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· then in effect. 

* • * 

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

- RoGER P. CRAIG, 

DeP1Lt1/ General Counsel. 

[FR Doc.77-32291 Flled 11-7-77;"8:45 am} 

[ 6560:...01] - ~.· ~ Trtle 40-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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking finalizes 

regulations proposed on January 22, 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: Environmental Protection 

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." which were enacted August 7,1977, 

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 of the Act Is now in place for imple- menting that pol!cy. 'Q'nder Section 406 

of the 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 that an upset provision was a necessary corollary to the 

principal regulation. For 'those reasons, 

and because the upset regulation pro- mulgated today does not by itself impose 

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 together with this upset regu- lation in the remand proceeding. With 

respect to other smelters notin these circumstances, diJierent treatment maY be 

appropr!nte. 

DxscnErroN vs Anomnc E.'>EMPTION 

The claim that an emission limitation 

exemption should be automatic during periods o! excess emissions due to startSUPPLEMENTARY INFORl!.ffiTION: up, shUtdown or malfunction is based on In response to EPA's-January 22, 1976, . ·the smelter's contention that to pcnnllze proPQsal.of regulations which require the an operation !or emissions that are 

Clark L. Gaulding, Chief, Air Programs 

Branch, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region X <MS 625), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Wash. '98101, 206-442-

1230. 

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

ministrator, various comments have been 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 in the Agency's analysis of pub-· t.or. would not be appropr!nte. lie comment <the "analysis'')-~. Those However, while the Admlnlstra.tor rec- comments objected to the proposed reg- ognizes that relle! should be aJ!orded 

Ulations because: (1) The proposal does during unavoidable upset situations, it is 

not grant an automatic exemption from his view thnt the automatic granting of 

the emission limitations upon compli- a. regulnt.ory exemption !or these 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 emissions resulting from thephas- diminish the smelter's incentive to deing in or out of process and control velop better operating and maintenance 

eqUipment or from 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 

at the Agency'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! proof placement, 

to eJiectively block all Federal enforcement against the smelter. F1nally, where 

standards are being achieved through the interim use o! dispersion techniques in comblnntion with only a :floor level of 

constant controls, such as an acid plant, 

a provision exempting malfunction peri- ods from applicable emission llmltations 

would in eJiect be condoning emissions 

which exceed that :floor level of constant 

controls. Whlle it is appropriate t.o forbear from enforcing where the malfunction 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! the Act to permit, 

by automatic regulatory exemption, eml..<;sJon levels to exceed the constant 

control :floor level. 

It is the Agency's position that 1n light of the enforcement imperatives of Sections 110 and 119 o! the Act. the better 

npproachJ,s to place the burden of prov- ing the existence o! an unavoidable 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! discretion under 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 and upsets beyond his rea- sonable control prior to imposition of 

any admlnlstrative or jud!clalllablllty. The enforcement discretion upon which 

this approach is based will be exercised ns described below. 

Upon receipt o! the smelter's submission of the report o! excess emissions re- QUired under Section 52.676(b) (3) <v> of 

this subpart, a Notice of Violation will be 

issued. This Procedure is consistent with 

the decision in Wisconsin Environmental 

Decade v. Train, 395 F. SUpp. 313 (W:D. 

Wis., 1975), and other district court 

rulings. After the Issuance o! the notice, 

the Admlnls~tor will consider <in addition to the report required by the regu- 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 in evaluating 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. - In his assessment of the circumstances 

of the emission of pollutants in excess 

o! the applicable emission limitations. - the Administrator will determine 

whether: · 

RULES AND REGULATIONS 

will not exceed emission limitations dur-

:ing such periods. If excess emissions 

should occur during routine phasing in 

and out of process equipment, the excess 

emissions will not be considered as malfunctions 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 caused by "sudden and unavoidable fall- or 15hould have known that applicable emJsslon llm1tatlons were being exceedoo:-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; during periods 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 

it would be concluded that no 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, 

any further enforcement actions. which can be scheduled to a -large exThis regulation will not ·result 1n the tent at the discretion of a smelter opera- 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 with maintenance 

not result in the impositio~ of techno- on production equipment or other smelter 

logically infeasible requirements on the shutdowns. As such, the control equip- smelter. Moreover, the regulations are mentis always available when the equip-· 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- the approach reflected 1n. this regulation, ningroutine maintenance during periods which together with the floor level emis- of smelter shutdown should not be a serislon limitations already Pl'9mulgated ous concern to the smelter 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 of the Act - s1ons during periods 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 Bunker HiU 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 cases where Agency policies far 

For the reasons set forthdn the Agen-· new sources di1Ier from those for existcy's analysis of public comment, the Ad- :ing sources, the policy for existing sources 

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 the normal 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 that were more lenient than tho 

maintenance approach it has 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 or NAAQS. 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. it should 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- mulgated herein. 

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. tho regulation does require that it 

SIPs in question, EPA will <as lthas done information 1s given to the Agency, 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)~ the identity of the proce:.:; 

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 on its face similar to tion oi the st.eps Ulken by the owner or 

the Federal regulation being promul- operator or the subject smelter to remgated today for the Bunker 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 advance from possible enforce- quality· standards for so2 in its deslgment action excess emLc;sions due to nat.ed liability area nor precludes the Adstart-up, shutdown or scheduled main- mlnistrator from inltlatlncr nt nny time 

tenance. Although in many respects any appropriate actions under Sections 

these regulations are similar; ie., by their 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 !or public review at the addre:s 

violations of NAAQS. In. addition. the listed at the beginning of this notice. 

Idaho regulations lack SPecific criteria This rulemaldng will become eiiectlve 

i'orthereportsthataretobe:filedincon- December 8, 1977. Authorization: Secjunction with claimed malfunctions. tions 110, 113, 119, 123, 301, 3020:) and - - In the absence of reporting require- 303 of the Clean Air Act as amended <42 

ments of the varietY required by the reg- · U.S.C. 7410, '1413, '1419, '1423, '1601, '1602, 

ulation being promulgated today, there- and '1603). 

viewing official cannot adequately gage Dated: October 28, 1977. 

whether a given excursion episode resu1ts 

:from poor maintenance procedures, or 

from an incident that is truly 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 such judgment can be made renders the regulation unacceptable. The 

State regulation is also unacceptable in 

that a source utilizing a supplementary 

control system is not specifically held accountable 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 

despite the various c.ommon characteristics that it does share with the EPA 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 malfunction regulation in the very 

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 

as follows: 

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 The ownerCs) or operator(s) of the 

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 or Pnrt 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 or process equipment for any purposes, except routine ph~ in o! process equipment. 

(d) T".ae term "shUtdown" means the 

cc.:sation of operation of any air pollu- tion control equipment or process 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 emissions !rOm the sne1ter subject to this 

~ectfon !or which the Administrator has 

bued a Notice o! Violation, the owner(s) or operatorCs> of the subject smelter mny submit the !ollowillg data in 

order to a.."Sist the Adnllnlstrator in carrying out his duties under Section 113 

of the 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 

emfsslons occurred; and 

(ii) The magnitude o! the exc~ emissions C:'llres;;ed in the units of the 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 ambient SO;; concentrations which occurred 

or which were e31)ected to occur during the period; and 

(clf} I! the exce:s emissions were the 

rc.:.lllt of a mal!unction, the steps taken 

to remedy the m,alfunction and the st~s 

t3ken or planned to prevent the recurrence of such nmlfu.nction; and 

(riiO The steps taken to limit the e."!:-

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 the owner 

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 inany appllcable emission llmltatfon pre- ' form.atlon or reports to the Administrascribed by paragraph tb) (1) or this sec- tor, including but not llmlt.ed to the intion. The averaging time and test pro- formation specified in subparagraph <6> 

cedures !or determinln!J such exce.:s C11D <b> above, in order to a.."Sist the Ademi..c;sions shnll be as specified as part or mln!stra.tor in carrying out his statutory 

the applicable em.lsslonllmltation. responsibilities under Sections 113 and 

"The Stat~ regul:ltlon bas been qualified 

by a_ consent decree but this decree was ne'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 Clean Air Act. 

any sudden nnd unavoidable !allure or (v) The submittal o! information pur- air pollution control equipment or proc- :;uant to subppragraphs (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 ~enFEDERAL 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· the fDirector 

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, nothing in this 

section shall be construed to relieve the 

owner(s) or operator(s) of the smelter 

subject to this section from his assumedliability for all violations of any applicable ambient air quality standards which occur in the designated liability area, including those iolations that occur as the 

result of a malfunction, start-up or shutdown. 

(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 of this subpart. 

<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 Air Act. 

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

[6820-24] 

Title 41-Public Contracts and Property Management 

CHAPTER !-FEDERAL PROCUREMENT 

REGULATIONS 

[FPR. Amendment 186] 

PART 1-16-PROCUREMENT F'ORMS 

New Editions of Stanl!ard ~orms 

AGENCY; General Services Adminlstration. 1 

ACTION: Final rule. 

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, ,Solicitation Instructions 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 

prior editions. The intended effect of this 

amendment is to eliminate the requirement to supplement the forms. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is 

effective February 28, 1978, but may be 

observed as soon as' copies of the forms 

prescribed herein are available. 

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 may be obtained by submitting a requisition in FEDSTRIP /MILS TRIP 

format to the GSA regional omce provid- ing support to the requesting activity. 

Subpart 1-16.1-Forms for Advertised 

Supply Contracts 

Section 1-16.101is amended as follows: 

§ 1-16.101 Contract forms. 

• * * * * 

<a> Solicitation, Offer and Award 

<standard Form 33, March 1977 edition> • (b) Solicitation Instructions and Conditions (Standard Form 33-A, July 1977 

edition>. 

* * * * * Subpart 1-16.2-Forms for Negotiatedlr Supply Contracts 

Section 1-16.201-lis revlsed·as follows: 

§ 1-16.201-1 Form prescribed. 

Request for Quotations <standard 

Form 18, February 1977 edition> is pre- scribed for use in obtaining price, delivery, and related information from 

suppliers in accordance with this 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 additional space is needed. 

Subpart 1-16.7-Forms for Negotiated · Architect-Engineer Contracts 

Section 1-16.701 is amended as follows: 

§ 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