[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2577-2581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1022]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL161-1a; FRL-6216-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving a requested source specific revision to 
the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone in the form of a 
variance from the otherwise applicable SIP requirements for DB Hess 
Company, Incorporated's lithographic printing plant which is located in 
Woodstock, in McHenry County, Illinois. The variance took effect on the 
State level on March 20, 1997 and expires on March 30, 1999. The 
State's plan request was submitted to USEPA on September 3, 1997. In 
the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, the USEPA is 
proposing approval of, and soliciting comments on, this approval. If 
adverse written comments are received on this action, the USEPA will 
withdraw this final rule and address the comments received in response 
to this action in a final rule based on the related proposed rule. A 
second public comment period will not be held. Parties interested in 
commenting on this action should do so at this time. This approval 
makes the State's rule federally enforceable.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 16, 1999, unless USEPA receives 
adverse written comments by February 16, 1999. If adverse comment is 
received, USEPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the 
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the plan and USEPA's analysis are available for 
inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air 
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604. (Please telephone Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886-6036 before 
visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph O. Cano, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-
6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Description of the Affected Source

    The DB Hess SIP revision request and USEPA's evaluation of it are 
summarized below. More detailed information is contained in a technical 
support document which was prepared in support of this action. It is 
available from the Region 5 office listed above.
    DB Hess owns and operates a lithographic printing plant located in 
Woodstock (McHenry County), Illinois. The plant emits Volatile Organic 
Material 1 (VOM) and is located within the Chicago-Gary-Lake 
County ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as severe for the 
one-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The USEPA generally uses the term ``Volatile Organic 
Compounds (VOC)'' to refer to the hydrocarbon compounds that 
participate in the chemical formation of ozone in the lower 
Troposphere. The State of Illinois uses the term ``Volatile Organic 
Material (VOM)'' to refer to the same hydrocarbon compounds. The 
definition of VOM is identical to the definition of VOC. The two 
terms can be used interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The production equipment at DB Hess's Woodstock plant (the 
Woodstock

[[Page 2578]]

plant) consists of (1) two heatset web offset lithographic printing 
presses, presses 1 and 2, with VOM emissions controlled by the use of a 
thermal oxidizer; (2) three heatset web offset presses, presses 3, 4, 
and 5, whose VOM emissions are uncontrolled; and (3) two coldset 
sheetfed presses. Each heatset web offset printing line includes a 
drying oven, fired with natural gas. The exhausts from the drying ovens 
for presses 3, 4, and 5 are vented through the roof of the Woodstock 
plant.
    VOM emissions from the Woodstock plant result from the use of 
organic, solvent-born inks, fountain solution additives, and cleaning 
solutions. The Woodstock plant currently uses fountain solutions which 
are applied with a VOM concentration of less than 5 percent (by volume 
or by mass not specified) and which contain no alcohol. The cleaning 
solution used by DB Hess is diluted from a concentrate. Heatset inks 
are formulated from solids, ink oils, and solvents, some of which 
contain VOM.
    In 1995, the Woodstock plant emitted approximately 9 tons of VOM, 
with 5 tons of VOM emissions resulting from the use of heatset ink oils 
and 4 tons of VOM emissions resulting from the use of cleaning 
solvents. The Woodstock plant currently operates under a Federally 
Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP) issued by the Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on December 11, 1995.

II. The Requested Rule Variance and Its Justification

    DB Hess currently complies with Illinois' VOM rules for presses 1 
and 2 and for the coldset sheetfed presses. DB Hess is requesting the 
variance only for presses 3, 4, and 5. The variance requested concerns 
Illinois's VOM rules for lithographic printing sources. Specifically, 
DB Hess is seeking a variance from the State regulations found at Title 
35: Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter I: 
Pollution Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions Standards and 
Limitations for Stationary Sources, Part 218: Organic Material 
Emissions Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area, Subpart H: 
Printing and Publishing of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 IAC) 
218.407 (a) (1) (C), (D), and (E) and (35 IAC) 218.411 (b) (1), (2), 
and (3) which are parts of Illinois' lithographic printing rules. 
Section 218.407 (a) (1) (C), (D), and (E) require the instillation and 
operation of an afterburner at subject heatset web offset lithographic 
printing lines as well as continuous monitoring of its performance 
while in use. Section 218.411 (b) (1), (2),and (3) specify 
certification and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for heatset 
web offset lithographic printing lines subject to emission control 
requirements. The lithographic printing rules were tightened in 1995 to 
provide VOM emission reductions needed to meet the requirements for 
Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) in the Chicago-Northwest Indiana ozone 
nonattainment area.
    The FESOP, under which the Woodstock plant currently operates, 
limits uncontrolled VOM emissions to less than 100 tons per year for 
all heatset lines. The new lithographic printing rule requirements 
apply if the source emits 100 pounds of VOM or more per day before 
control from all printing processes. Because the VOM emissions at the 
Woodstock plant exceed this emission limit, the Woodstock plant is 
subject to the requirements of the lithographic printing rule. DB Hess 
is complying with this rule for all presses except for presses 3, 4, 
and 5.
    On March 15, 1996, the compliance date for the lithographic 
printing rule, DB Hess filed for a variance from the applicable control 
requirements for presses 3, 4, and 5 with the Illinois Pollution 
Control Board (IPCB). The variance was sought for the period of March 
15, 1996 through March 30, 1999, during which DB Hess proposed to 
implement an alternative plan to reduce its emissions using a phased 
compliance approach. In lieu of purchasing and operating an afterburner 
for presses 3, 4, and 5, DB Hess proposed to replace these presses with 
compliant presses and to otherwise reduce VOM emissions from the 
presses. The alternative compliance plan would employ the use of 
cleaning solutions with lower VOM content. In addition, DB Hess 
committed to eliminate press 3 by March 30, 1998, and to eliminate or 
retrofit presses 4 and 5 to comply with the VOM requirements by March 
30, 1999. DB Hess requested that the variance terminate when presses 3, 
4, and 5 have ceased operation, have been replaced, or have been 
retrofitted with emission control equipment, and have been tested and 
shown to be in compliance with the applicable rules. Compliance with 
the rules would be demonstrated by March 30, 1999.
    To comply with the lithographic printing rule prior to March 15, 
1996, DB Hess considered various VOM control systems and determined 
that only thermal oxidation of VOM was a feasible control method. 
However, DB Hess asserted that the environmental benefit from 
controlling the emissions from presses 3, 4, and 5 was out weighed by 
the high cost of VOM reduction using thermal oxidation. The cost of VOM 
reduction via thermal oxidation was estimated by DB Hess to be in the 
range of $48,000 to $69,000 per ton of VOM controlled, with an expected 
VOM emission reduction of 3.5 tons per year. In addition, DB Hess noted 
that these presses are nearing the ends of their average production 
lives of 25 years. Requiring DB Hess to install an afterburner to 
control VOM emissions would require DB Hess to make a substantial, 
short-lived capital investment in excess of the expected value produced 
by these presses during the remainder of the presses' lifetimes. The 
VOM control costs for these presses would significantly exceed the 
upper costs of VOM controls, $1,800 to $3,100 per ton VOM controlled, 
believed by DB Hess to represent Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT). The IPCB found in a March 20, 1997 Opinion and Order 
of the Board that to require immediate compliance with the lithographic 
printing rules for these presses would impose an arbitrary and 
unreasonable hardship on DB Hess.
    DB Hess maintained that there will be no adverse environmental 
impacts from its proposed compliance plan. DB Hess believed that the 
VOM emission reduction to be gained from the implementation of an 
afterburner on presses 3, 4, and 5 would have a negligible impact on 
the ozone levels in this area. In addition, DB Hess agreed to limit its 
potential to emit VOM to a level required by the lithographic printing 
rule, 18 tons per year. (Note that actual VOM emissions at the 
Woodstock plant are currently well below this level.) Therefore, DB 
Hess believes its alternative control plan would provide a net benefit 
for the environment.
    Given DB Hess' commitment to limit the Woodstock plant potential 
VOM emissions to 18 tons per year, the IEPA concluded that the 
requested variance and alternative compliance plan will not adversely 
impact the environment relative to the full impact that would have been 
achieved by complete implementation of the lithographic printing rules. 
The IEPA, however, disagreed with DB Hess' conclusions concerning the 
implications of the local ozone monitoring data. The IEPA recognized 
the potential for the DB Hess VOM emissions to contribute to high ozone 
concentrations elsewhere in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. The 
IEPA also indicated that DB Hess' commitment to reduce potential VOM 
emissions to 18 tons per year confused the terms ``actual emissions'' 
and ``potential to emit.'' Reducing ``potential'' emissions does not 
always

[[Page 2579]]

equate to a real environmental benefit, especially when, in fact, DB 
Hess does not actually emit near its potential to emit.
    The IEPA stated that denying the variance request would result in 
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship to DB Hess which would be 
required to make a substantial, short lived capital investment if 
required to install an afterburner on presses that are expected to be 
shut down within three years because such an expenditure would be in 
excess of the value of each press and the expected value produced by 
those presses during their estimated useful life remaining. The IEPA 
concluded that DB Hess qualified for a SIP revision and has met 
applicable requirements for a SIP revision. The requirements of notice 
and opportunity for public participation have been met through a public 
hearing held in this matter on January 23, 1997.
    Balancing the economic costs of the required VOM controls for 
presses 3, 4, and 5 against the anticipated environmental impact of 
complete rule implementation, the IPCB found that to require immediate 
compliance with the rules for lithographic printing would impose an 
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on DB Hess. Therefore, the IPCB 
issued a temporary variance for presses 3, 4, and 5 at the Woodstock 
plant. This variance commenced on March 20, 1997, and was not made 
retroactive to March 15, 1996 as requested by DB Hess. The variance 
terminates on March 30, 1999. The following summarizes additional 
conditions placed on the variance (the dates specified indicate the 
latest start dates of compliance periods terminating on March 30, 1999, 
when presses 3, 4, and 5 must be replaced by complying presses or must 
be brought into compliance with the rules from which DB Hess seeks the 
variance):
    1. On or before March 20, 1997, the combined actual VOM emissions 
from all of the presses in the Woodstock plant shall not exceed 18 tons 
per year or 1.5 tons per month.
    2. On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall use only cleaning 
solutions with VOM concentrations less than or equal to 30 percent by 
weight.
    3. On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall use cleaning 
solutions on presses 3, 4, and 5 that have a VOM composite partial 
vapor pressure of less than 10 millimeters (mm) of Mercury (Hg) at 20 
degrees Celsius. These cleaning solutions must comply with the 
requirements of 35 IAC 218.407(a)(4).
    4. On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall store and dispose of 
all cleaning towels in closed containers.
    5. On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall monitor presses 3, 4, 
and 5 pursuant to 35 IAC 218.410 (b), (c), and (e).
    6. On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall use fountain solutions 
on presses 3, 4, and 5 that are less than 5 percent VOM by volume, as 
applied, and which contain no alcohol.
    7. On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall prepare and maintain 
records pursuant to 35 IAC 218.411 (b), (c), and (d) for presses 3, 4, 
and 5 and must show compliance with the requirements of 35 IAC 
218.407(a)(1) (C), (D), and (E) and with the requirements of 35 IAC 
218.411(b) (1), (2), and (3) for these presses.
    8. On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall submit quarterly reports 
to the IEPA's Compliance and Systems Management Section demonstrating 
compliance with the terms of the IPCB order.
    9. On or before March 30, 1998, DB Hess shall cease operation of 
press 3.
    10. On or before March 30, 1999, DB Hess shall either:
    A. Cease operation of presses 4 and 5, and notify the IEPA of such 
cessation; or
    B. Retrofit presses 4 and 5 or replace presses 4 and 5 in 
compliance with 35 IAC 218.407 (a)(1) (C), (D), and (E) and with 35 IAC 
218.411(b) (1), (2), and (3). In this case:
    (1) DB Hess must apply for and obtain necessary construction 
permits by March 30, 1998, or six months before retrofitting or 
replacing presses 4 and 5, whichever is earlier.
    (2) DB Hess must send monthly status reports, due the 15th day of 
each month, to the IEPA, covering the progress of the installation of 
the presses and control equipment and testing of the control equipment.
    11. On or before March 30, 1999, DB Hess shall cease operations at 
presses 3, 4, and 5 except for those presses for which it has obtained 
permits and installed controls, which have been tested and demonstrated 
to be in compliance with applicable rules.

III. USEPA Review of the Variance Request

    USEPA guidance covering various types of variance requests is 
comprised of separate rulemakings on a number of widely ranging 
variance requests. Generally, each variance request must be reviewed on 
a case-by-case basis. This particular control variance is reviewed on 
the merits of DB Hess's claim of unreasonable costs for implementation 
of required controls and on the merits of the IPCB's final decision and 
requirements. Of greatest concern is the enforceability and specific 
temporary nature of the IPCB-granted variance.
    Review of the cost data supplied by DB Hess leads to the conclusion 
that DB Hess's claim of unreasonable emission control costs may be 
justified. Assuming that presses 3, 4, and 5 are to be replaced in the 
short term due to their ages and the fact that presses have finite 
useful lifetimes and recognizing that afterburner (thermal oxidation) 
control systems are relatively expensive, requiring long term uses to 
provide reasonable emission control costs, leads to the conclusion that 
DB Hess can justify relatively high emission control costs, well above 
levels that might be expected should the afterburner systems be used 
over much longer time periods. DB Hess is justified in seeking a 
temporary variance if it plans to terminate or replace the presses in a 
short time frame (within 3 years as planned).
    The SIP variance requested places a definite ending point on the 
variance. DB Hess is required to replace or terminate the use of the 
three presses by March 30, 1999, or to bring the presses into 
compliance with applicable regulations by that time. Failure to do so 
would leave DB Hess subject to rule violation consequences if DB Hess 
fails to comply by that time. The SIP revision also provides for 
adequate tracking of DB Hess' progress of compliance. The variance is 
enforceable on its face, since the State and USEPA can take actions to 
enforce the applicable regulations after March 30, 1999. Approval of 
the variance does protect DB Hess from enforcement between March 20, 
1997, the date of the variance approval by the IPCB, and March 30, 
1999. The variance is technically justified and enforceable.
    USEPA approves the incorporation of this variance into the Illinois 
SIP for the life of the variance.
    USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
USEPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, USEPA is proposing to approve the State Plan 
should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective 
without further notice unless USEPA receives relevant adverse written 
comment by February 16, 1999. Should USEPA receive such comments, it 
will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will 
not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this

[[Page 2580]]

action will be effective on March 16, 1999.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, USEPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, USEPA must provide to the 
Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of USEPA's 
prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and 
tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires USEPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does 
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that 
USEPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, USEPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
USEPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of USEPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires USEPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and 
timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that 
significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does 
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 
13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under 
section 110 and of small entities because SIP approvals under section 
110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, USEPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires USEPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    USEPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. USEPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States

[[Page 2581]]

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 16, 1999. Filing 
a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 3, 1998.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart O--Illinois

    2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(144) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (144) On September 3, 1997, the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency submitted a temporary, site specific State Implementation Plan 
revision request for the D.B. Hess Company, Incorporated's (DB Hess) 
lithographic printing operations located in Woodstock (McHenry County), 
Illinois. This variance took the form of a March 20, 1997, Opinion and 
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board issued in PCB 96-194 
(Variance--Air). The variance which will expire on March 30, 1999, 
grants DB Hess a variance from 35 Illinois Administrative Code Sections 
218.407(a)(1)(C),(D),(E) and 218.411(b)(1), (2)and (3) for heatset web 
offset presses 3, 4, and 5 which are located at the Woodstock (McHenry 
County), Illinois facility.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    A March 20, 1997, Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution 
Control Board in PCB 96-194 (Variance--Air) which was effective on 
March 20, 1997 and expires on March 30, 1999.
    (ii) The variance is subject to the following conditions (the dates 
specified indicate the latest start dates of compliance periods 
terminating on March 30, 1999, when presses 3, 4, and 5 must be 
replaced by complying presses or must be brought into compliance with 
the rules from which DB Hess seeks the variance):
    (A) On or before March 20, 1997, the combined actual volatile 
organic material (VOM) emissions from all of the presses in the 
Woodstock plant shall not exceed 18 tons per year or 1.5 tons per 
month.
    (B) On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall use only cleaning 
solutions with VOM concentrations less than or equal to 30 percent by 
weight.
    (C) On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall use cleaning 
solutions on presses 3, 4, and 5 that have a VOM composite partial 
vapor pressure of less than 10 millimeters (mm) of Mercury (Hg) at 20 
degrees Celsius. These cleaning solutions must comply with the 
requirements of 35 IAC 218.407(a)(4).
    (D) On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall store and dispose of 
all cleaning towels in closed containers.
    (E) On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall monitor presses 3, 4, 
and 5 pursuant to 35 IAC 218.410 (b), (c), and (e).
    (F) On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall use fountain solutions 
on presses 3, 4, and 5 that are less than 5 percent VOM by volume, as 
applied, and which contain no alcohol.
    (G) On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall prepare and maintain 
records pursuant to 35 IAC 218.411 (b), (c), and (d) for presses 3, 4, 
and 5 and must show compliance with the requirements of 35 IAC 
218.407(a)(1) (C), (D), and (E) and with the requirements of 35 IAC 
218.411(b) (1), (2), and (3) for these presses.
    (H) On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall submit quarterly 
reports to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA's) 
Compliance and Systems Management Section demonstrating compliance with 
the terms of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Order.
    (I) On or before March 30, 1998, DB Hess shall cease operation of 
press 3.
    (J) On or before March 30, 1999, DB Hess shall either:
    (1) Cease operation of presses 4 and 5, and notify the IEPA of such 
cessation; or
    (2) Retrofit presses 4 and 5 or replace presses 4 and 5 in 
compliance with 35 IAC 218.407 (a)(1) (C), (D), and (E) and with 35 IAC 
218.411(b) (1), (2), and(3). In this case:
    (i) DB Hess must apply for and obtain necessary construction 
permits by March 30, 1998, or six months before retrofitting or 
replacing presses 4 and 5, whichever is earlier.
    (ii) DB Hess must send monthly status reports, due the 15th day of 
each month, to the IEPA, covering the progress of the installation of 
the presses and control equipment and testing of the control equipment.
    (K) On or before March 30, 1999, DB Hess shall cease operations at 
presses 3, 4, and 5 except for those presses for which it has obtained 
permits and installed controls, which have been tested and demonstrated 
to be in compliance with applicable rules.

[FR Doc. 99-1022 Filed 1-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P