### HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 215 page 58171 (1977) service. The establishment of such fees and charges shall be reasonably con- sistent with the methods employed in establishing rates and fees for postal services·thenineffect. 

### * • * (39

### u.s.c. 401(2). 404(6)'411.)



# - RoGER P. CRAIG, DeP1Lt1/GeneralCounsel. [FRDoc.77-32291Flled 11-7-77;"8:45 am}


### [ 6560:...01]

-**~.· ~**  Trtle40-Protection of Environment

CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C-AIR PROGRAMS [FRL812-6J PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Idaho SO,Control Strategy AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection.Agency. ACTION: Finalrule.
SUMMARY: This rulemaking finalizes regulationsproposedonJanuary22, 1976, relating

### to excess emissions due to startup, shutdown, or malfunction from the Bunker Hill Co. smelter located in Kellogg, Idaho.
·EFFECTIVE DATE; This rulemaking will become effective December 8, 1977. ADDRESSES: EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wash. 98101. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Information Reference Unit, Room 2922, 401 M Street SW., Washington,D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

to be Inconsistent with the Agency's alleged approval o! State mal!unctlon provisions which exempt sources !rom appllca.bla emlslilon llmltations during periods of excess em!sslons.

The Clean Air Act Amendments o! 1977." whichwere enactedAugust7,1977, made certain changes 1n the treatment o! primary nonferrous Slllelters. Principally**relev~t** to this rulemnktng 

### are the provisions of new Sections 119, 123, and 302(k). These provisions essent!nUy 

### endorse EPA's existing policy for the !Il· terlm control of nonferrous smelters but

remove the Implementation of thnt policy from the State Implementation Plan <SIP) :framework. A new mechanism "primary nonferrous smelter orders", developed 1n accordance with § 119 oftheActIs nowinplaceforimple- menting that pol!cy. 'Q'nder Section 406 ofthe 1977 Amendments,however, existing SIP provisions and related litigation

are preserved.

In the pending case of The Bunl;er Hill Company 

### v. EPA (9th Clr., No. 75- 3670), the Court has remanded to EPA for further proceedings the prlncJpal regulation to which this upset/malfunc- tion regulation applies. The Court's July 5, 1977, op!n!onstated thatanupsetprovision was 

### a necessary corollary to the principal regulation. For 'those reasons, and because the upset regulation pro- mulgated today does notbyitselfimpose requirements inconsistent with the 1977 Amendments, EPA believes it proper 

### to Proeeed with this rulemaklng. The Agency has also advised the Court 1n the Bunker HiU case that it intends to do this and also 

### to consider the principal regulation togetherwith this upsetregu- lation in the remand proceeding. With respecttoothersmeltersnotinthesecircumstances, diJierent treatment maY be appropr!nte.

DxscnErroNvsAnomncE.'>EMPTION The claim that an emission limitation exemption should be automatic during periods o! excess emissions due to startSUPPLEMENTARY INFORl!.ffiTION: up, shUtdown ormalfunction isbased on In response to EPA's-January 22, 1976,

.·the smelter's contention that to pcnnllze proPQsal.ofregulationswhichrequire the an operation !or emissions that are

ClarkL. Gaulding, Chief, AirPrograms Branch, Environmental Protection Agency,RegionX <MS 625), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,Wash.'98101, 206-442- 1230.

· reporting of excess emissions to the Ad- beyond the control of a prudentoperator

ministrator,various commentshavebeen is unreasonable. The Admlnlstra.t.or raised by the owner and operat.oi of the agrees that the imposition or a penalty subject smelter. This notice discusses !or excess emissions caused by circumthose comments; further detail may be stances beyond the control o! the opera- obtained intheAgency's analysis ofpub-· t.or. would not be appropr!nte. lie comment <the**"analysis'')-~.** Those However, while theAdmlnlstra.tor rec- comments objected to the proposed reg- ognizes that relle! should be aJ!orded Ulations because: (1) The proposal does duringunavoidable upsetsituations, itis not grant an automatic exemption from his view thnt the automatic granting of the emission limitations upon compli- a. regulnt.ory exemption !orthese periods ance-with the reporting requirements;. of exce..<;s em.l.ssions is not the optimal (2) there is no exemption relating t.o remedy. 

### First, such a reguln.tion would

excess emissionsresultingfromthephas- diminish the smelter's incentive 

### to deing 

## in or out of process and control velop better operating and maintenance eqUipment orfrom routine maintenance procedures by encouraging the Slllelter of**~** equipment; (3) the enforcement to claim, after every period o! excess discretion/reporting concept is claimed

1 The analysis is**in~rporated** herein by thl5 reference and fs &va!lable tor inspection attheAgency's Seattle.

### ?mce. 2 Pub. L. 95-95, 91 Stat. oo:;, 42 U.S.O. f '1401 et seq. 'I'ho Clean A1r Act which W!\11 tonnerly c1M511led to 4.2 U.S.O. 1 1857 et seq. has been transferred and Ill now cla::sU!ed aa above. 

### 58171

emissions, that an exemption is war- ranted. Second, if the operator of the smelter were so inclined, it would be**relativ~** easy for the Company as 

### a. result o! the burden o! proofplacement, 

### to eJiectively block all Federal enforcement against the smelter.F1nally, where standards are being achieved through the interim use o! dispersion techniques in comblnntionwith only a :floor level of constant controls, such as an acid plant,


### a provisionexemptingmalfunctionperi- ods from applicable emission llmltations would in eJiect be condoning emissions which exceed that :floorlevel of constant controls. Whlle it is appropriate t.o forbearfrom enforcingwhere themalfunction is beyond the control o! the source, EPA believes it would be inconsistent with the reQUirements of Sections 110, 119, 123, and 302(k) o!theActtopermit, by automatic regulatory exemption, eml..<;sJon levels to exceed the constant control :floor level.

ItistheAgency'spositionthat 1nlight of the enforcement imperatives of Sections 110 and 119 o! the Act. the better npproachJ,s 

### to place the burden of prov- ingtheexistence o! anunavoidable malfunction on the source. The Agency believes the procedure best-suited to ac- compl1shlng the goal o! excusing unavoidable malfunctions without undermlning the impetus towards sound op- erating and rna.tntenance procedures is to allow the source 

### to show, after an episode o! excess enrl..c::slons, that the violation 'Was due to an unavoidable malfunction. Whether further enforcement action would follow such 

### a notice would be a matter o! enforcement discretion resulting from an evaluation o! that showing.

Retention o! discretionunder 

### this ap- proach not only encourages the con- tinued improvement in the o.tJeration of

a Slllelter and its attendant control equipment blit also afl'ords an ample opportunity <under the protection of Section 113 o! the Act> for the owner and operator o! a smelter to identify malfunctions andupsets beyondhisrea- sonable control prior 

### to imposition of any admlnlstrative or jud!clalllablllty. The enforcement discretion upon which this approach is based will be exercised
nsdescribedbelow.

Upon receipt o! the smelter's submission ofthereport o! excess emissions re- QUired under Section 52.676(b) (3) <v> of this subpart, a Notice ofViolationwillbe issued. This Procedure is consistentwith the decisionin Wisconsin Environmental Decade 

### v. Train, 395 F. SUpp. 313 (W:D. Wis., 1975), and other district court rulings. After the Issuance o!thenotice, the**Admlnls~tor** will consider <in additionto thereportrequiredbytheregu- lations> any information developed by the source which more fully exp1a1ns the circumstances of the violation and the source's actions in response thereto. To be considered by the Adtnlnfstrator any such information must be provided t.o the EPA

### in a timely fashion. This information will be used inevaluating the

cause o! the violation, its seriousness, nnd any good faith etrorts of the owner

FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 42, NO. 215-TUESDAY, NOVEMI!El S, 1977

### HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 215 page 58172 (1977) 

### 58172

or operator of the smelter to comply <e.g. the degree to which proper maintenance procedures and emission control techniques have been employed) and in determining whether further •Agency action is appropriate.

-

Inhis 

### assessment ofthecircumstances of the emission of pollutants in excess o! 

### the applicable emission limitations.

- the Administrator will determine

whether: · 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

will

### not exceedemission limitationsdur- :ing such periods. If 

### excess emissions should occur during routine phasing in and out ofprocess equipment, the excess emissions will

### not be 

### considered as mal

### functions unless the source can demonstrate that such emissions were caused by a breakdown :in the process equipment.
ANNuAL Acm PLANT 

### RoUTINE
MAINTENANCE {1) The air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or processes were a.t 

### au The**pro~ed** 

### upset regulation did not times Jlllllntained and operated, to the 

### max- address periods of add plant routine imum extent practicable, 1n a. manner con- 

### maintenance in the malfunction provi- slstent wl.th good pra.ctlco !or minimizing 

### sions. This 

### is consistent with the basic cmlss1ons; 

### ·purpose of the pro .POsed regulation, (2) Repa.lrs were made 1n a.n expeditious 

### -which was to address excess emissions fashion when tho smelter operator knows 

### causedby "sudden andunavoidable fall-
or 15hould have known that applicable emJsslon llm1tatlons were beingexceedoo:-Offshtrt 

### ure" of process or control equipment. labor and overtime must have been 

### ut1llzed Allowing a smelter to operate independto Insure that such repalra. were made 

### as ent of the- emission control equipment expeditiously

### as possible; 

### duringperiods when the control eciuiP-

(3) The amount and dlll'llltion o! the 

### ex- ment is shut down for routine maintecess.emlssions (lncludlng acid plant bypass) 

### nance would be 

### inconsistent with Sec-

were ml.nlmlzed to the maximum extent ti 11 practicable during periods o!such emissions; 

### ons 0, 119, and 302.(k) o! 

### the Act.

(4) All possible steps were taken to minl- 

### These seCtions require that prior tQ almlze the impact o! the excess emissions on 

### lowing a smelter tO 

### use dispersion tech.- wnbient alr quality; and 

### nlques to attain and maintain national

(5) The excess emlsslons are not part o! 

### ambient air quality standards <NAAQS},

o. recurrlng pattern Indicative o! Inadequat-e 

### .the· Agency must require it to utilize all design, operation or ma.lntenance.**~** 

### available controls.

-

If each 

### of these determ:inations is af- 

### Permitting a source to employ disper1irm.ative in 

### the opinion of the Agency, .sion techniques to atta:in and maintain itwould be concluded thatno additional national standards without constant
course of action could reasonably have controls during periods of such routine been**e~ted** 

### of the owner or operator. maintenance is 

### contrary to_ these reAccordingly, the Adm:inistrator would quirements. Thus, routine maintenance not follow the Notice of Violation with can be considered a- 

### predictable event, anyfurtherenforcement actions. which can be scheduled to a -large exThis 

### regulation will 

### not ·result 1n 

### the tentatthediscretion of a smelteropera- imposition of 8.ny 

### penalty on the com- tor. Through proper planning, routine pany for genuinely unavoidable mal- maintenance- on acid plants- can be 

### functions or upsets, and therefore will**~cheduled** 

### to coincide withmaintenance not result in the**impositio~** 

### of techno- onproductionequipmentorothersmelter logically infeasible requirements on the shutdowns. As 

### such, the control equip- smelter. Moreover, the regulations are mentis always available when theequip-· enforceable and designed to encounj.ge ment it.serves is operational. Moreover, the continued development of better op- .since any_industry, including the smeltcrating and maintenance procedures.. :ing industry,.has'

### the ability to build and

In 

### sum, 

### it is the Agency's view that maintaili inventory, the aspect of plan- theapproachreflected 1n.

### thisregulation, ningroutinemaintenance during periods which together with thefloor level emis- ofsmeltershutdownshouldnotbea serislon limitations already Pl'9mulgated ous concernto

### thesmelter operator. This merely requires the Bunker Bill 

### smelter is 

### more fully'dlscusseclin the analy_sis. to utilize good operating and mainte- Consequently, no excess emission will be


### nance procedures and control its: emls- allowed during periods of any routine sions at a level equivalent to' a well de- maintenance. signed sulfuric acici plant. This is con.:

. In 

### addition, permitting excess emissistent with both 

### Section 119 ofthe Act

- s1ons duringperiods of annual acid plant and the concerns expressed by the 

## u.s. routfn:emaintenance would be inconsistCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ent With the Agency's approach to 

### new in The BunkerHiU Company

### v. EPA 

### (No. source performance standards <NSPS>, 75-3670).**whi~** 

### does nnt permit excess emissions durmg periods -of scheduled maintePHASING IN AND OUT OF EQUIPJ.IEN:r 

### nance. In

### caseswhereAgency policiesfar For the reasons set forthdn theAgen-· new sources di1Ier from those for existcy's analysis of public comment, theAd- :ingsources, thepolicyforexistingsources ministrator :finds that routine phasing is generally more stringent. This is 

### due in and out of process -equipment is · to 

### the fact that the Clean Air 

### Act repart of thenormal operations of a smel- quires existing sources to be 

### controlled

. ter and should be accounted for in the to protect the public health and welfare design and implementation of the oper- while, except for new source review, the ating procedure for the process and air 

### principal focus for new sources is techpollution control.equipment. According- nology-based. Were the Agency to deIy, the. Administrator concludes that it part from existing policy and adoPt is reasonable to expect that the smelter maintenance provisions for existing smelters thatwere more lenient than tho maintenance approach ithas adopted for
new smelters, 

### it would have an bnpos- sible enforcement problem in the event that a smelter chose to expand an existing smelting site. Moreover, problemS 

### associated with scheduled mmual acid plant maintenance are essentially tho

same whether the v,cid plant is 

### needed to meet NSPS orNAAQS. Therefore, tho Agency believes it appropriate 

### to treat scheduled maintenance under both situations simllarly.

. GAS STREAM BYPASS 

### The emission limitations promulgated for the Bunker Hill 

### Company contain a provision which addresses treatment of gas streams. Specifically, all 

## so, ens streams discharged from tho zinc plant roasters and certain gases discharged from the lead s1nter1ng machine shall at all 

### times be 

### processed through an SOa 

### removal facility. Accordingly, whenever those gas streams are not processed through such a facility thelr release to 

### the atmosphere shall be considered excess emissions.

STATE MALFUNCTION PROVISIONS 

### Bunker Hill 

### has argued that tho ap- proach taken 1n 

### these regulations 1s 

### inconsistent with various malfunction regulations approved by EPA as part or the SIPs submitted by several western States. In

### response. 

### itshould be pointed out that the regulations contained in this rule serve to 

### coordinate the treatment of excess emissions with the SOa 

### limitations EPA promulgated for the Bunker Hill 

### smelter on November 19, 1975. 

### To the extent inconsistencies are present, the Agency is now undertaking

a review of all State mnlfunction regu- lations. Should the review indicate that the regulations do not satisfy the requirements of Sections- 110 and 119 of the Act, the affected states will be requested to take corrective action. In 

### reviewing these regulations the Agency will 

### focus on the same considerations that are central to the rulemnking pro- mulgatedherein.

Thus, if, 

### in reviewing the: involved State regulations. it becomes clco.r that

_ they have the potential for permitting violations o! the NAAQS by exempting malfunction episodes from applicable emission limitations,. those malfunction ·provisions will 

### be disapproved on the grounds that they interfere with attainment; of the national standards. Where**ambie~t** 

### standards are be1ng achieved by virtue of an interim supplementary control system, a tall stack and reasonably available control technology <RACT>. an SIP provision exempting malfunction periods from applicable emission limitations, even if

### cround level concentrations may not exceed the NAAQS, would have the efiect or condoning emissions which exceed the RACT emission leveL While penalties should not be 

### imposetl where the malfunction is beyond the cont.rol of the

source. EPA believes that- U would be inappropriate to. 

### condone. by exemption,

FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 42, NO. 215-TUESDAY, NOVEM'SEir 8, 1977

### HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 215 page 58173 (1977) 

### RUI.ES :AND REGULATIONS

emission levels which exceed the RACT 

### maUon to be supplied 1s 

### not llmltcd 1n 

### floor. Accordingly, 1n 

### evaluating the scope. 

### thoregulation does require that it SIPsin

### question, EPAwill <as 

### lthasdone information 1s 

### given 

### to theAgency, it inin this

### rulemaking) regard

### as unaccept- elude: (1) 

### identification o! the emis:i!on able any 

### malfunction provision which points; <2) 

### the magnitude o! the e."cc:w aut<Jmatically excuses emission levels in**~ions; (3)~**  

### theidentityoftheproce:.:; excess of the RACT 

### floor during mal- 

### ·or control equipment cnuslng the C..'>ce::.,.:; function conditions. emissions; (4) 

### the cause nnd nature or

The State of Idaho regulation con- the 

### excess emissions; nnd (5) n. 

### dezcrlp- tained in

### the SIP is

### onitsface similar to 

### tion oi the st.eps Ulken by the owner or the Federal regulation being 

### promul- operator or the subject smelter 

### to remgated todayfor theBunker Hill

### facility! edy 

### the situation causing the eml!:slons The state regulation requires that a to 

### prevent a 

### recurrence and to Ilmlt the

source report any occurrence of excess e.."=cess emi..<>slons. Finally, nothlncr in 

### the emissions due 

### to a 

### malfunction to 

### the regulation relieves the**~ource** 

### of its obState agency and it does not SPecifically ligation to protect national runblent air exempt in

### advancefrompossible enforce- quality· standards for so2 in 

### its deslgment action excess emLc;sions due 

### to nat.edliability

### areanorprecludes theAdstart-up, shutdown or scheduled main- mlnistrator from inltlatlncr nt nny time tenance. Although in many 

### respects any appropriate actions under Sections theseregulationsaresimilar; ie.,bytheir 113, 119 

### nnd 303 

### or the Act. terms no 

### exemption 1s 

### granted in ad- A copy o! Bunker Hill's comments on vance, they do differ in the significant EPA's propo:ed regulations <nnd nn



### - aspectthattheidahomalfunctionprovi-. mentioned, EPA's analysl::; or same> are

siolll> have the potential 

### for permitting available !orpublic review attheaddre:s violations of NAAQS. In. 

### addition. the listed atthebeginning ofthisnotice. Idaho regulations lack 

### SPecific criteria This 

### rulemaldng will become eiiectlve i'orthereportsthataretobe:filedincon- December 8, 1977. 

### Authorization: Secjunctionwithclaimedmalfunctions. tions 110, 113, 119, 123, 301, 3020:) 

### and

- - In the 

### absence of reporting require- 303 

### ofthe 

### Clean Air Act 

### as amended <42



### ments ofthevarietYrequiredby thereg- · U.S.C. 7410, '1413, '1419, '1423, '1601, '1602, 

### ulation being

### promulgatedtoday, 

### there- and '1603). viewing 

### official cannot adequately gage Dated: 

### October28, 1977. 

### whethera givenexcursion episoderesu1ts :from poor maintenance procedures, or from anincidentthat istruly

### beyond the control of the source operator. Since the central 

### theme of the regulation mechanism is 

### a showing that sound maintenance 

### procedures have been respon- siblY employed, the failure 

### of the State regulation 

### to**provid~a** 

### I!lechanism by which suchjudgment

### can be made

### renders the regulation unacceptable. The State regulation is 

### also unacceptable in that a 

### source utilizing a 

### supplementary controlsystem is

### notspecificallyheldaccountable for exceedences of NAAQS (within its**desi~ted** liability 

### area) during unavoidable episodes of such excess emissions.

For the reasons set forth above the Idaho regulation must be disapproved despitethe various c.ommon characteristics thatit does share with theEPA reg- ulations promulgated t<Jday. Consistent with the Agency's ongoing nationwide review of State malfunction regulations,
as 

### previously noted in this 

### rule, EPA's intent is 

### to propose disaJlproval of the Idaho malfunctionregulation in

### thevery 

### near future.

OUTLINE OF REGULATIONS BAilllAIIA BLtr..t, Acting Administrator. 

### Part 52 

### or Chnpt.er I. 

### Tme 40 

### o! the Code o! Federal Regumt!ons is 

### amended



### asfollows: Subpart 

### N-ldaho

In § 52.676, 

### paragraph (b) is 

### amended by adding subparagraph (G) as 

### follor.a: § 52.676 Control Strnlcgy: SuiCur ox- idcs-Emtcm Wnsllington/Northt-rn IclnlJO Intcrstntc Region. 

### • 

## • • • 

# .. (b) ••• 

### <6> Compliance witl£ 

### emission standards: Reporting excess emissions during periods of start-up, shtltdrnon and malJunction.



## en TheownerCs) oroperator(s) ofthe smelter subject to this 

### section are subJect to the provisions o! this 

### subpara- graph in regard to excess emlsslon5 during 

### Periods of start-up, shutdown nnd malfunction.

(ll) All 

### rerms used 1n 

### this parngraph but not specifically defined below shnll 

### have the manning given them in 

### the Clean Air

### Act orPnrt 51, 52 

### or GO 

### or this 

### chapter. 

### 58173

that 

### nre caused entirely or in part 

### by poor mrrlntalance, 

### carelEEs operation, or any 

### other preventable npset condition

or preventable equipment breakdown sh::ill not be 

### considered malfunctions.



### lc) The 

### term "start-uP" means the :::ettlng 

### into operation of any air 

### pollu- tion control equipment orprocess equipment for any 

### purposes, except routine**ph~**

### ino!processequipment. (d) 

### T".ae term "shUtdown" means the cc.:sation of operation of any air 

### pollu- tion control equipment orprocess equipment for nny 

### purpose, except routine phndng out of process equipment. (e} 

### The tenn "violation" means any incident o! exce::5 emissions, re:;:ardless o! the clrcum...'tlnces or the occurrence.

(ill) Ca> In 

### the case of excess emis

### sions !rOm 

### the sne1ter subject to this**~ectfon** 

### !orwhich the Administratorhas bued a Notice o! Violation, the owner(s) 

### oroperatorCs> ofthesubjectsmelter mny 

### submit the !ollowillg data in orderto a.."Sist 

### theAdnllnlstratorin

### carrying 

### out his 

### duties under Section 113 

### ofthe

### Clenn Air

### Act. (b} Each rubmL"'Sion sh::ill include, 

### as
a 

### minimum:



## m The identity of the stack ai1d/or other emicsfon points 

### where the 

### eicezs emfsslonsoccurred; and

(ii) 

### Themagnitudeo!the**exc~** emis

### sions C:'llres;;ed inthe units

### ofthe applicable cmL<"Sion 

### llmltation. and the operating data and calculations rued in determing the 

### magnitude of the-**C.."!:c~s: ~ons;and** 

(iii) 

### The time nnd duration of the
e:-:cess emissions; 

### rmd



## av> T".ae identity o! the equipment rou::Ing the excess emissions; and (V) 

### The nature ru1d cause cf such**e~ce:s** 

### e.mtsions; and

. Crl> 

### The measured or estimated 

### ambientSO;; concentrationswhich occurred

or which were 

### e31)ected to occur during 

### theperiod; 

### and

(clf} I! 

### the exce:s emissions were the 

### rc.:.lllt of 

### a mal!unction, the steps taken toremedy them,alfunction and the**st~s** 

### t3ken or planned to prevent the recurrence of such 

### nmlfu.nction; and (riiO 

### The steps taken to limit

### thee."!:-

cezs emissions and the resultant impact

on ambient air quality; 

### and U.r> 

### Documentation that the air 

### pol- lution control equipment,.process equipment. or processes were at 

### an times 

### maintained and operated, to the maximum eJ-.-tent practicable, in a 

### manner consistent with good practice for minimlzlng 

### emll:sions. Briefly, the regulations define all 

### pe- riods of e.;:cess emissions as violations of the- applicable emissions standards 

### and establish a procedure whereby theowner or operat<Jr of the Bunker Hill smelter may SUPPlY additional information to 

### the Administrator. Although the inforUv.i At any time, the oi'iller(s) or op- (a) The t.erm "excess emissions" c.rator(s) o! the smelter subject 

### to this


### means an emission rate whlch exceeds cectlon bas 

### the right to submit 

### data in

### any appllcable emission llmltatfon pre- ' form.atlon or reports to the Administrascribed by paragraph tb) (1) 

### or this 

### sec- tor, including butnot llmlt.ed to the in

### tion. The averaging time and test pro- formation specified in subparagraph 

### <6> cedures !or determinln!J such exce.:s C11D 

## <b> above, inorder to a.."Sist 

### theAdemi..c;sions shnll be 

### as specified 

### aspart or mln!stra.tor incarryingout his 

### statutory theapplicable em.lsslonllmltation. responsibilities under Sections 113 and "The**Stat~** regul:ltlon bas been qualified by a_consent decree but this decree wasne'l"er JSUbmitted to EPA 6$ a revision to the SIP. Th1s qua.llfica.tion appears to have interjected automatic exemption Into admlnlstrntlon of the regulation. 

## <b> The term 

### "mal!unctlon" menns 303 

### o! the 

### CleanAir

### Act. any sudden nnd unavoidable !allure or (v) Thesubmittal o!

### informationpur- air pollution control equipment orproc- :;uant

### tosubppragraphs (6) WD and Uv>

ess equipment or n. 

### process to operate o! this 

### paragraph shall 

### be used by the in a normal nnd usual manner. Failure:; Administrator in determining the**~en**

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42,_ NO. 215-TUESDAY, NOVEMIIEl 8, 1977

### HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 215 page 58174 (1977) 

### 58174 RULES AND REGULATIONS

ousness of the ·violation. whether the

source made a good faith effort to com- ply, the need for further enforcement action and the appropriate s.anctions, if any, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act.

<vi> Excess emissions during periods of routine maintenance or during rou- tine phasing in or out of process**equip~** ment shall not be considered to be the result of a start-up, shutdown or malfunction.

<vii> All so. gas streams discharged from the zinc plant roasters and the strong so2 gas stream discharged from the lead smelter sintering·machine as. described in subparagraph (1) (i) of this paragraph that are not processed through an so. removal facility shall be considered excess emissions. ·

(viii) In the event that owner
 or operator(s) of the smelter subject to this section has been: granted permission by the Administr.ator and· thefDirector of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to use a supplementary control system pursuant to the provisions of Regulation S of the "Rules and Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho" as part1ally approved in paragraph <a> of this section, nothingin this section shall be construed to relieve the owner(s) or operator(s) of the smelter subject to this section from his assumedliabilityfor all violations of any applicable ambient air quality standards which

occur inthe designatedliability area, including those iolations that occur 

### as the resultof 

### a malfunction, start-up orshutdown.

(ix) Failure of the owner(s) or operator(s) of the smelter subject to this section to report periods of excess emissions pursuant to par,agraph (b) (3) <v> · shall be considered a violation of the proivsions ofthissubpart.

<x> Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to institute actions under Section 113 and 303 of the Clean Air Act or 

### to exercise his authority under Section-114 of the Clean AirAct.

[FRDoc.77-32343-Flled 11-7-77;8:45 aml


### [6820-24]

Title 41-PublicContracts and Property Management CHAPTER !-FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS [FPR. Amendment 186]
PART 1-16-PROCUREMENT F'ORMS New Editions ofStanl!ard**~orms** AGENCY; General Services Adminlstration. 1 ACTION: Finalrule. SUMMARY: This. amendment of .the Federal Procurement Regulations pre-
•scribes the use of the new· editions of Standard Form 18, Request for Quotations <February 1977 edition>

, Standard Form 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award <March 1977 edition>, and standard Form 33-A,,SolicitationInstructions and Conditions (July 1977 edition> • The ac- tion is taken in order 

### to physically incorporate on the· forms the new and revised provisions which previously were approved for use in connection with the prioreditions. Theintended effect of this amendment is 

### to eliminate the requirementtosupplementthe forms. EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective February 28, 1978, but may be observed as soon as' copies of the forms prescribedhereinareavailable. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip G. Read, Director of Federal Procurement Regulations, 703-557- 8947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION; It is anticipated that copies of the forms will be available for use by February 28, 1978 and maybe obtained by submitting

a requisition in FEDSTRIP /MILS TRIP format

### to the GSAregional omce provid- ing support to the requesting activity.

Subpart 1-16.1-Formsfor Advertised Supply Contracts Section 1-16.101isamended asfollows:
§ 1-16.101 Contract forms. 

## • * * * 

### * <a> Solicitation, Offer and Award <standardForm33, March 1977 edition> •

(b) Solicitation Instructions and Conditions (Standard Form 33-A, July 1977 edition>. 

### * * 

### * * * Subpart 1-16.2-Formsfor Negotiatedlr Supply Contracts Section 1-16.201-lisrevlsed·as follows:
§ 1-16.201-1 Formprescribed.

Request for Quotations <standard Form 18, February 1977 edition> is pre- scribed for use in obtaining price, delivery, and related information from suppliers inaccordancewiththis section. <See § 1-16.901-18 for an illustration of the form.> standard Form 36, Continuation Sheet:may be used with theRequest for Quotations form when additionalspaceisneeded.

Subpart 1-16.7-Formsfor Negotiated

· Architect-Engineer Contracts Section 1-16.701 is amended asfollows: § 1-16.701 Forms prescribed.- 

### * * 

### * 

## • * <c> Representations and Certlflcations (Construction and Architect-Engineer Contract> (Standard Form 19-B, June 1976._edition>. Item 6 shall be revised by adding the following representation:

The bidder (or offeror) represents that (1) he [ ) has developed and has on file. [ ) has not developed and does not have

on file, at each establishment amrmatlvo action programs as required by,the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Labor (4<1 OFR 60-1 and 6G-2), or (2) he [ ] hns not previously had contracts subject to tho written affirmative action program requirement

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 215-TUESD,&.Y, NOVEMBER 8, 1977