P. 1



# OAR Box 1865
Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



# Document

Number: 

# 197 ) F R7-6-198 9

Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20083:22:25PM

Sheet 197 of 198

### P. 2 

# #-/.?- Z 7

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 54

. Ni Thursday , Jul y o . 198 9 / Propose dRule s 2H44 7

persona l hearing , o r

th e submisBio n o f additiona l evidenc e coul dno t b e accomplishe di r

manner . Suc h motion s shoul db e file da t th e followin g address : Offic e o f

th e Chairman

. Specia l Lega l Assistan t

(01C) , Boar do f aAppeals , 81 0 Vermon t Avenue , NW

. Washington

. D C 2040

. Th e rulin g o nth e motio nwil l b e b y th e Chai n Dependin g upo nth e rulin g o nth e motion , actio nwil l b e take na s follows : (1 ) Good cause not

shown. I

f goo d caus e i s no t

shown , th e reques t

for a chang e i nrepresentation , th e reques t fo r apersona l hearing , o r

th e additiona l evidenc e submitte dwil l b e referre dt o th e agenc y of

origina l jurisdictio nupo n completio no f

th e Board' s actio no nth e pendin g appea l withou t actio nb y th e Boar dconcernin g th e reques t o r additiona l evidence

. An y persona l hearin g grante da s aresul t o f areques t s o referre do r

an y additiona l evidenc e s o referre dma y b e treate db y tha t agenc y a s th e basi s fo r

areopene dclai m i f appropriate

. I

f th e Boar ddenie da benefi t sough t i nth e pendin g appea l an d an y evidenc e s o referre dwhic hwa s receive dprio r

t o th e dat e o f

th e Board' s decision , o r

testimon y presente da t a hearin g resultin g fro mareques t for a hearin g s o referred , togethe r wit hth e evidenc e alread y of

record , i s subsequentl y foun dt o b e th e basi s o f a n allowanc e o f

tha t benefit , th e effectiv e dat e o f th e awar dwil l b e th e sam e a s i f th e benefi t

ha dbee ngrante db y th e Boar da s aresul t

o f th e appea l whic h wa s pendin g at

th e tim e tha t

th e hearin g reques t o r additiona l evidenc e wa s rece i (2 ) Good cause shown. I

f goo dcaus e i s shown , th e reques t

fo r achang e i n representatio no r

for apersona l hearin g wil l b e honored

. An y pertinen t evidenc e submitte db y th e appellan t o r representativ e wil l b e accepted , sub ; t o th e requirement s o f

paragrap h(d ) of thi s sectio nand , i

f asimultaneousl y conteste dclai mi s involved , th e requirement s o f

paragrap h(e ) of

thi s section

. (d ) Consideration of

additional evidence by agency of

original jurisdict: en t evid e i submitte db y th e appellan t o r * e whic hi s accepte db y th e Boar dunde r

th e provision s o

f section , a s wel l a s an y referre dt o i b y th e originatin g agenc y unde r Rul e 73( 1 b e referre dt o th e agenc y o f origi i jurisdictio nfor

revie w an dp n o f aSupplementa l Stat e unles s thi s procedura l righ t i s waive db y th e appellan t

o r unles s th e Boar d determine s tha t

th e benefit , o r

benefits , t o whic hth e evid e i allowe do nappea l withou t su < Suc hwaive r

mus t b e inwrittin g oi hearin g o n appea l i s conducted , formall y entere do n th e recor dorall y at th e tim e of th e hearing

. (e ) 5 '» us/

y con tes ted

ch I I n simultaneousl y conteste dclaims , i f pertinen t evidenc e i s submitte db y an y claiman t an di s accepte db y th e B < sh e provision s o f

thi s section , th e substanc e o f

suc hevidenc e wil l b e maile dt o eac hof

th e oth ( wh o wil l the nhav e 6 0 day s fro mI dat e of mailin g o f

notic e o f

th e ne w evidenc e withi nwhic ht o commen t upo n i t and/o r submi t additiona l eviden t rebuttal

. Th e dat e o f

th e lette r

o f notificatio no f

th e ne w evidenc e wil l b e presume dt o b e th e dat e o f mailin g fo r purpose s o f

determinin g whethe r

suc h commen t o r evidenc e i n rebutta l

.

. submitted

. N o furthe r

perio dwil l b e provide dfor

respons e t o suc h commen t o r rebutta l evidence

. (Authority : 3 8 U.S.C

. 4004

. 4005

. 4005A ) Crass-References: Fo r

furthe r nin g hearings , se e § 3.10 3 an dRule s 5 7 throug h7 1 9.157-19.171)

. New and

Material Se e § 3.156(a ) Reo/i n. Se e § 3.160(e)

. Computation of Time Limit. Se e Rul e 3 1 ( § 19.131 ) Holidays. Se e Rul e 3 2 ( § 19.132)

. [F RDoc

. 89-1581 6 File d7-5-89 ; 8:4 5 urn ] BILLIN GCOD E8320-01- M

ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY 4 0 CF RPar t

6 0 [AD-FRL-3568-2 J Standard s o fPerformanc e fo r Ne w Stationary Sources ; Industrial Commercial-Institutiona l Stea m Generatin g Unit s AGENCY : Environmenta l i icy (EPA)

. ACTION: P

i visio n of

rule

. SUMMARY

: O nDecembe r

16.1987

. standard s o f

performanc e wer e ulgate d(i.e.

. Subpar t

Db und ' CF RPnitin g emission s of sulfur d e (SOj ) an dparticulat e matte r (PM ) fro moil-fire dindustrial

commercial-i n gene : it s wil hhea t inpu t tha n 2 9 M W (to o ur ) (5 2 F R47826)

. T prop o i amen dth e SO i a m emis : iinclude di n thes e lo r oil-fire dstea mge m unit s b y (1 ) increasin g th e S O limi l fro mth e SO

. percen t r < millio n Btu ) t

i milli i limit

o f 4 3 millio i sulfur oils

. Thi s actio n i s I
DATES : Comm propo • Augu a B)

. spea k at 578)

. apubli c hearin g wi l o nJul;

. Innin g a i l Person s I hearin g shoul dcal l Ms

. A wil l I tanc e wil l impairm t • wishin g t o

8. ) ADDRESS i submitte d Ai r DJ I Envir o ington , l> < Attl M Pal' pubi i ofAdminis I North
presen t ora l te s An nl

num b Dt

Wat i v. .

FO R FURTHE R INFORMATIO N CONTACT :

; i
.P. 3



### 2844 8 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 54 , No

. 12 8 /

Thursday , Jul y 6 , 198 9 / Propose dRule s '-•" v

SUPPLEMENTAR

YINFORMATION : Backgroun d Ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) limitin g emission s o f SO » fro m industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wit hahea t inpu t capacit y greate r

tha n2 9 M W(10 0 millio nBtu/hr ) firin g coa l o r oi l an d emission s o f

P M fro munit s firin g oi l wer e propose do nJun e 19,198 6 (5 1 F R 22384)

. Standard s limitin g emission s o f SO * an dP M fro mthi s sourc e categor y wer e promulgate do nDecembe r 16,198 7 (5 2 F R47826)

. Severa l petition s fo r

reconsideratio n of thes e NSP S wer e filedwit hEP A i n February , March , an dMa y o f 1988

. Thes e petition s wer e denie do nJanuar y 13,198 9 (5 4 F

R1610)

. Amon g othe r

things , thi s NSP S require s a9 0 percen t

reductio ni nSOj emission s fro mindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s firin g oil

. Stea mgeneratin g unit s firing ver y lo w sulfu r

oil , however , ar e exemp t fro mthi s percen t

reductio nrequirement

. A s discusse di nth e notic e promulgatin g th e NSP S (5 2 FR47826) , th e Agenc y consider s th e impact s associate dwit h a nNSP S requirin g apercen t reductio ni n SOj emission s unreasonabl e fo r stea m generatin g unit s firing ver y lo w sulfu r oil

. I nadditio nt o limitin g SO * emission s fro moil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , th e NSP S als o limit s P M emission s fro moil

firedunits

. Rationale— Oi l SO

- Amendmen t Th e sulfu r

conten t of fue l oi l varie s widely , fro ma s lo w a s 0. 3 weigh t percen t fo r som e distillat e an dresidua l fue l oil s t o a s muc ha s 3. 0 weigh t percen t o r mor e fo r som e residua l fue l oils

. Th e maximu msulfu r conten t o f distillat e fue l oil , however , i s limite dt o 0. 5 weigh t

percen t throug hfue l oi l specification s adopte db y th e America n Societ y fo r

Testin g an dMaterial s (ASTM)

. Thus , th e sulfu r conten t o f distillat e fue l oi l serve s a s ausefu l benchmar k

fo r distinguishin g ver y lo w sulfu r fue l oil s fro mhighe r

sulfu r fue l oils

. Th e nationa l averag e sulfu r conten t o f distillat e fue l oi l i s abou t 0. 3 weigh t percent , whic hi s equivalen t t o abou t 0. 3 l b SO 2 pe r

millio nBtu

. Consequently , a n SO 2 emissio nrat e o f

13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 l b SOj/millio n Btu ) wa s use dt o distinguis h ver y lo w sulfu r

fue l oil , suc ha s distillat e fue l oil , fro mhighe r

sulfu r fue l oi l i nth e analyse s supportin g proposa l an d promulgatio no f

th e standard s limitin g SO 2 emission s fro moil-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s wit hahea t inpu t capacit y greate r

tha n2 9 M W(10 0 millio nBtu/hr ) [e.g. , 5 1 F R22384 , 5 2 F

R 47826 , "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysi s fo r Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standards : Industrial-Commercial-Institutiona l Stea mGeneratin g Unit s o f Greate r tha n 10 0 Millio nBtu/h r

Hea t Input" ) EPA

480/3-86-005)]

. A s mentione dabove , stea m generatin g unit s firing ver y lo w sulfu r fue l oi l ar e exemp t

fro mth e SO 2 percen t reductio nrequiremen t

include di nthes e standard s limitin g SO 2 emission s fro m industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. Thi s exemptio n i s base do nth e conclusio ntha t th e impact s o f

standard s requirin g apercen t reductio ni nSO 2 emission s ar e unreasonabl e fo r

stea mgeneratin g unit s firin g ver y lo w sulfu r

fue l oil

. Administratively , thi s exemptio nwa s include di nth e regulatio n b y providin g a nexemptio nfro mth e SO 2 percen t reductio nrequiremen t

fo r fue l oi l wit h a nSO 2 emissio nrat e of les s tha n13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb

. SOi/millio n Btu ) based , a s discusse dabove , o n th e sulfu r conten t o f distillat e fue l oil

. A recen t revie w o f

Departmen t

of Energ y data , however , indicate s tha t th e sulfu r conten t o f distillat e fue l oi l i s highl y variable

. Althoug hth e nationa l averag e sulfu r

conten t o f distillat e fue l oi l i s abou t

0. 3 weigh t

percent , dependin g o nfactor s suc ha s th e seaso n o f th e year , geographi c location , th e crud e oi l fro mwhic hth e distillat e fue l oi l i s refined , an dth e exten t t o whic h desulfurizatio no r

blendin g i s use dt o produc e distillat e fue l oi l a t arefinery , th e sulfu r

conten t o f distillat e fue l oi l ca nrang e fro ma s lo w a s 0. 1 weigh t percen t t o a s hig ha s 0. 4 weigh t percen t and , o noccasion , a s hig ha s 0. 5 weigh t percent

. A s mentione dabove , th e maximu m sulfu r conten t o f distillat e fue l oi l i s limite db y AST M fue l oi l specification s and , i nproducin g adistillat e fue l oi l produc t fo r sale , refinerie s meet , o r excee dthes e specifications

. Th e us e an d acceptanc e o f

thes e AST M fue l oi l specification s i s s o widesprea dtha t th e actua l specification s o f ashipmen t

of distillat e fue l oi l ar e frequentl y no t reported

. A s aresult , whe n fue l oi l terminal s an dloca l fue l oi l distributor s tak e deliver y of

ashipmen t

of distillat e fue l oil , the y generall y d o no t kno w th e actua l sulfu r

conten t o f th e distillat e fue l oi l the y receive ; the y onl y kno w tha t i t meets , o r exceeds , AST M specifications

. Th e amoun t

o f distillat e fue l oi l tha t

a ne w industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g uni t

migh t fire i s s o smal l tha t

th e owne r

o r operato r of th e uni t i s limite dt o purchasin g whateve r distillat e fue l oi l i s availabl e fro mafue l oi l termina l o r

loca l fue l oi l distributor

. Th e owne r

o r operato r of th e stea m generatin g uni t

i s unabl e t o specif

y th e sulfu r

conten t o f th e distillat e fue l oi l h e woul dlik e t o purchase , muc ha s a motoris t i s unabl e t o specif

y th e octan e o f th e gasolin e h e woul dlik e t o purchas e fro mhi s loca l servic e station

. Also , sinc e th e fue l oi l termina l o r loca l fue l oi l distributo r generall y doe s no t kno w th e actua l sulfu r conten t o f th e distillat e fue l oi l tha t

i s received , th e owne r o r operato r i s unabl e t o determin e th e sulfu r

conten t of th e distillat e fue l oi l prio r

t o purchase

. Consequently , th e wid e variatio ni nth e sulfu r conten t o f distillat e fue l oi l i s beyon dth e contro l o f

th e owne r

o r operato r o f a n industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit

. I nligh t o f thi s wid e variabilit y i n th e sulfu r conten t o f distillat e fue l oil , th e presen t exemptio n fro mth e percen t reductio nrequiremen t

include dnth e standard s fo r

industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s firin g fue l oi l wit ha n SO 2 emissio n rat e of 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 l b SO2/millio n Btu ) o r les s fail s t o provid e th e exemptio nfo r ver y lo w sulfu r

fue l oi l whic hi s necessar y t o ensur e tha t th e impact s of th e standar dar e considere dreasonable

. Thi s situatio nca nb e correcte db y increasin g th e SO 2 emissio nrat e i n th e exemptio n s o tha t

i t reflect s th e maximu msulfu r

conten t o f distillat e fue l oil

. Fo r thi s reason , today' s notic e propose s t o increas e th e SO 2 emissio n rat e i nth e exemptio nfro mth e percen t reductio nrequiremen t

fo r stea m generatin g unit s firin g ver y lo w sulfu r fue l oi l fro m13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 l b S0 2 /millio n Btu ) t o 21 5 ng/ J (0. 5 l b SOz/millio n Btu)

. Rationale—Oi l P M Amendmen t Th e standard s limitin g P M emission s fro moil-fire dindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s unde r Subpar t D b limi t P M emission s t o 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 l b PM/millio n Btu)

. Firin g ver y lo w sulfu r

fue l oil s whic har e capabl e o f

meetin g a nSO 2 emissio n limi t o f 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 l b SO 2 millio n Btu ) or , for tha t matte r a n SO 2 emissio n limi t o f 21 5 ng/ J (0. 5 l b SO 2 millio nBtu) , resul t i n P M emission s o f

4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 l b PM / millio n Btu ) o r

less

. Thus , fo r thos e oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s whic hfire ver y lo w sulfu r fue l oils , th e impositio no f aP M emissio n limi t

of 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 l b PM / millio n Btu ) achieve s n o additiona l PM emissio n reduction s beyon dtha t achieve db y th e SO 2 standards

. O nth e othe r hand , th e PM emissio nlimi t impose s additiona l cost s du e t o th e emissio nsourc e testin g requirement s associate dwit hth e emissio n limit

. A s a result , th e P M emissio n limi t fo r oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s firin g ver y lo w sulfu r oil s achieve s n o additiona lP. 4

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 54 , No

. 12 8 /

Thursday , Jul y 6 , 198 9 / Propose dRule s 2844 9
benefits , bu t

impose s additiona l costs

. Fo r thi s reason , today' s notic e propose s t o delet e th e P M emissio nlimi t fro mth e PM standard s fo r

thos e oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s whic hfir e ver y lo w sulfu r oils

. Althoug hcombustio no f ver y lo w sulfu r oi l result s i nver y lo w P M emissions , i t

i s possibl e throug h incomplet e combustio n fo r P M emission s t o increas e considerably

. Incomplet e combustio nca nresul t fro m poo r maintenanc e o r

imprope r operation

. I nbot hcases , incomplet e combustio nca neasil y b e identifie db y th e increase dopacit y o f emissions

. Thus , th e opacit y limi t

i n th e P M standard s fo r

oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s doe s achiev e additiona l benefit s i n term s o f P M emission s an dn o amendment s ar e propose dt o th e opacit y limit s unde r

th e P M standard s fo r

thos e oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s whic h fir e ver y lo w sulfu r

oils

. Miscellaneou s Unde r Executiv e Orde r

12291 , a rulemakin g actio nmus t b e examine dt o determin e if

i t i s a"majo r

rule " and , therefore , subjec t

t o certai n requirement s o f

th e Order

. Today' s rulemakin g actio nwoul dresul t i nnon e o f th e advers e economi c effect s se t fort h i nsectio n1 o f

th e Orde r

a s ground s fo r findin g aregulatio n t o b e a"majo r rule. " Thi s rulemakin g actio nwoul dno t increas e th e burde no n th e industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g uni t

sourc e category

. I t

woul d no t resul t i nan y increas e i ncost s o r prices , an dwoul dno t

disrup t market

competition

. Thi s revision , therefore , woul dno t

b e a"majo r

rule " unde r Executiv e Orde r

12291

. Unde r sectio n31 7 of

th e Clea nAi r Act , a neconomi c impac t assessmen t mus t b e prepare dfo r

revision s tha t

ar e determine dt o b e substantial

. Thes e revision s ar e no t

substantial ; a s aresult , a neconomi c impac t

assessmen t

ha s no t bee nprepared

. Pursuan t t o 5 U.S.C

. 605(b) , th e Administrato r

certifie s tha t

thes e revisio nwoul dno t

hav e asignifican t impac t o nasubstantia l numbe r of smal l entities

. Th e revision s woul dno t increas e th e burde no nthi s sourc e category , an di t

ha s alread y bee n determine dthat , i nth e absenc e of thes e revisions , th e standard s woul dno t affec t asubstantia l numbe r

o f smal l entitie s (5 2 FR47841 , Decembe r 16 , 1987)

. Paperwor k

Reductio nAc t Change s t o th e informatio ncollectio n requirement s a s propose di ntoday' s notic e hav e no t

bee nsubmitte dfo r approva l t o th e Offic e o f Managemen t an dBudge t

(OMB ) unde r

th e Paperwor k Reductio nAct , 4 4 U.S.C

. 350 1 e t seq . Th e informatio n collectio n requirement s

previousl y approve db y OM B fo r promulgatio no f

th e Industrial

Commercial-Institutiona l Stea m Generatin g Uni t

NSP S (4 0 CF

RPar t 6 0 Subpar t Db ) i nDecembe r

198 7 wer e conservativel y hig hestimate s whic h represen t

"wors t case " impacts

. Th e smal l chang e i n informatio ncollectio n cause db y th e eliminatio nof aone-time

onl y initia l P M performanc e tes t fo r oil

- • fire dunit s firin g ver y lo w sulfu r oi l doe s no t chang e th e "wors t

case " informatio n collectio n requirements

. Considerin g th e othe r informatio n collectio nactivitie s require db y th e SO 2 an dP M standard s fo r oil-fire dunit s (includin g a ninitia l SO 2 performanc e test , continuou s monitorin g fo r

SO 2 an dopacity , quarterl y SO 2 continuou s complianc e report s wit hqualit y assuranc e requirements , an dquarterl y exces s emissio n report s fo r

opacity) , th e initia l P M performanc e tes t

i s insignificant

. Therefore , th e burde n o f informatio n collectio n remain s unchanged

. Lis t o f Subject s i n 4 0 CF RPar t 6 0 Ai r pollutio n control , Intergovernmenta l relations , Reportin g an drecordkeepin g requirements

. Date : Jun e 26,1989

. Willia m KReilly , Administrator. PAR T60—STANDARD S O F PERFORMANC E FO R NE W STATIONAR YSOURCE S 1

. Th e authorit y citatio n fo r Par t 6 0 continue s t o rea da s follows : Authority : 4 2 U.S.C . 7411 , 7414 , an d7601(a)

. 2

. Sectio n60.41 6 i s amende db y revisin g th e followin g definition : § 60.41 b Definitions

. **** * "Ver y lo w sulfu r

oil " mean s a noi l that , whe ncombuste dwithou t post

combustio n SO * control , ha s a n SO * emissio nrat e equa l t o o r les s tha n21 5 ng/ J (0. 5 l b SO,/millio n Btu)

. 3

. Sectio n60.42 b i s amende db y revisin g th e introductor y tex t o f paragrap h(d ) an dparagrap h(f ) t o rea d a s follows : § 60.42 b Standar d fo r sulfu r dioxide
. **** * (d ) O n an dafte r

th e dat e o n whic hth e performanc e tes t

i s complete do r require dt o b e complete dunde r 60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r

come s first , n o owne r o r operato r of a n affecte dfacilit y liste di nparagraph s (d ) (1) , (2) , (3) , o r (4 ) of thi s sectio n shal l caus e t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e an y gase s tha t

contai nsulfu r

dioxid e i n exces s of 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t inpu t i f th e affecte dfacilit y combust s coal , o r

21 5 ng/ J (0. 5 lb / millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t i f th e affecte d facilit y combust s oil

. Percen t reductio n requirement s ar e no t

applicabl e t o affecte dfacilitie s unde r thi s paragraph : **** * (f ) Complianc e wit hth e emissio n limit s unde r

thi s sectio n ar e determine d o na24-hou r

averag e basi s fo r

affecte d facilitie s whic h(1 ) hav e aFederall y enforceabl e permi t

limitin g th e annua l capacit y facto r

fo r oi l t o 1 0 percen t

o r less , (2 ) combus t

onl y ver y lo w sulfu r oil , an d(3 ) d o no t

combus t an y othe r fuel

. 4

. Sectio n60.43 b i s amende db y revisin g paragraph s (b ) an d(f ) H S follows : § 60.43 b Standar d fo r particulat e matter
. **** * (b ) O nan dafte r

th e dat e o n whic hth o performanc e tes t

i s complete do r require dt o b e complete dunde r 60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r

dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r of a n affecte dfacilit y tha t combust s oi l (o r

mixture s o f

oi l wit h othe r fuels ) an duse s aconventiona l o r emergin g technolog y t o reduc e SO » emission s shal l caus e t o b e discharge d int o th e atomspher e fro mtha t affecte d facilit y an y gase s tha t

contai n particulat e matte r

i nexces s o f

4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t imput

. **** * (f ) O n an dafte r

th e dat e o nwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t i s complete do r i s require dt o b e complete dunde r 60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r

dat e come s first , n o onwe r o r operato r o f a n affecte dfacilit y tha t combust s coal , oil , wood , o r mixture s o f

thes e fuel s wit han y othe r fuel s shal l caus e t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e an y gase s tha t exhibi t greate r tha n2 0 percen t

opacit y (6

- minut e average) , excep t for on e 6-minut e perio dpe r

hou r o f no t mor e tha n 2 7 percen t opactity

. 5

. Sectio n 60.45 b i s amende db y revisin g th e introdutor y tex t of paragrap h(d ) a s follows : § 60.45 b Complianc e an d performanc e tes t method s an d procedure s fo r sulfu r dioxide
. **** * (d ) Th e owne r

o r operato r o f a n affecte dfacilit y tha t

combust s onl y ver y lo w sulfu r

oil , ha s a n annua l capacit y facto r fo r oi l o f 1 0 percen t

(0.10 ) o r loss , an di s subjec t

t o aFederall y enforceabl e requiremen t

limitin g operatio n o f

th o affecte dfacilit y t o a nanuua l capacit y facto r fo r oi l of 1 0 percen t

(0.10 ) o r les s shall : **** * * |F RDoc

. 89-1574 8 File d7-5-89 ; 8:4 5 um | BILLING COD E 6560-56- M