@002**STATIO~ARY SOl~CH**  Iitl 002**~~~ U~~** **uhyr~ V~** 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2046D



# SEP tI1!!!

M"EMORANDUM



### SUBJECT: State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding**E~cess** 

### Emissions During 

### Malfuncticn5, Startup, and Shutdown

FROM: Steven A.

# Her~-1I 

# L---'-­**jA~stant** 

### Admi'**_~,** 

### for Enforeement and Compliance

# ~:::::n::>Ci'. 

# opo 11_ J 

# IJ _:

Assistant

# Adrnini51F~~\Jo-~d R:diation

TO: 

### Regional**~drninistrator8,** 

### Regions I - X

EPA's policy for state implementation plans (SIPs) regarding

exce9S 

### emissions durin; malfunctions, startup,**sh~tdown,** 

### and
maintenance is 

### contained in memoranda from Kathleen Bennett, formerly Assistant**Administrato~** for 

### Air, Noise**a~d** 

### Radiation
dated September 28, 1982 and February 15, 1983. A**~ecent re~iew**  

### of SIPs suggests that several contain provisions that appear to 

### be**inoon~i3tent** 

### with this policy, either**becau~e** 

### they were inadvertently approved after EPA issued the 1982-1983 guidance or**becaus~** 

### they were part of the SIP at that time and**haveneve~** 

### been removed. In order to address these provisions in a consi$tent manner, today 

### we are reaffirming and supplementing the
1982-83 policy. In so doing, we 

### .are taking 

### this opportunity to clarify several iS8ues 

### of interpretation 

### that have arisen since
that**~ime.** 

### The attached updated policy will clarify the types of**exces~ e~issions**  provisionB states may 

### incorporate into SLPs so**th~t** 

### they can in turn provide greater 

### certainty to the regulated community.

As EPA 

### stated in its**198~ memQra~dum,**  

### because excess**emission~** 

### might aggravate air quality 

### so as to prevent attainment

or 

### inter!ere with 

### maintenanee of the ambient air quality 

### standards, EPA**view~** 

### all excess emissions as Violations of 

### the applicable 

### ernis5ion limitation.**~evertheless,** 

### EPA recognizes**STATIO~ARY SOl~CH**  09/22/99 WED 16:58 FAX 202 564 0068**UA~** ........ ,. •• t'.... 'f

......... .A..".

.... .". rn

..... VA"""''''":I:UJ..**~rA VAwr~** **u~**

• 2 •



### that imposition of a penalty for sudden and unavoidable
malfunctions caused by**cir~urnst~nces** entirely beyond 

### the control
of the owner or operator may 

### not 

## ce appropriate. Accordingly, a
state or E:PA can elCercise its "enforcement discretion" to 

### refrain

from taking 

### an enforcement action in 

### these circumstancs3.

The 

### main question of interpretation that**ha~** arisen 

### regarding the old policy is whether a**~tate** 

### may go beyond 

### this "enforcement discretion" 

### approach and include in its SIP a provision 

### that WOUld, in 

### the context of an 

### enforcement action for



### excess emission!!" 

### excuse a source from penalties if the !Source



### can demonstrate that it**rnee~5** 

### certain objective criteria 

### (an
"affirmative defense"). 

### This policy c:ladfies 

### that states have 

### the di$cretion to provide such 

### e defense to actions**fo~** 

### penalties brought for ExCess 

### emissions that**a~ise du~ing**  

### certain malfunction, startup, 

### and shutdown 

### episodes.

In the context 

### of malfunctions, EPA recognizes**~ha~** 

### even equipment 

### that is**prope~ly** designed And**rnain~ained** can 

### sometimes

fail. At 

### the 

### same time, EPA has a 

### fundamental**responsibil~ty** under the 

### Clean Air Act to 

### ensure that SIPs provide 

### for**att~inment** and maintenance of 

### the national ambient 

### air quality 

### standards**(~NAAQSNland** protection of 

### PSD inCIements. ThUS, 

### EPA

cannot approve an**affi~ative** 

### defenBe provision that**wou~d** undermine 

### the fundamental**requir~ent** of 

### attainment and**mainte~ance** 

### of the**N~AQS,** 

### or any other 

### requirement of the Clean**~ir** 

### Act. See sections 110(a) and 

### (1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § i410(a) 

### and (1) ,1 

### Accordingly, an acceptable

affirmative 

### defense provision 

### may only apply to**actio~s** for penalties, but not to 

### acticns for in;unctive 

### relief. This**re~trictiQn** 

### insures that 

### both state and 

### federal authorities remain able to protect air quality standards and 

### PSD increments.**rur~hermore,** 

### this approach is appropriate 

### only when the respective 

### contributions of individual 

### sources to pollutant 

### concentrations in ambient air are such that 

### no single 

### source or small group of sources 

### haa the potential to cause an exceedance

of the NAAQS or FSD 

### increments. z 

### Where a single source 

### or small

lpureuant to Section llO[l},**EP~** 

### may not approve a SIP revision 

### if lithe 

### revision would interfere 

### with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further

progress, 

### or any 

### other applicable reqUirement 

### of this chapter,lI 

### See also §**1~3,** 42 

### U.S.C. § 

### 7S15, anQ 

### the definitions of "em.ission limitation" and "emission standard" eontaineci 

### in eM

§ 302(k), 42 U.S.C. § 7602(kl.

Z 

### In the case of lead and sulfur dioKide, attainment problems usually are caus@d by 

### one or a few sources and anIaJ004**~004**

- 3 ­

9roup of**sou~ces** 

### has the potential to 

### caUSe**a~** 

### exceedance of the**Nk~QS** or PSC inerements, EPA believes an 

### af£irrnative defense apptoach will not be adequate to protect public health and the environment,and 

### the only appropriate means 

### of dealing with

excess em1ssions during malfunctton, startup, and**shutdo~n** episodes**i~** through an enforoement 

### discretion approach. 3

E?A**~s** also 

### taxing this opportunity to 

### clarify**~hat** it does

not intend to 

### approve SIP revisions**tha~ wo~ld**  recognize 

### a state
director's decision to 

### bar EPA's or citizens' ability to enforce applicable**requirement~.** Such an approaeh would be inconsistent 

### with the regulatory scheme establisneQ in Title! of the 

### Clean
Air Act.**~PA** 

### is also adding**contem~oraneous** record keepin9 

### and**notifica~ion cr1te~1o**  to make its policy regarding these types of

events consistent with its enforcement approach.

Finally, 

### EPA 

### is clarifying how excess emissions that 

### occur**d~ring** perioQs of 

### startup and shutdown should be addressed. 

### In general, because exoess amissions 

### that occur 

### durin; these periods



### are reasonably foreseeable, 

### they should not 

### be excused. However,

EPA recogni2es that, for some source oategories, even the best

available emi3sions 

### control systems might 

### not be consistently
effective 

### during 

### startup or 

### shutdown periods. 

### In areas where the respective**contribu~ion~** of indiVidual sources to 

### pollutant
concentrations 1n ambient air are such that no 

### single source or 

### small group 

### of sources**h~s** the 

### potential to 

### cause .n exceedance 

### o! the NAAQS or PSD**inc~ements,** these technological**lirnitation~** may be**a~d~~==ed** 10 the underlying**standard~ them~elv~~**  thtough 

### narrowly-tailored SIP revisions that 

### take 

### into account the potential impacts on ambient**.~r** quality caused by the inclusion
of. these**allo~ances.** In these**instance~,** as part of its justifieation of the SIP**revision~** the state should analyze the



### affirmative defense is not**approp~iate. Thi~**  situation**c~n ~e**  

### Farticularly aggravated where a short-term standard (e.g

.. 

### where exeeedances or violations are 

### based on a 

### few hour 

### period) is also 

### in place.**A1thou~h** 

### this policy 

### is 

### generally applicahle for other NAAQS. enforcement 

### Qiscretion is the 

### only appropriate 

### approach
for**~ealing** with excess emissions during startup I 

### shutaown, and 

### malfunction in a**specif~c** area 

### where a singla source 

### or a 

### small**gro~p** of sources has the potential to cause nonattainment of a 

### short-term NAAQS.

In American Trucking Association v. EPA, 175 F. 

### 3d 1027 (D.C. eire

.. lS99). the court remanded the PM2.S 

### NAAQS to the
EPA. The**~gency** has not 

### determined whether 

### this policy is appropriate for 

### PM2.5 NAAQS.**f4Ioo~** STATIONARY sotCRCH ilZl ou5**~." v~** **~A~r~ ~~** 

- 4 ­**impao~** of the potential worst-case emissions that could occur 

### during**~tartup** 

### and shutdown. 1

In addition to this**approac~,** states may address this**p~oblem** through the use of enforcement discretion or 

### they may include a genetal affirmative defense provision in 

### their**SIP~** for**shor~** and infrequent startup and shutdown periods along the lines outlined

in the**attachmen~.** As mentioned acove l 

### however, in 

### those areas**~here** a single source or small group of sources has the**~otential** to cause an exceedance of 

### the NAAQS or PSD increments, issues relating to excess emissions arising during stattup and**shu:do~n** may only be addressed through an enforcement**disere~ion** approach.

All Regions should review the SIPs tor their states in light
o! this clarification and take $teps to 

### insure that excess emisaions**~rovisions** in tnese SIPs are cons1atent with the

attached guidance.

Attachment

4States may account for such emissions by including them in 

### their routine rule effectiveness estimates. aule effectiveness
estimates may be**prepa~ed** in accordanoe with an EPA policy Qocument entitled 

### "Cuidelines fo:t" Estimating and Applying llule Effectiveness for ozone/Carbon Monoxide**S~ace** Implementation 

### Plan

nase Year Inventories."**(EPA-4S2/~-9~-OlO)** November 1'92.I4l 006 IlllOOli



### Attachment

POLICY**O~** EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING 

### MALFUNCTIONS,**ST~RTUP,** AND 

### SHUTDOWN

l:ntroduction

This policy specifies when and in what manner stgte implementation plans 

### (SIPs) may provide for defenses 

### to
violations caused**~y** periods of excess emissions Que to**rnalfunction~,l** $tartup, 

### or shutdown. Generally, since 

### SIFs must provide**fo~** attainment and maintenance of the national 

### ambient air quality standards and 

### the achievement 

### of PSD 1ncr8ments, all periods of excess emissicna must be**c~n6idered** violations.**Acco~din91y,** any provision that allows for an automatic exemption Z for excess emissions is prohibited.

..1 However, the imposition of a 

### penalty for excess emissions during malfunctions caused 

### by circumstances**snt1~ely** beyond the
control of the owner or 

### operator may**no~** ba appropriate. StAtes



### may, therefore, as an**e~erctse** 

### of their inherent**enfo~cement** discretion, choose not to pen.lize a source that has**prod~ced** excess emissions 

### under SUch**c~~c~mstances.**

!his policy**P4o~ideg** an alternative 

### approach to 

### enforcement**disc~etion** for areas and**pollutant~** where the 

### respective

contributions of indiVidual sources to pollutant concentrations 

### in**a~ient** air are such that no 

### single source or**$~all** group of

sources**ha~the** potential to cause an 

### exceedance of the NAAQS or PSD increments. Whexe a sin91e**sou~ce** or. sm.ll group of sources has the .potential to cause an exceec:1ance of the NMOS or PSD**~ncremants,** as is often the case for eulfur dioxide and lead,3

EPA believes**a?p~oaches** other than enforcement discretion are not appropriate. In such ca5e3. any eXC8SS emiseions may have a significant chance of causing an &xoeedance or '7iolation of the applioable standard or PSD**incremen~.**

'The**te~m Bx~ess**  emission means an**ai~** emission level 

### which
exceeds 

### any applicable emission limitation.**Ma'£un~ti2D** 

### means a sudden and 'unavoidable breaKdown of process or**conc~cl** equipment.

%The**te~rn** automatic exemption means a generally**applic~ble** provision 

### in a SIP 

### that woulQ provide that 

### if certain conQitions
existed during a 

### period of excess**emission~.** 

### then those exceedance5 would not be considered violations.**'~h~s** 

### policy also Qoes not apply for purposes ot 

### PMZ.5 NAAQS. In American Trucking Association v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027 (D.C. eiro., 1999), the coure remanded the PM2.5 NAAQS to the EPA. The Agency has nOL**Qeeermine~** whether this po1icy is appropriate for PM2. 5 NAAQS.

.**~OOi** lQJo07

- 2 ­

Except 

### where a single source or**s~all** 

### group of sources has 

### the potential to Cause 

### an exceedance of 

### the NAAOS or 

### PSD increments, states may include 

### in their 

### SIPs affirmative
defenses 4 

### for excess emissions, as long 

### as the SIP estahlishes**li~itations co~eistent**  

### with those set out**belo~.** 

### If approved
into a SIP, an affirmative 

### defense would be available to sou=ces 

### in an enforcement 

### action seeking penalties brought by 

### the state, EPA,**O~** citizens. However, a determination by 

### the state not to take an enforcement 

### action would not**ba~** EPA 

### or citizeq**action.~**



### In addition, 

### in certain limited circumstances, it 

### may be appropriate for the state to 

### build into a source-specific or**source-catego~y-specific** 

### emission 

### standard a pr,ovi5ion stating 

### that the otherwise 

### applicable emission limitations do not 

### apply**duri~9** narrowly defined**sta~tup** and shutQown periods.



### I.**AUTOM~TIC** 

### EXEMPTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT 

### DISCRETION

!f 

### a SIP contains 

### a prevision addressing 

### excess emissions, it cannot be 

### the**~ype** that 

### provides for automatic exemptions.
Automatic exemptions 

### might aggravate ambient 

### air quality by 

### excusing**exces~** 

### em1S5ion$ that cause 

### or contribute 

### to a violation
of an 

### ambient air 

### quality standard. Additional grounds 

### for dieapproving a 

### SIP that 1ncludes the automatic**e~emption** 

### approach

are discussed in**mo~e** 

### detail at 42 Fsd. Reg- 

### 56171 (November 

### 8. 1977) and 

### 42 Fed_ Re9. 21372 

### (April 21, 1977)

_ As B result, 

### EPA
will not approve any SIP revisions**tha~** 

### provide automatic exemptions for periods of 

### exoess emissions.

The**bes~** assurance 

### that**e~Ce9S e~s~ion~**  will not interfere 

### with NAAQS attainment, maintenance, 

### or**incremen~5** 

### is to**aQdre~S** 

### excess emissions through**enforcemen~** discretion. 

### This policy provides alternative 

### means for 

### addressing excess**e~ss~ons** of**c~ite~ia** 

### pollutants. However, thi$ policy**doe~ ~ot**  

### apply where a single source or 'mall group 

### of sources 

### has the potential 

### to



### cause an exceedanC8 

### of the NAAQS or PSD increments. Moreover,

4 

### The term 

### affirmative defense means, 

### in the context 

### of an enforcement proceeding, 

### a response**o~** defense**p~t** 

### forward Py a defendant, regarding which the defendant 

### ham the burden of proof, and the merits of which are 

### independently and objeotively 

### evaluated in a judicial 

### or administrative proceeding.**~~ecause** all periods of excess 

### emissions are violations and 

### because**af£i~mative** 

### defense provisions 

### may not apply in actions
for injunctive relief, under 

### no circumstances would EPA consider 

### periods of excese**emis~ions,** 

### even 

### if**aove~ed** by an**affi~mative** 

### defense, to 

### be "federally 

### per1n1tted releases" under 

### :SPCRA or 

### CERCLA.- 3 ­



### nothing in this 

### guidance should 

### be construed 

### as requiring $tates

to include affirmative defense provisions in their SIPs.



### II.**~Fr!RMATIVE** 

### DEFENSES FOR MALFUNCTIONS

EPA can 

### approve a 

### SIP**~evision** 

### that ereates an affirmative

defense to 

### claims for penalties in**enfo~cement** 

### actions regarding

excess emissions**ca~sed** by 

### malfunctions as long**a~** tbe 

### defense
does not apply to 

### SIP provisions that dexive fxom 

### federally promulgated**pe~formance** standards or**e~ssion li~its,**  

### such as new



### source performance standards (NSPS) and national emissions
standards for**hazardc~8 ai~** **pol~utants** 

### (NESHAPS).' In 

### addit1on,
affirmative defenses are not appropriate for areas and pollutants 

### where' a single source or small group of**sour~es** 

### has the potential

to cause an 

### exceedance of the**N~~QS** 

### or 

### pso**inc~ements. Further~ore.** **aff1~at1~e** 

### defenses to claims**fo~** 

### injunctive relief

are not allowed. To be approved, an affirmative**de!en~e** 

### provision 

### must provide 

### that the defendant has 

### the burden of**p~oof** 

### of**demon~tratin9** 

### that:

1. The excess emissions were caused 

### by a sudden, unavoidable breakdown of technology, beyond the**co~trol** 

### of the**o~ner** 

### or operator;



### 2. The excess emissions (a) 

### did not stem**f~om** 

### any aetivity

er event**tha~** could have been 

### fore5een and 

### avoided, or planned 

### for, and (b) could not havG been avoided by better operation and maintenanee practices;

3. To the maximum extent p •• ct1cable the air pollution
control equipment or, processes were maintained and operated in 

### a**manne~** 

### consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions;**~l** 

### Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
limitat10ns**~~re** 

### being exceeded. Off-shift labor 

### and overtime

must**ha~e** 

### been**utili%~d,** 

### to the extent practicable, to ensure that such 

### repairs were made as expcaitiously 

### as practicable;

S. The amount and Quration 

## or the excess**em1~sion5** 

### (includin9 any**bypa~s)** 

### were**mini~ized** 

### to the**ma~irnum** 

### extent practicable auring periods of**su~h** 

### emissions:



### 'To 

### the**ex~ent** 

### a 

### _tate includes NSPS or NESHAPS 

### in its SiP, the standards should not deviate from those that were federally promulgated. Because EPA set 

### these**standa~ds t_k~ns**  

### into aocount teahnolo9ioal 

### limitations. aaditional exemptions Would be inappropriate.



### ,,,-------_.-----------­"t::.:.I vvu !ill 009

_. 0 •

._

- 4 ­



### 6. All possible steps were taken to**mi~imi~e** 

### the 'impact of the excess**e~issions** on ambient air 

### quality;

7. All emission monitoring systems Were kept in operation 

### if**~t** all possible;

8. The owner or operator's actions in**respo~se** to the

excess emissions**~ere dooum~nted**  by properly signed, cQntemporaneou5 operating logs, or other**relevan~** avidence;

9. The excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 1nadequate design, opexation. or maintenance: and



### 10. Tha owner or**opera~or** properly and promptly notified
the appropriate regulatory authority.

EPA interprets these criteria**nar~owly.** Only thoBe

malfunctions that are sudden, unayoidable, and unpredictable in

nature qualify for the defense. For**ex~ple.** a single instance of a**hurs~** pipe that meees the above criteria may qualify under

an**atf1rmatl~e** defense. The defense would not be available, however, 

### if the facility had a history of 

### similar failures
because of imp40per design, improper**~aintenance,** or poor operating practices-**Fur~har.more,** a source**mus~** have taken all available measures to**compen~ate** for and resolve the malfunction.
If a facility has a bcghouae fire that leads to excess emissions,
the**affirmati~e** def_nse would be 

### appropriate only for the period

of time necessary to modify or**cu~tail** operations to come into**co~liance.** 

### The fire should not be**u~ed** to excuse excess emissions generatad**~uring** an extended periOd of time while the
operator orders and installs new bags, and relevant SIP language

must limit applicability of**~he** affir.mative**defen~e** accordingly.

III.**~XCESS EMISS!O~S**  DURING 

### STARTUP AND SHUTDOWN

In general.**star~up** and shutdown of prOCG$S**equip~ent** are part of the normal operation of a source and should pe accounted**fo~** in the**p~ann~ng.** desiqn, and implementation of operat1ng procadure5 for the process and control equipment. Accordingly,
it is reasonable to**e~pect** that careful and prUdent planning and design will**el~minate violation~**  of emission limitations 

### during

such periods.

A. SOURCE CATEGORY SPECIFIC ROL£S rOR STARTUP AND SHUTDOWN

For some source eategories, given the**~ypes** of control technologies available, there may exist short periods of emissions during 3tartup and shutdown When, despite be$t efforts regar.ding planning, design, and opetating procedures, the**~UJ.U**

- 5 ­



### otherwise applicable emission limitation cannot be met.**~ccordingly, e~cept**  in the 

### case' where a**~ingle** 

### source or small**g~oup** 

### of**~ources** 

### has the potential to cause an eXceedance of the NAAQS 

### or PSD increments, 

### it 

### may be appropriate, in consultation
with EPA, to create narrowly-tailored 

### SIP revisions that 

### take
these**technologi~al** 

### limitations into account and state that the
otherwise applicable emissions limitations do not apply during narrowly defined startup and shutdown periods. To be approved,
these revisions should meet the following reqUirements:

1. The revision must be limited to specific,**na~rowly** 

### defined**soUr~e** 

### categories using specific control**st~ategies** 

### (e.g., cogeneration facilities 

### burning natural gas 

### and using 

### selectiue oatalytio reduction);

2. Use of the control**st~ategy** 

### for this source category



### must**~e** 

### technically infeasible during startup or shutdown periods;

3. The frequency and**~uration** 

### of**opera~ion** 

### in startup or shutdown mOQe must be minimizea to the maximum extent practicable;

4. As part of its,**justifi~ation** 

### of the SIP rev1sion, the

stete 

### should analyze the 

### potential worst-case emissions that
could occur during startup 

### and shutdown;



## s. All possible steps must be taken to minimize the impact
of**~mia8ions** 

### durinq**star~up** 

### and shutdown on ambi.nt air quality;

6. At all times, 

### the facility must be operated in a manner**consis~ent** 

### with geod practice for minimizing em1aaions, and the

source mUGt 

### have used best efforts 

### regarding 

### planning, des1qn,
and 

### operating procedure. to 

### meet**~h.** 

### otherwise**applica~le** emission 

### limitation; and

7. The owner or operator's actions during startup and
shutdoWn periods mU3t 

### be documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operatinq logs, or other relevant eVidence.



### B.**GE~ERAL ArFI~MATIVEDErENSE**  PROVISIONS**~ELATING** 

### TO 

### STARTUP AND SHUTDOWN

In addition to the approach outlined in Section II(A) 

### above,

states 

### may**ad~ress** 

### the problem of excess emi$5iens occurring**d~rin9** 

### startup and shutdown periods through an enforcement**d~scretion** approach. Further, 

### except in the case where a single



### source or small group 

### of**~ourc~s** 

### has**~ha** 

### potential to cause an exceedance of the NAAQS or PSD increments, states may also 

### adopt
for their SIPs an affirmative defense approach. Using this- 6 ­



### approach, 

### all periods of eXcess emissions arising during startup and**shut~own** must 

### be t:eated 

### as violations, and the aff{rmativQ defen!e provision 

### must not be ava1lable for claims for**inj~nctive** 

### relief.**rurthe~ore,** 

### to be approved, such 

### a provision must provide that the defendant has the burden of proof of demonstrating that:

1. The 

### periods of 

### excess emissions that occurred dUking 

### startup and shutdown were**sho~t** 

### and infrequent and could 

### not have been prevented through careful planning 4nd**de~iqn;**

2. The eXcess 

### emissions were not 

### part of a**recurr1~g** 

### pattern indicative of inadQquats design, operation, or maintenance;

3. If the excess**e~ssion~** 

### were caused by 

### a**~ypass** (an 

### intentional**diver~ion** 

### of .control**equip~ent),** 

### then tha**bypas~** 

### was unavoidable 

### tQ prevent loss of life, personal injury, 

### or severe property damage:

4. At all times, the facility was**opera~ed** 

### in a**manne~** consistent 

### with good 

### practice for minimizinq emissions;



### 5. The 

### frequency and duration of operation in startup**o~** 

### shutdown mode was minimized to the**maxim~** 

### extent practicable;



### 6. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact 

### of the excess emissions on ambient air 

### quality:

7.**~ll** emission monitoring 

### systems Were 

### kept in operation
if 

### at all possible;

B. 

### The 

### owner' or operator's 

### aeeions during the period of

excess emissions wete documented by properly signed, contempo;r:aneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence: and

9. The owner or operator properly and promptly notified the appropriate regulatory authority.

If**e~ce6s** 

### emissions occur**du~in9** 

### routine startup or shutdown periods due to a**malf~~ction,** 

### then 

### those instances should 

### be treated as other malfunctions that are suhject to**~he** 

### malfunction provisions of**thi~** 

### policy. (Referenda Part I above).