVOM sources after it submitted its CAAPP Permit application
on March 5, 1996. Although Toyal was required to submit a CAAPP application (under Section
39.5
of the Act), this requirement was separate and distinct from its obligations to control YOM
under Subpart TT of the Board Air Pollution regulations.
Similarly, instead
of addressing its failure to control YOM emissions in 1998, Toyal
again delayed serious work on
YOM control until 2001, when it began work on obtaining a
FESOP permit. By this time, Toyal had been operating in noncompliance with Subpart TT for
six years. Additionally, because Toyal had previously submitted its
CAAPP permit application,
the
FESOP project was a voluntary undertaking, while controlling 81 % YOM had been required
since 1995.
In an attempt to meet
FESOP standards, Toyal expended substantial resources during this
period. At about the same time, Toyal was expanding/replacing its
"B unit" production process.
However, Toyal continued to operate its facility in violation
of the Subpart TT regulations.
During this same period, Toyal also obtained several extensions on a construction permit
13Community Landfill Corporation
v,
Illinois EPA,
PCB
95-~37
(September 21,
1995)(slip op. at 3)
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
for an RTO control unit to replace the existing RC0
14
. Despite seeking and obtaining these
extensions, Toyal never even purchased or installed the RTO. The FESOP work and continued
permit extensions caused Toyal to continue delaying compliance.
IV.
TOY AL'S "HOMEMADE" ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS MUST BE
REJECTED
While it is understandable that any defendant would want to avoid payment of a civil
penalty, Toyal's twisted economic benefit analysis strains credulity. In an attempt to totally
avoid the consequences
of its actions, Toyal seeks to offset real, tangible cost savings from
noncompliance with unrelated capital projects and engineering mistakes. There is no support for
these arguments in either fact or law, and the Board must summarily reject
Toyal's obvious
attempt to avoid a deserved civil penalty.
A.
Toyal's $1,000,000.00 'Mistake' Should not Reduce its Economic Benefit
Toyal claims that the purchase of a $1 MM 'vacuum chiller' (also referred to as a 'skid
mounted condenser') should be credited against its admitted economic benefit, thereby creating a
negative number. In its Amended Response, Toyal asserts that the purchase
of this emission
unit was for
"compliance purposes".
Hearing testimony, however, proves that this expenditure
was actually made to advance its voluntary
FESOP permit work, and had nothing to do with
attaining required compliance with the Subpart
TT regulations.
As identified in its 1996
CAAPP application, most of the YOM sources which were
14Toyal states that "Illinois EPA even granted Toyal several extensions during the
noncompliance period to complete modifications ... and other compliance
efforts" (Toyal
Response, p.2). Illinois
EPA simply granted extensions of the construction permit. Illinois
EP A never agreed to toll the compliance deadline for the Subpart TT regulations. In fact, by the
time the extensions were granted, the complaint in this matter (which alleged continuing
violations) had already been filed.
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
proposed to be controlled by the vacuum chiller (had it ever been installed) already complied
with the Subpart TT regulations
l5
. For example, sources MSO-17, MSO-20, MSO-32, MSO-47,
MSO
52, MSO-63, MSO-67, and MSO-81 are all listed as "exempt" from control under 35
Ill.
Adm..Code 218.986 in Toyal's CAAPP Permit Application
l6
. Therefore, control of these
sources was not necessary for compliance with the Subpart TT regulations.
Toyal witness Steve Anderson testified that he advised Toyal that these sources would
need to be controlled to obtain a
FESOPI7. However, the type of operating permit chosen by a
particular stationary source is unrelated to substantive emission standards applicable to a source-
in this case the Subpart TT regulations. Therefore, the vacuum chiller expenditure was not
intended for compliance with Subpart TT, and must not be categorized as a compliance
expenditure.
Also, the term
"economic benefit of noncompliance" has been defined as the" ... after tax
present value of avoided or delayed expenditures on necessary pollution control measures"
(emphasis supplied)ls. Thus, because the vacuum chiller was never used for YOM control, it
cannot be considered a
"necessary pollution control measure". In addition, while the vacuum
chiller was never installed and never used, it is reasonable to conclude that it is still available for
resale, parts, or scrap. Therefore, this unnecessary expense should not be applied to avoid
15Complainant's Exhibit 21,
"Emission Units Compliance Information".
16See: Complainant's Exhibit 22, showing emission units to be "controlled" by vacuum
chiller.
.
17Tr., 12111,08, p.l14
ISFriends afthe Earth
v.
Laidlaw,
890 F. Supp. 470, 480 (D.S.C. 1995)
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
Toyal's full economic benefit of noncompliance.
Toyal's Vice
President of Operations (Barry Van Hoose) testified that the purchase of the
vacuum chiller was a 'mistake'
19. The Board must not allow Toyal to subtract the cost of
equipment purchased as a 'mistake', but available for other purposes, from its demonstrated,
actual economic benefit
of noncompliance. The State should not be asked to subsidize Toyal's
$1,000,000.00 error.
Finally, the linchpin
of Toyal' s argument is the opinion of its financial expert that the
vacuum chiller's costs should be offset from the calculated economic benefit. Complainant
strenuously objects to Toyal's arguments related to Christopher MC,Clure's testimony on this
topic. The Board must take note that Mr. McClure's testimony was not timely disclosed prior to
hearing, and as a result, the proposed revision in his opinion related to the vacuum chiller issues
was excluded by the Hearing
Office~o.
Although this written opinion was accepted as an offer
of proof, Toyal never appealed the Hearing Officer ruling, and even now does not offer any
reason why the Hearing Officer's ruling should be overturned. Therefore, Mr. McClure's
improper testimony regarding the vacuum chiller cannot be considered as evidence, and should
be stricken from Toyal's Amended Response.
B.
Toyal's Foregone Benefit Theory Must be Rejected
The State's economic benefit calculations were developed using a model created by
Illinois
EPA in accordance with accepted guidance regarding the economic benefit of
noncompliance in litigated environmental enforcement cases. The basis for the State's opinion
19Tr., 1211 0/08, p. 205
2°Tr., 12110/08, p.21
8
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
has also been accepted by the Board in other air pollution cases
21
•
The State's model gives due
credit to a noncompliant entity such as Toyal, by accounting for possible tax benefits, increases
in cost, and depreciation. Complainant's estimate also credits Toyal for 'partial' expenditures by
'stopping the interest clock' on expenditures once made, even though compliance had not been
achieved. Thus, the mechanism used by the
State in calculating the economic benefit of
noncompliance is conservative, reasonable, and in accordance with environmental enforcement
policy.
On the other hand, Toyal's foregone benefit estimate, which subtracts hypothetical
savings from its unrelated solvent reclamation project, is an elaborate, self-serving, and
"homemade" invention, without support of legal authority. Complainant is unaware of any
litigated case where such subtractions from economic benefit have been accepted by a court or
administrative panel. Certainly, Toyal's expert witness did not cite any decisions proving the
validity
of his theory at hearing. And Toyal has cited no cases in its Amended Response in
support
of its 'foregone benefit' theory. Moreover, as previously explained in Complainant's
Post-Hearing Brief, the basis of Toyal's theory has already been rejected by the Board.
22
Based on testimony provided at hearing, it is obvious that Toyal and its expert simply
'cherry picked' a few sections from
USEPA's BEN User Manual, and created a novel and
21People
v.
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company,
PCB 99-191
22. In
Panhandle,
the Board rejected a similar claim, noting that "".any penalty that a
company might face
if its gets caught in violation could be diminished because the company did
not spend money to comply when it should have. The deterrent effect
of civil penalties is
compromised
if the violator gets "credit" for ignoring its legal obligations". PCB 99-191
(11115/01, slip op. at 32).
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
unsupportable argument for the purpose of eliminating an expected and deserved civil penalty23.
Toyal's 'theory' references two short passages out
of USEPA's BEN User Manual. On
Page 4-3 of the Manual, USEPA states that 'annual recurring costs may be negative,24.
However, both parties have included positive avoided annual recurring costs (e.g. fuel and
power) in their experts' opinions. Therefore this section is not relevant to this case.
Toyal also points to a passage in Chapter 4
of the Manual, page 4-6, to support its claim
for a deduction from proven economic benefit. This section is contained in Chapter 4
of the
Manual, in which USEP A directs the user to issues described as
"Common Violator
Arguments,,25. In support
of its 'theory', Toyal cites "Violator Argument Example 7", in which
a violator claims that
"compliance is 'cheaper' than non compliance". Conveniently, Toyal does
not include the language contained in the very next paragraph
of this Section, which provides:
"Be wary of such negative economic benefit results!,,26
USEPA clearly recognized the likelihood that a defendant would raise 'after the fact'
arguments related to plant improvements, or other efficiencies, and then claim that it
'lost
money' by not complying with the applicable regulation. Toyal's claim that this Section
supports its argument is patently incorrect.
Even
if Toyal had
correctly
interpreted the guidance in the BEN Users Manual, neither
23The State did not use USEPA's BEN Model in calculating economic benefit. Tr.,
12110/08, p.96
24Respondent's Exhibit 22(a),
p. 3-11
25Id., p. 4-1
26Id., p.4-6
10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
---------------------------------......
the Manual nor the BEN Model are binding upon State Agencies, or upon adjudicative bodies
such as the Board. Toyal's proposed 'foregone benefit' theory simply does not represent sound
public policy for environmental enforcement cases. The recovery
of economic benefit under the
Act is a general mandate, and the Board should not allow violators to carve out exceptions based
on novel theories. Moreover, as explained in Complainant's
Post-Hearing brief, there is no
nexus between the claimed 'foregone benefit' from failure to install solvent recovery equipment
and the method used to
finally-comply with the regulation. Toyal had multiple opportunities to
install a solvent recovery system connected to a flare, vent, or (beginning in 1998) to the existing
RCO. As a business decision, Toyal decided to wait until 2003. Any claimed "foregone
benefit"
was therefore self-imposed.
In the
Panhandle Eastern
case, the Board considered similar claims, and summarily
rejected these arguments. Because the issues raised in
Panhandle
are almost identical to Toyal's
'foregone benefit' claims, the Board must reject Toyal's desperate attempt to retain the economic
benefits derived from
eight years
ofnoncompliance
27
.
V.
TOYAL'S REQUEST FOR SEP CREDIT MUST BE DENIED
A.
Supplemental Environmental Projects are Considered only in Settlement
Toyal has asked the Board to consider its newly-installed control device as a
Supplemental Environmental
Project ("SEP"), and credit its expenditure of $674,000.00 against
any civil penalty. This request is unprecedented and improper, and must be denied.
Section 42(h)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/42(h) provides, in pertinent part:
27As further
ex~ple
of Toyal's 'cherry picking' approach, Toyal's expert totally ignored
USEPA's guidance and excluded avoided labor costs for RCO operation and maintenance from
its estimate. See: Respondent's Exhibit 22(a), p.4-2.
11
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
- -- ----- -----------------------------------....
In determining the appropriate civil penalty ... the Board is authorized to consider
any matters
of record in mitigation or aggravation of penalty, including but not
limited to the following factors:
*
*
*
(7)
Whether the respondent has agreed to undertake a "supplemental
environmental project", which means an environmentally beneficial
project that a respondent has -agreed to undertake in settlement of an
enforcement action under this Act..
.. ( emphasis supplied)
There has been no settlement
of this matter, and no agreement between the parties as to
an acceptable project. Toyal's request that the Board impose a
SEP upon the State, after forcing
a contested hearing on both liability and remedy,. is contrary to the Act, improper, and therefore
must be rejected.
B.
Toyal's Purchase of the New Control Device was Made for Plant Efficiency
Purposes
As identified in the State's Post-Hearing Brief, and as shown at hearing, despite
continued operational problems with its
RCO (the original VOM control device), Toyal was able
to come into compliance using this
equipmenes. However, the RCa remained a 'headache',
and was replaced with the new control device
("CRO") in 2005. As testified to by Toyal Vice
President Barry Van Hoose, the new control device increases the efficiency
of Toyal's
operations
29
.
Obviously, Toyal's new VOM control device was installed simply to improve its own
operations, the overall goal
of any plant capital expenditure. Requesting SEP credit for a
capital expenditure made in the ordinary course
of Toyal's business is improper, and Toyal's
2sTr., 1211 0/08, p. 113
29Tr., 1211 0/08, p. 112
12
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
argument must be rejected by the Board.
VI.
CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SHOULD NOT DICTATE THE
BOARD'S CALCULATION OF CIVIL PENALTY
Over Complainant's objection, Toyal presented evidence at hearing regarding the current
business climate and losses incurred during
2008, well after the relevant period. As noted in its
Response, Toyal expected to lose
$3.0 MM in 2008. However, Toyal provided no information
regarding its profits during the period
of violations, i:e. 1995-2003. Moreover, it is important to
recognize that Toyal has not claimed that it is unable to pay a civil penalty in the amount
requested by the
State. Nor has it presented any evidence that payment of a civil penalty would
result in plant closure, delay
of plant expansions, or that employees would be directly affected.
Toyal simply relies on the fact that this case is coming to the Board for decision during a period
of general economic difficulty.
According to the record, Toyal employs 89 people and has few competitors. In
2007, its
parent company reported sales in excess
of $5BB30. Also, Toyal clearly was able to make such
capital expenditures as necessary to grow its business during the relevant period. For example,
while it was completing installation
of the controls necessary to come into compliance in 2002, it
was also engaged in a $5-6 MM overhaul of its "B-Unit,,31. Moreover, Toyal apparently was
able to purchase a
$1 MM piece of equipment (the 'vacuum chiller") which was never used, and a
$674,000.00 replacement control device used to improve plant efficiencies.
Obviously Toyal does not want to pay a penalty. But there is nothing in the record to
30Toyai states that it operates as a 'stand alone company'. However, its is part of a much
larger organization, which will presumably act to protect its investment in Toyal.
3ITr., 12111/08, p. 54
13
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
indicate that Toyal cannot pay a civil penalty of$716,440.00 to resolve eight years of violations.
VII.
CONCLUSION
The evidence proves that Toyal violated Section 9(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2006),
and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a). The violations continued from March 15, 1995 until April
30,2003. An analysis of the Board's penalty factors suggests the need for a substantial penalty
to accomplish the purposes
of the Act and to aid in future enforcement. The civil penalty
imposed must, at a minimum, recover all
of the economic benefit accrued by Toyal through its
violations. The evidence shows this benefit to be at least $316,440.00.
In addition, Complainant requests that an additional penalty
of $400,000.00 be assessed.
Every day that Toyal operated its facility from March 15, 1995 until April
30, 2003, it did so with
the knowledge that it was operating in violation
of the YOM control regulations. Therefore, a
significant gravity component is necessary to deter future violations by Toyal and other similarly
situated entity persons. Accordingly, Complainant believes that a penalty
of $716,440.00 is
necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purposes
of the Act.
14
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
BY:
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
by
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW 1. DUNN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement! Asbestos
Litigation Division
ROSEMARIE CAZEAU, Chief
Environmental Bureau North
.ry~k-
oi4RISTOPHER GRANT
VANESSA VAIL
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorneys General
69 W. Washington Street, #1800
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)814-5388
(312)814-5361
15
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, CHRISTOPHER GRANT, an attorney, do certify that I caused to be served this 29th
day
of April, 2009, the foregoing Reply Brief and Notice of Electronic Filing upon the persons
listed below, by hand delivery, and by placing same in an envelope bearing sufficient postage
with the United States Postal Service located at
100 W. Randolph, Chicago, Illinois.
Mr. Bradley
P. Halloran
Hearing
Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601 (By Hand Delivery)
Mr. Roy
M. Harsch
Drinker Biddle Gardner Carton LLP
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60606-1698 (By First Class Mail)
CHRISTOPHER GRANT
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, April 29, 2009
