ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January 20,

1977

DEERE

AND

COMPANY,

(JOHN DEERE PLOW

 & PLANTER WORKS),

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 76—275

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Zeitlin):

This matter is before the Board on

 a Petition for Variance

filed by Deere and Company

 (Deere)

 on November

1,

 1976,

 seeking

relief from the hydrocarbon emission limitations

 in Rule 205(f)

of

Chapter

 2: Air Pollution,

 of this Board’s Rules and Regulations.

Ill.

 PCB Regs.,Ch.,

2,

 Rule 205(f)

 (1976).

 A Recommendation was

filed by the Environmental Protection Agency

 (Agency)

 on December 20,

1976.

 No hearing was held in this matter.

The relief sought here for Petitioner’s Moline,

 Illinois facility

is actually an extension of similar relief granted by the Board in

a previous case.

 Deere and Company v.

 EPA, PCB 76-82,

PCB

(June

18,

 1976).

 We there granted permission for Deere to emit

hydrocarbons at a rate greater than that allowed by Rule 205 (f),

with which Rule Deere had previously been in compliance.

 We granted

the Variance to allow a conversion from “exempt” solvents

 to photo-

chemically reactive materials to allow testing of

 a pilot solvent

recovery system, designed to

 “capture and reuse photochemically

reactive material.”

 Id., Opinion at

1.

 Such testing is necessary,

“to ascertain whether an 85

 control efficiency can

be

achieved.

Id., aL

2.

Our Opinion in PCB 76-82, supra,

 adequately describes Deere’s

operations

 at Its Plow and Planter Works, and the emissions likely

to result under the Variance.

 Under the circumstances, our analysis

there is sufficient,

 and need not be repeated here.

 Only two issues

need discussion.

First, Deere pleads that the requested extension is necessary

only as a result of factors beyond its control:

 The testing envisioned

under PCB 76-82 has not been completed because

 of a strike at the

subject

 facility.

 Recommending that the Variance be granted,

the

Agency states that,

 “the

 delays

 caused by the labor strike

are not delays for which Deere and Company should be penalized.”

Agency Rec.,

 ¶5, at

2.

 We agree.

 Stepan Chemical Co.

 v. EPA,

PCB 76-268,

PCB

 (January

 1977; City of St. Charles v.

EPA,

 PCB 74—176,

 13 PCB 269

 (1974)

—

631

2—

Second,

 the Agency Recommendation notes that the only danger

which might arise under the grant of such

 a Variance

 is not present

in this case.

 Cf., PCB 76-82,

 supra,

PCB

 (Dissenting Opinion

of Mr. Dumelle) (June 18,

 1976).

 We agree that it is unlikely that

ozone problems might arise in continued testing during the winter

months.

 See, Abitibi Corp.

v.

 EPA, PCB 75-207

 (November

6,

 1975),

Opinion at

3.

We find that the same factors leading to the Variance grant in

PCB 76—82 apply here, and support the grant of the requested Variance.

Finally,

 Deere requested that the Variance be granted “for 40

working days

 (2 months)

 after

 the strike

 is settled and factory

operations are resumed.”

 Pet.,

at

2.

 The Agency Recommendation

infers,

 (~f2, at 1), that the strike was settled on November

9,

 1976.

We shall grant the requested Variance from that date.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS

THE

ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:

1.

 Deere and Company be granted Variance from

Rule 205(f)

 of Chapter

 2: Air Pollution,

 for its Plow

and Planter Works

 in Moline,

 Illinois,

 from November

9,

1976 until January

9,

 1977.

2.

 Petitioner Deere shall, within thirty-five

 (35)

days of the date of this Order, execute and forward a

Certificate of Acceptance

 (in the form shown on the

succeeding page)

 to the following address:

Environmental Protection Agency

Control Program Coordinator

Division of Air Pollution Control

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

—

632

—3—

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE

I,

 (We), ____________________________

 having read

the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in

case No. PCB 76—275,

 understand and accept said Order,

realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and

conditions thereto binding and enforceable.

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

Mr. Jacob

D.

 Dumelle abstained.

I,

 Chri stan

 I. Moffett,

(‘~k

or

the

111

flOi

 Poll ut

i

on

 Control Board,

 hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

~

 day of

__________,

 1977,

 by a vote of

______

Christan L.

 Moffett

erk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

—

633