&EPA
  GOOD PRACTICES MANUAL
    FOR DELEGATION OF
    NSPS AND NESHAPS

-------
       GOOD                  FOR

                OF NSPS AND
    U. S.               PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY          AND
         TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA  27711
                February 1983

-------
                                   CONTENTS
 1.  Introduction                   •                                    1

 2.  Statement on NSPS and NESHAP Delegation                            2
   — s»
 3. 'Background                                                         3

     3.1  Standards of performance for new stationary sources            4
     3.2  National  emission standards  for  hazardous  air
            pollutants                                                  5
     3.3  Authority for delegation            ,-                         5
                                           .v
 4.  Requirements for Transfer of Authority                             6

     4,1  Emission  limits  consistent with  Federal regulations            7
     4,2  Test methods consistent with  Federal regulations               7
     4.3  Reporting and monitoring requirements                          7
     4,4  Enforcement against  noncomplying  sources                       7
     4.5  Waiver  procedures                                              8
     4.6  Surveillance                                                  8
     4.7  Public  notification  and  disclosure of information              8
     4.8  Resources                                                      9
     4.9  Reporting  (to EPA)                                             9

 5.  Mechanics  of Delegation                                            11

    5.1   Program assumption                                            11
    5.2   Local program delegation                                      15
    5.3   Questions and answers concerning delegation                   16

Appendix  A     New Source Performance Standards  -
                 November 15, 1982                                     17
Appendix  B     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
                 Pollutants - November 15, 1982                         23
Appendix  C     Examples of Regional Office Correspondence and
                                  Submittals                           25
Appendix D     Questions and answers concerning delegation            39
                                      n

-------
                                   SECTION 1
                                 INTRODUCTION

      The Clean Air Act, as amended, requires under Section 111  that  perform-
 ance standards be set for source categories which in the judgement of  the
 Administrator cause or contribute significantly to air pollution.  Section  112
 requires that emission standards be established for hazardous air pollutants.
 Sections 111 and 112 also provide the Administrator of.the Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency (EPA) with the authority to delegate to State agencies  the
 implementation and enforcement of both these "standards.
      This guideline provides  some recommendations on the  items a Regional
 Office  (RO)  should consider in evaluating  a  State's request for delegation.
 The  specific documentation necessary for a RO to  demonstrate that a State
 agency  is ready and able  to assume the authority  for the  program will vary
 and  depend on the  past  relationship  between  the MO  and State agency.   This
 guideline also discusses  the mechanisms  used in the  past  by some RO's and
 provides  a series  of sample letters  and  Federal^ Rejirte'r  notices.  This
 guideline incorporates and updates the guidance with respect to New Source
 Performance  Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants  (NESHAPS) in the 1973 Division of Stationary Source Enforce-
ment (DSSE)  Guideline $-13—Delegation of Authority to the States - NSPS and
NESHAPS and  portions of the Office of Air Quality Planning Standards  (OAQPS)
Guideline 1.2-045 dealing with NSPS and NESHAPS delegation.

-------
                                   SECTION 2
                    STATEMENT ON NSPS AND NESHAP DELEGATION

      The Clean Air Act precisely states that the States should have the
 primary authority for implementing the NSPS and the NESHAPS programs.   The
 Clean Air Act      very few conditions on the transfer of this authority (see
  *m» •**$
 Section 3,3).  The transfer of this authority or "delegation" of these  pro-
 grams can and should be a simple and flexible process because for each  NSPS
 and NESHAPS there exists an unambiguous,  enforceable Federal  emission regula-
 tion that is both legally binding on a source and ultimately  enforceable by
 EPA.  The transfer of NSPS and NESHAPS authority, to a State in no way precludes
 EPA from-enforcing NSPS or NESHAPS in Federal  court should the State fail or
 be  unable to pursue legal  action in  their own State court system.
      Therefore,  delegation of NSPS and NESHAPS should be viewed  as  EPA  trans-
 ferring  to the  State  agency the primary authority for implementing  these
 programs.   This  transfer can include  the  entire  program,  individual standards,
 or  portions  of  individual  standards."  The criteria  to be used  by  the EPA RO's
 in determining when they should transfer  these programs  are flexible.  The
 major requirement is  that  the State must  affirm  their intent to implement and
 enforce  the  programs  and show that they are able to  do so  both legally and
 programmatically.  The  specific documentation necessary  for a RO to convince
 itself that  the State is ready  and able to assume the responsibility for the
 program will vary and depend on the past relationship between the RO and the
 State.   Each RO will  review  their delegation decisions periodically through
 program audits.  To avoid ambiguity and confusion, EPA will publish a notice
 in the £edg.r*l. Register indicating the  standards for which the State has been
delegated authority.

-------
                                   SECTION 3
                                  BACKGROUND

      On August 17, 1972, under EPA Order 1150.18, the Administrator delegated
 to the Regional Administrators responsibility for approving State  procedures
 for, Implementing and enforcing NSPS and MESHAPS and for delegating authority
 to the States to implement and enforce NSPS and NESHAPS.   In 1973, DSSE
 issued Guideline S-13—Delegation of Authority to the States -  NSPS and
 NESHAPS.   This guideline provided information to the Regional Administrators
 on the requirements for approval  of State requests for delegation  of authority,
 This  guideline established agency policy on delegation and  provided a sample
 cover letter and sample Federal Register notice to facilitate the  delegation
 of       programs.   The guideline indicated that it was the Agency's policy
 to encourage and facilitate requests  for delegation to the  maximum extent per-
 missible  under the  Clean Air Act.   The  RO personnel  were encouraged  to work
 closely with their  States to develop  adequate delegation procedures.  It was
 the Agency's intent in  issuing  the  guideline  to allow the States to  implement
 and enforce  the  NSPS and NESHAPS  in whatever  manner they considered the most
 effective, as  long  as the procedures  were appropriately designed to assure
 compliance and the  procedures were consistent with  the  Act and the associated
 NSPS  and  NESHAPS  regulations.
      In March of  1976,  OAQPS issued Guideline 1,2-045 on delegation of new
 source review authority to  State and  local agencies.  The main purpose of this
guideline was to  set forth  procedures for delegation of authority to enforce
 EPA regulations for the  review of new and modified sources.  The new source
 review regulations subject  to delegation  included those promulgated to imple-
ment Sections 110, 111, and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.  This  guide-
line incorporated the S-13 guideline and made some additional modification to
the policies and procedures set forth in S-13,  These included the  ability to
delegate directly to the local  agencies if the State did not accept delegation
and the development of "automatic" delegation of authority to avoid the

-------
  requirement for States to request new delegation of authority each time new
  NSPS (or NESHAPS) were issued.
       OAQPS Guideline 1.2-045 also stated that it was EPA's policy to encourage
  State agencies to request and accept delegation because it would:  (1)  relieve
  EPA  of the resource requirements for enforcing the MSPS and NESHAP.S  require-
  ments,  (2) avoid duplication of effort in many cases,  and (3) put enforcement
  in the  hands  of the States  where the Clean Air Act intended it to be.   Thus,
  the  delegation of the NSPS  and NESHAPS programs has      and continues  to be
  a priority item in EPA's  program plans  and it is  the Agency's goal to delegate
  thez*NSPS and  NESHAPS  programs  to all  the  States as  soon  as  possible.
      There  are no  regulations  defining whether a  submitted  State  procedure
 should be considered  adequate  for the purpose  of  delegation  of NSPS or NESHAPS.
 Approval of a  State's NSPS or  NESHAPS procedures  should  be  based  on an evalu-
 ation of the State's ability to  implement and -enforce the NSPS and NESHAPS
                                            '-a-
 programs.  Flexibility is the  key to delegation.

 3.1   STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
      Section 111 of the Act, "Standards of Performance of New Stationary
 Sources," requires EPA to establish Federal emission standards for source
 categories  which cause or contribute significantly to air pollution.   These
 standards,  established for both new and modified stationary sources,  reflect
 the degree  of  emission reduction achievable through the application of the
 best  system of continuous  emission reduction which* taking into account  the
 cost  of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality,  healths  and  environ-
 mental impact  and energy  requirements,  the Administrator has determined  to
 be adequately  demonstrated.   Since December 23,  1971, the Administrator  has
 promulgated  a  number of NSPS  regulations  (40 CFR 60) pursuant to  Section  111
 (see Appendix A).   Both the pollutants  regulated and their associated  emission
 limits vary  for each NSPS  promulgated and  include  particulate matter  (PM),
sulfur dioxide  (S07), carbon monoxide  (CO),  nitrogen oxides  (N0y), volatile
                  &>                     *                        A
organic compounds (VOC)» acid mist,  total  reduced  sulfur  (TRS), and fluorides
 (F).

-------
 3,2  NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
      Section 112 of the Act, "National  Emission Standards  for Hazardous Air
 Pollutants," requires EPA to establish  Federal  emission standards for non-
 criteria air pollutants which in the judgment of the Administrator cause or
 contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to result in
 an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible! or incapaci-
 tating  reversible,  illness.  These standards  apply to  new, modified, and
 existing sources and are set at levels  to  protect public heilth with an ample
 margin  of safety.
     On April  6, 1973,  the  Administrator promulgated  the first NESHAPS regu-
 lations (40 CFR  Part 61)  pursuant to  Section  112  for regulating asbestos,
 beryllium,  and mercury.   On October 26» 1976, the  Administrator promulgated a
 national  emission standard  for  vinyl  chloride. . To date, these standards
 regulate  emissions from 20  source  categories  (see Appendix B).

 3.3  AUTHORITY FOR DELEGATION
     The authority for delegation, for both the implementation  and  enforcement
of NSPS and NESHAPS is contained in lll(c)  and 112(d), respectively, of  the
Clean Air Act.
     Section lll(c) of the Clean Air Act,  as amendedf provides  that:
     "(1)  Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator a
     procedure for implementing and enforcing standards of  performance   -
     for new sources luv-wsd in such State,  If the Administ. stor finds
     the State procedure is  adequate,  he shall delegate to  such State
     any authority he has under this Act to implement and enforce such
     standards,"
     Section 112(d)  of the Act provides  that:
     !l(d)(l)  Etch State may develop and suteit to the Administrator
     a procedure for implementing and  enforcing  emission standards for
     hazardous air pollutants for stationary sources  located  in 'such
     State.   If the  Administrator finds  "the State  procedure 1s ade-
     quate,  he shall  delegate to such  State any  authority he  has under
     this  Act to  implement and enforce such standards."

-------
                                   SECTION 4
                    REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY

      In order to delegate its authority,  EPA must make a  finding  that the
 State's procedures for implementing and enforcing NSPS and NESHAPS are ade-
 quate.   While delegation is a serious legal  responsibility,  the Agency,
 nonetheless,  should adopt a flexible approach in evaluating  delegation requests,
 For  example*  EPA should not demand that the  program be administered in pre-
 cisely  the same way in each State, nor should EPA necessarily insist that the
 States  use the same procedures  that EPA would use.   Rather,  the focus should
 be on environmental  results and the potential--for each State's program to.
 work.
     The nine elements listed below must  be  considered in  order to support a
 finding that  a  State agency can indeed  implement and enforce the NSPS and
 NESHAPS programs effectively.   These  program elenents  need not be discussed
 in exhaustive detail in a State's  request for delegation.  In many cases a
 reference  to  the specific regulation* legal  authority, or procedure will  be
 sufficient evidence to enable the  RO  to substantiate the adequacy of the
State's program.  This section discysses these elements and any associated
conditions that roust be considered by the RO in making a finding of adequacy.
These elements are:
     o     Emission limits consistent with Federal regulations
     o    Test methods consistent with Federal regulations
     o    Reporting and monitoring requirements
     o    Enforcenent
     o    Waivers (variance) procedures
     o    Surveillance
     o     Public notification and disclosure of information
   •  o     Resources
     o     Reporting (to EPA)

-------
 4.1  EHISSION  LIMITS CONSISTENT WITH  FEDERAL REGULATIONS
      State regulations dealing with NSPS and NESHAPS must be consistent with
 the Federal regulations as outlined in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.  Emission limits
 or standards must be at least as stringent as NSPS and NESHAPS,   Inrounities
 not granted by Federal regulations must not be granted by the State agency.
 4.2  TEST METHODS CONSISTENT WITH                            /
      The State must agree to use the              published  in 40 CFR 60  and
 61 j>£ any equivalent or alternative test        that has       approved by
 EPA.  If a State agency has adopted its own test         that they consider
 to be equivalent to the methods in 40 CFR 60 and 61 or adequate for determining
 compliance with the standards in 40 CFR 60 and 61,  then theses methods  nay be .
 submitted to EPA for approval under the provisions  of 40  CFR        The EPA
 methods  roust be used until  formal  approval of the methods is  issued by EPA.
      To  ensure uniformity and technical quality in  the enforcement of  national
-standardsf  EPA will  not delegate the authority for  approving  any  equivalent
 or alternative test methods.   In some cases,  a State agency may find  that
 design or operating conditions  at  a given site may  preclude the use of the
 exact procedures  set forth  in 40 CFR 60 and 61.   In these cases the State may
 need  to  make  some modifications  to  the procedures on a  case-by-case basis in
 order to. conduct  the required test.   EPA may  delegate  the provisions in
 40  CFR 60.8{b)(l) and (f) where  some adjustment in  the  test method  procedure
 is  warranted.

 4,3   REPORTING AND MONITORING
      State agencies  should have a mechanism to  implement  the reporting and
monitoring retirements set forth in  the  NSPS  and NESHAPS.  In many cases,
 the States ha¥€ adequate reporting procedures, and  these should be used wher-
ever  possible to avoid duplicating reporting  requirements  for NSPS and NESHAPS.

4,4   ENFORCEMENT AGAINST NONCOMPLYING SOURCES
     The enforcement authority portion of  the delegation must indicate that
the agency has the authority to enforce NSPS and NESHAPS in its State  court

                                      7

-------
  system.   The agency should  also have the authority to levy penalties and seek
  injunctive relief.   Because of the wide variation  in State laws, the RO's are
  encouraged to work  closely  with the States  and  their respective Attorneys
  General  in making their  determination  that  the  State agency has adequate
  enforcement provisions.

  4.5  WAIVER PROCEDURES
      The  NESHAPS program provides  for waivers (variances) in the compliance
  dates for meeting future standards.  The authority to evaluate and grant
  these waivers can be delegated  to  the State agency if enforcement and imple-
 mentation procedures are adequate.

 4.6  SURVEILLANCE
                                             '* 5.T
      The  State procedure must, as a minimum, provide for monitoring,  record-
 keeping, and reporting as required by Federal  regulations.   Required  reports
 and notices from sources will be submitted to States to  which  authority  has
 been delegated.  A notice of address change must be published  1n the  Federal
 Re£i_s_ter_.   In addition,  an adequate State procedure must include a  field
 investigation system for detecting violations  and for conducting or observing
 source  emission tests.   The  State procedure  may  require  sources  to  keep
 records  and make reports  not required by Federal regulations.  The  RO must
 make  a  finding concerning the adequacy of surveillance procedures and resources
 before  delegating  the NSPS and NESHAPS programs.  Upon delec-"*  .,  all results
 of  performance tests  conducted by the affected sources and excess emission
 reports completed by  the  affected sources  should be submitted directly to the
 delegated  agency.  Test results  and excess emission reports should  be filed
 in  such a  way ts to be readily accessible  for future reference.

 4.7   PUBLIC NOTIFICATION  AND DISCLOSURE  OF INFORMATION
      The Agency's request for delegation should  provide for making all emis-
 sion  data  as  well as all  other nonconfidential source information available
 to  the public.  If State  law does not allow  for  the disclosure of this infor-
mation, EPA may delegate  Section  114  authority to a State along with the NSPS
or NESHAPS  delegation.  The  Federal  Register notice designating NSPS or

                                      8

-------
  NESHAPS  transfer  of authority should also  include  the  delegation of Section
  114 authority where applicable.   If the  State  cannot accept Section 114
  authority, the NSPS or  NESHAPS  transfer  of authority can be conditioned upon
  a cooperative effort between  EPA  and  the State agency whereby the State can
  release the information to EPA, and  EPA can then release the information
  requested by the public.

  4.8  RESOURCES
       To the extent that current State NSR regulations apply to the
  soufces as  the  NSPS and NESHAPS regulations and that many of these  State
  regulations  have  similar regulatory requirements  as the NSPS  and  NESHAPS,
  there should be,  in general,  no additional  resource burden  as  a result of the
  delegation of NSPS  or NESHAPS  programs.   The R0»  however, must be assured
  that there will be  sufficient  resources to^perfo'nu  the  required reviews  and
 to take the appropriate  action necessary  to implement and enforce NSPS and/or
 NESHAPS.
      In the past, resource-oriented  problems were frequently noted as a main
 reason for not accepting .delegation, and this problem can be expected in the
 future.   To ensure that adequate resources are available, it is appropriate
 to  condition a  portion of a State's grant based on  the acceptance of the NSPS
 and NESHAPS programs.  In addition to the direct grant mechanism,  contractual
 assistance can  al'so be provided by EPAjon an as-needed basis to alleviate re-
 source  constraints.   Contractual assistance can take the form of direct
 resources  to  assist in such activities as  '"''-Drying stack tests or indirect
 resources  in  the  form of workshops  ind seminars to assist the  State  agency
 in  incorporating NSPS and NESHAPS requirements  into their program.   Workshops
 can address artis  such as procedural  requirements,  technical  review  and
 permitting, ssn*¥iil lance, and  implementation of specific standards,

 4.9  REPORTING (TO  EPA)
     All State agencies  receiving grant funds and  delegated  program  authority
must currently report on  the status of their funds  or programs  according  to
a schedule established by the RO's.   The Federal regulations  (40 CFR 51)  re-
quire a quarterly report  as a minimum,  however,  many States  report to the RO

-------
on a monthly basis.  Current reporting practices should be modified to  include
NSPS and/or NESHAPS sources.

-------
                                   SECTION 5
                            MECHANICS OF DELEGATION

      The following is a brief discussion of the items that should  be  considered
 with respect to delegating the NSPS and NESHAPS programs.   Basic procedural
 retirements for program assumption are presented in this  section  along with
 various mechanisms that can be used to facilitate the delegation of future
 standards, i.e., automatic delegation, adoption by reference, and  use of per-
 mit conditions.  Also presented in this section is a discussion of delegation
 to local agencies.  In addition, Appendix C contains example correspondence
 anc' fS^SESJL B§£l§!§JL notices  for accomplishing a number of the actions
 described in this chapter.  These examples are provided to assist  the States
 and RO's in requesting and  granting  the delegation of NSPS and NESHAPS pro-
 grams .
     Examples  are provided  for  the following:
     o     Letter notifying  the  State agency  of delegation  of NSPS and NESHAPS.
     o     Automatic delegation  letter  notifying the  State  agency of new
           Federal  standards.
     o     Letter notifying  the  State agency  of delegation of new Federal
           standards after the State  requested  deles?*4*" for* the new standards.
     0    f£4££§L R§2i£ter notice for delegation of NSPS and NESHAPS to a
          State agency.
     0    ZMSJll BSilSML notice for supplemental delegation of NSPS and
          ftESfiWPS" to a State agency published as an informational  notice
          (no- proposal necessary),

5.1  PROGRAM ASSUMPTION
     Certain steps must be followed for a State to assume the NSPS and NESHAPS
programs.  These steps are:

-------
 1.   The Governor of  the State or his designee shall submit to the
      appropriate Regional Administrator of the Environmental  Protection
      Agency a written request for delegation of authority pursuant  to
      Section lll(c) or 112(d) or both.  The request must describe the
      State procedure that will bt followed in implementing and enforcing
      one or more NSPS or NESHAPS, Identify the State officers or agencies
      responsible for carrying out the State procedure* and demonstrate
      the adequacy of the State           with respect to the  "criteria
      set forth in this statement of requirements,

 2.   The request may      a delegation of authority to implement and
      enforce any NSPS or NESHAPS which has been finally promulgated at
      the time of the request.  If automatic delegation is to  be imple-
      mented, see Section 5,1.2.   The request should specify the source
      categories for which delegation is sought and may be approved with
      respect to one or more such categories and denied with respect to
      others,

 3.   The Regional  Administrator  shall  notify the Governor or  his designee
      in writing whether and to what        the request has     approved
      or disapproved.  If the request ds disapproved in whole  or in part,
      the notification to the Sovernor  shall  specify the reasons for sych
      disapproval.

 4.   If the  request is approved  in  whole or in part,  the Regional
      Administrator  shall  delegate to the Sovernor  or  his designee
      authority  to carry out the  approved portions  of  the State procedure.
      Such delegation shall  be effective  upon  receipt  by the Sovernor or
      his designee of a  written Notice  of Delegation.   The  Notice of
      Delegation  shall  identify the  approved State  procedure by reference
      to  the  request  and to  any additional  submission  by the Sovernor or
      his designee supplementing or modifying  the State  procedure and
      shall specify which  portions of the proposed  State  procedure,  if
      any, are disapproved.   The Notice of  Delegation  will  subsequently
      be  published in the  Federal._ Retlster.

 5.    A delegation of authority pursuant  to Section lll(c) or 112(d)  shall
      not authorize implementation and  enforcement  of  NSPS or NESHAPS
      according to a  State procedure which  is different  from the approved
      State procedure identified in the Notice of Delegation unless  a
      revised State procedure  is submitted by the Sovernor or his designee
      and approved by the Regional Administrator.   Notice of the approval
      of any revised  State procedure will be published in the £ederaj_
      Register.  This provision applies only to the adequacy of State
      procedures for  implementing and enforcing Federal standards, and
      is  not meant to be in derogation of State authority pursuant to
      Section 116.

6,    As additional      or         are promulgated, EPA nay notify the
     Governor or his designee of the new standards and their delegation
      to the State or the State may submit additional  requests  for dele-
     gation of authority in accordance with the foregoing procedure.

                                 12

-------
  5.1.1  Extent of De1eg_at1on

       Although EPA encourages the State agencies  to  accept full delegation of
  all  aspects of the implementation and enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS, there

  are  situations where  States are either unwilling or unable to assume all

  responsibility for implementing these programs.  In these'cases, EPA may

  grant partial  delegations  to requesting agencies indicating one of the

  following:

   ...» 1.   Delegation  of authority way be given for  only a portion of the
           State or regulatory area.

       2.   Delegation  of authority may be given for  only the applicable
           portion  of  the source categories Involved.  Specific source cate-
           gories or parts thereof might be omitted  (e.g., NSPS for petroleum
           refineries  in Iowa, since no refineries are          in Iowa,
           Likewise, authority may be  delegated for only certain facilities
           covered  by a particular standard (e.g.*      States have not
           accepted delegation of  the  demolition standard under the
           NESHAP).

      3.   Authority may be delegated  for selected       of the procedural
           responsibility in imp!    ting           with EPA acting .as a
           partner in completing the remaining actions.   For example,  delega-
           tion of authority can be provided with  regard to  the administrative/
           technical portion of the Implementation,  with EPA providing the
           enforcement should action        necessary.   The  administrative/
           technical portion of the review includes  reception  of  the soyrct's
           request for approval  and evaluation of  that request.   It may also
           involve advising the source of the  results of that  evaluation.  The
           actual approval/disapproval  action  would  be performed  by the EPA
           RO,  Enforcement actions,  including litigation* undt.  t-.iese dele-
           gations,  would  be initiated by EPA,

5.1.2  Automatic Delegation

      Automatic delegation  refers to  a  process  where  agencies  assume responsi-

bility for the Implementation and  enforcement of  current and  future NSPS and

NESHAPS.   Without automatic  delegation, a separate request for delegation is
needed every time a standard is  promulgated.   In  order  to promote the delegation

of the NSPS  and NESHAPS programs  to  the State  and local agencies, an automatic

delegation process  was introduced  to avoid  individual requests for delegation

for each standard that would be  promulgated.   Automatic delegation simplifies

the role of  the State  agency in obtaining authority  for newly promulgated
NSPS and NESHAPS.

-------
       Automatic  delegation  is  initially  accomplished by State agencies request-
  ing  the authority  to  review and  enforce all future.NSPS and NESHAPS standards.
  A notice of automatic  delegation is  then issued in the federaj_ Rg2lj$ter_ when
  new  standards are  developed.  This notification delegates the standards to the
  State based on  the previous request  for automatic delegation.  This does not
  require response by the State agency and if no negative declaration is received
  from the State  the delegation is  final.  The purpose of this Federal  Register
  notice is to inform the public that  the delegation has taken place and to
  indicate where  the source notification and other reports should be sent.   EPA
   ,. -*
 will  notify the State agencies of the promulgation of additional  standards
 through correspondence similar to that in Appendix C.  .
 5.1.3  Adop_11 on by Reference
      One alternative for those States with ^problems in accepting  automatic
 delegation would be delegation by reference.   Under this procedure, newly
 promulgated NSPS and NESHAPS would be adopted  directly into  the State  codes
 by reference to  the Federal  law.   This would considerably decrease the ad-
 ministrative and economic  burdens associated with  major regulatory changes.
 5.1.4 Use  of Permit  Conditions
      A third approach  to delegating the  NSPS and NESHAPS  programs  is through
 the use of  permit conditions as part  of  a State agency's  preconstraction  and
 operating permit program.  This approach may be used where there are obstacles
 to other types of delegation,
      If a State  or  local agency has an approved preconstruction and operating
 permit program,  the State or local agency can impose the emission limits and
other requirements  consistent with the NSPS or NESHAPS programs as a legally
enforceable permit  condition* but only if the agency has the legal authority
to enforce those permit conditions.   By  imposing these requirements as a
permit conditions the State agency would not necessarily have to formally
adopt the NSPS or NESHAPS emission limits or requirements.  They could,
however, impose the NSPS or NESHAPS requirements almost automatically after
they have been promulgated without any formal  changes to their existing
permit programs.
     To implement this type of delegation procedure, a State agency would
notify the RO of its intent to use their existing permit programs to ensure

-------
  that the applicable NSPS or NESHAPS requirements  were  being implemented and
  enforced.   The State would indicate how they intended  to impose the permit
  conditions  and how they would enforce the  permit  conditions if a source
  failed  to comply with these conditions.  All  other  requirements for delegation
  (i.e.,  consistent test methods,  reporting, and monitoring, etc.) would have
  to be satisfied  as well.
  5.1.5   ReguTatory_Revision,
      In  some areas neither  automatic  delegation nor delegation by reference
 may^be available  to  a  State  agency  because of legal or political constraints,
 If the legal and  procedural  Issues  cannot be resolved, additional  NSPS and
 NESHAPS source categories must be delegated on a case-by-case basis through
 revisions to State regulations.  This approach is the least desirable  because
 of the increased economic and administrative"requirements.   If,  on  the other
 hand, this is the only technique a State agency can use to  assume  responsi-
 bility for newly promulgated NSPS and NESHAPS, the State should  be  encouraged
 to seek  delegation through the regulatory revision approach.   If the State
 chooses  this approach, parallel processing  can be used to process  these
 regulatory revisions to eliminate duplication of effort and decrease the
 overall  processing time for the.revision,
      This technique for assuming responsibility of a newly  promulgated  MSPS
 or NESHAPS entails submitting an additional delegation  request for  each new
 NSPS  or  NESHAPS as well as incorporating the  Federal  regulations directly
 into  the  State  or local regulations.

 5.2   LOCAL PROGRAM DELEGATION
      Although Section 111  does  not specifically authorize it, conwon practice
 has been  to delegate  to local agencies where they  are adequately qualified.
Three possible  local  agency  delegation request mechanisms for NSPS and NESHAPS
exist:   (1) a State agency can  request delegation  on behalf of a local  agency,
 (2) a local agency can  request  delegation directly with the written consent
of the State agency,  and  (3)  a  local agency can request delegation directly
without the consent of  the State agency.
     When a State  has no objection to direct delegation to a .local  agency, as
in the first two cases, there is little impediment to the delegation process.
                                     1 C

-------
 EPA retains the ultimate responsibility to implement and enforce the NSPS and
 NESHAPS.  Therefore,  if a court rules that EPA lacks the authority to delegate
 to a local agency, the local agency delegations can be revoked and EPA would
 once again, have sole responsibility for the delegated programs,
      The third case, where a State is opposed to EPA delegation to a local
 agency* can potentially cause a problem with respect to EPA's ability to  work
 with an individual State,  Because of the wording of Subsections lll(c) and
 112(d), a State may raise the issue of EPA',s legal authority to delegate  the
 NSPS and NESHAPS programs to a local  agency,   the State's objections to hav-
 ing a  local  agency accept the authority-'for delegation should be thoroughly
   - I*  .
 investigated to determine if the objections have merit or if the delegation
 would  cause  significant problems that would make the delegation inappropriate.
 Because EPA's  clear authority lies in delegation to the State,  a State sub-
 mittal  (or proposed imminent subroittal)  of a  satisfactory request for delega-
                                             •&*-
 tion must be granted  over a  direct EPA delegation to local  agency.   This
 authority also warrants  the  revocation of  a  local agency delegation  once  the
 State  submits  an adequate request  for delegation.   Thus,  any objection from
 the State with respect to a  local  agency's delegation must  be carefully con-
 sidered, and the State should be urged to either  request delegation  itself
 or withdraw  its objections.   If, however, the State neither accepts delegation
 nor withdraws  its objections, the  local agency may  receive  the delegation as
 long as it understands that a future delegation by  EPA  to the State could by
 its terms transfer any delegated authority from the local agency to the
 State.

 5.3  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING DELEGATION
     Over the past several months a number of questions have been raised con-
cerning the delegation of the NSPS and NESHAPS programs.  A compilation of
these questions and the corresponding answers is presented  in Appendix D,
                                     16

-------
                     APPENDIX  A
NEW SOURCE                        -           15,  1982
                         17

-------
APPENDIX A -
                                      SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, NOVEHBER 15, 1902
   	Source. J.Subpartl,
                                                                    Pollutant
1.   Fossil-Fuel  Fired  Steam
    Generators  (D)
2.  Fossil-Fuel  Fired Steam
    Generators (Da)

3.  Incinerators (municipal)
    (E)

4.  Portland Cement Plants
    (F)
 5.  Nitric Acid Plants (G)
 6.   SulfuHc Acid  Plants  (H)
 7.  Asphalt Concrete Plants
     (I)
            Greater than 250 x 10  Btu/h (Construction
            commenced after August 17,'1971 and prior to
            September 19, 1978) (§ 60.40)

            Greater than 250 x 106Btu/h (Construction
            coeroenced after September 18, 1978) (§ 60.40a)

            Greater than 45 metric tons per day charging rate
            (I 60.50)

            K11n» clinker cooler, raw will system, finish mill
            x/stem, raw mill dryer, raw material storage,
            clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor
            transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and un-
            loading systems  (5 60.60)

            Any  facility producing weak  nitric  add  by either
            the  pressure or  atmospheric  pressure process
             {§ 60.70)

            Any  facility producing  sulfurlc  add by  the contact
             process  by burning elemental  sulfur, alkylatlon
             acid, hydrogen sylfide*  organic  sulfides and  roer-
             captans,  or acid sludge, but      not  Include
             facilities where conversion to sulfyric  acid  1s
             utilized primarily as a means of preventing emls-
             $4ons to the atmosphere of sulfur dioxide or other
             sulfur compounds (S 60,80)

             Dryers; systems for screening, handling» storing,
             and weighing hot aggregate; systems for loading,
             transferring, and storing mineral  filler; systems
             for mixing asphalt concrete; and the loading,
             transfer, and storage systems associated with
             emission  control  systems  {§ 60.90)
PM, S02»



PMS S0r


PM


PH
                                                                                          NO,
 S02,  Add  Mist
 (continued)

-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
 8.  Petroleum Refineries (J)
  9.  Storage Vessels for
       Petroleum Liquids  (K)
 10,   Storage Vessels for
        Petroleum Liquids  (Ka)
 11.   Secondary Lead  Smelters
      (L)
 12.  Secondary Brass and
        Bronze Ingot Production
        Plants (M)
 13.  Iron and Steel Plants (N)

 14.  Sewage Treatment Plants
      (0)

 15.  Primary Copper Smelters
      (P)
  16.   Primary  Zinc Smelters  (Q)
                                              Affected Jqcjjlty.
*.  Fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
    regenerators,
b.  Fluid catalytic cracking unit incinerator -
    waste heat boilers,
c.  .Fuel gas combustion device (I 60,100)
d.  'Clays sulfyr recovery plants (> 20 LTD/day)

Storage capacity greater than 151,412 liters
(Construction commenced after June 11, 1973 and
prior t© Hay 19, 1978) (I 60.110)

Storage capacity greater than 151,412 liters
(Construction commenced after May 18S 1978)
(S  60.110a)

Pot furnaces greater than 250 kg charging  capacity;
Blast  (cupola)  furnaces", and reverberatory
furnaces  (§ 60.120)           r

Reverberatory and  electric  furnaces  greater than or
       to  1000 kg production capacity and blast
 furnaces  greater than  or equal  to 250 kg/h produc-
 tion capacity  11 60.130)
  #
 Basic  oxygen  process  furnace (i 60.140)

 Incinerator which  burns  the sludge  produced by
 municipal sewage treatment facilities.   (§ 60.150)

 Dryer, roaster, smelting furnace*  copper con-
 verter, (reverberatory furnaces processing high
  impurity feed are exempt from S02 std.) (§ 60.160)

  Sinter machine, roaster (§ 60.170)
                                                        Pollutant
a,  PM. CO

b.  PH

c.  S0?
d.  SO^

voc



voc



PM



PH
 PH

 PM


 PM, opacity.
 PH, opacity,
 S02
  (continued)

-------
    APPENDIX A  (continued)
ro
o
         _Source_J_Subgart}_
     17.  Primary Lead Smelter (R)
18.   Primary Aluminum Reduction
       Plants (S)

19.   Wet Process Phosphoric
       Acid Plants (T)

20.   Superphosphorlc Add Plants
     (U)

21.   Diamnonium Phosphate Plants
     (V)

22,   Triple Superphosphate
       Plants (W)
    23.  Granular Triple Super-
           phosphate Storage
           Facilities (X)

    24.  Steel Plants:  Electric
           Arc Furnaces (AA)

    25.  Coal Preparation Plants
         (V)
     26.  Ferroalloy Production
           Facilities (I)

     (continued)
                                              Affected facility
 Blast or reverberatory furnace, sintering1
 machine discharge, and sintering machine
 electric smelting furnace, converter (§ 60.120)

 Potroom group, anode bake plants (§ 60.190)


Reactors, filters, evaporators and hot wells
(S 60.200)

 Evaporators, hotwells* acid sumps and cooling
 tanks (§ 60.210)

 Reactors, granulators. dryers, coolers, screens
 and mills {§ 60,220)

 rfixers, cyHn§       (dens), reactors, granulators,
 dryers, cookers, screens, mills and facilities
 which store run-of-pile triple superphosphate
 (§ 60,230)

 Storage or curing piles, conveyors, elevators,
 screens and mills (i 60.240)
                                   Electric arc  furnaces;  dust-handling  equipment
                                   {§  60.270)

                                   Thermal  dryer,  pneumatic  coal  cleaning  equipment,
                                   processing  and  conveying  equipment, storage
                                   systems, transfer and  loading  systems (§  60.250)

                                   Electric submerged arc  furnaces,  dust handling
                                   equipment (§  60.260)
                                                                                               Pollutant
                                                                                               PMS opacity
                                                                                               S02
Opacity, F


F


F


F


F
                                                         PM,  opacity


                                                         PM»  opacity



                                                         PM»  opacity,  CO

-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
    .Source	(Subpart)
27.  Kraft Pulp Hills (BB)
28.  Grain Elevators (DO)
29.  Stationary Gas Turbine fGG)

30,  L1me Manufacturing (HH)
31.  Sewage Treatment Plants (0)
32.  Ayto and light-duty Truck
       Surface Coating
       Operations (HM)
33.  Glass Plants (CC)
34.  Lead Acid Battery Plants
     (KK)
35.  Phosphate Rock Plants (UN)
36.  Ammonium Sulfate Manu-
       facturing (PP)
37,  Industrial Surface
       Coating:  Large
       Appliances (SS)
(continued)
          .AffectedfacljUy.
Recovery furnaces* smelt 'dissolve tank,  lime kiln,
digester* brown stock washer,  evaporator,  oxida-
tion or stripper systems (§ 60,280)
Column and rack dryers, process equipment  and
other dryers, loading and handling (§ 60.300)
a.  Gas turbines, >_ 10 x I06 Btu/h
b.  Gas turbines, ^ 100 x 106 Btu/h  (§ 60.330)
Rotary lime kiln, Time hydrator (I 60,340)
Incinerator, > 2205 Ib/day (dry sludge)  (§ 60.150)
Surface coating of metal parts (I 60,390)
                           r
Furnace (I 60,290)
Lead oxide production, grid casting, paste mixing,
three-process operation, lead reclamation, other
{§ 60.370)
Dryers, calciners, grinders, handling and
storage {§ 60.400)
Dryer (i 60.420)
Surface coating operations within large appliance
assembly plants (S 60.450)
                                                                                          Pollutant
                                                                                          PM, opacity,
                                                                                          TRS
PM, opacity

a.  S02, N0
b.  H0x
PM, opacity
PM, opacity
VOC

PM
Pb, opacity

PH8 opacity
PMS opacity
VOC

-------
    APPENDIX A (continued)
         Source ..(Subgart)_

                                                        Pollutant
    38.  Surface Coating of Metal
           furniture (EE)

    39.  Metal Col] Surface Coating
         (TT)

    40.  Graphic Arts Industry:
         Publication Rotogravure
         Printing  (QQ)
Metal furniture surface coating facilities
(S 60.310)

Metal coil surface coating operations (§ 60,460)
Publication rotogravure printing presses
   (i 60.430)
voc

voc

voc
l\3

-------
          APPENDIX B

                     FOR           AIR
POLLUTANTS -          IS, 1982
             23

-------
            NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
  Pollutant
                     .Affected_faclli|y
 Asbestos
 Beryllium
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride
 1.   Asbestos mills  - waste disposal
 2.   The manufacture of buildings and structures in which
      the following operations are conducted or directly
      from any of the following operations if they are
      conducted outside of buildings or structures
 3.   The fabrication of -
      (a)  cloth* cord, wicks, tubings or other textile
           materials
      (b)         products
      (c)  fireproofing and insulating materials
      (d)  friction products
      (e)  paper, ml11 board, and felt
      (f)  floor tile
      (g)  paints,  coating, caulks, adhesives and sealants
      (h)  plastics and rubber materials
      (i)  chlorine     v
 4.    Buildings or structure which will  be constructed
      using  asbestos insulating products  (I 61,20}
 5.    Specified demolition  and renovation activities
      {§  61.22(d))
 6.    Waste  disposal  sites  (§  61.25)
 7.    Spraying (§  61.22)

 1.    *Extraction plants
 2.    *Ceramic plants
 3.    *Foundries
 4.    *lneinerators
 5,    *Propellant plants
 6.    Machine       which process  beryllium oxides or  any
      alleys v/hsn such alloy contains mo -e  than  5  percent
      beryllium by weight {§ 61.30)
 7.    Rocket motor      sites  {§ 61.40)

 1,    Facilities processing ore to  recover  mercury
 2.    Facilities using mercury chlor-alkali cells  to
      produce  chlorine gas and alkali metal hydroxide
 3.    Facilities which incinerate or dry wastewater
      treatment plant  sludge (§ 61.50)

 1.     Ethylene dichloride plants
2.    Vinyl chloride "plants
3.    Polyvinyl chloride plants (§ 61.60)
'...which process beryllium ore, beryllium oxide,  beryllium alloys, or
 beryllium containing wastes.   (S 61.30)
                                     24

-------
                  APPENDIX C

EXAMPLES OF REGIONAL OFFICE                AND
                          SUBMITTALS
                     25

-------
                                   EXAMPLE 1

                                DELEGATION LETTER
 Dear
 This; is  in  response  to your letter of             ^.m,.,.-*  requesting  authority
 to"implement and  enforce  the Standards  of Performance for New Stationary
 Sources  (NSPS}  and the National  Emission  Standards  for Hazardous  Air Pollu- '
 tants (NESHAPS) programs.

 We have reviewed  the pertinent laws of  the State of	and the
 rules and regulations thereof, and have determined  that they  provide  an
 adequate and effective procedure for  implementation of the NSPS and  NESHAPS
 by the State of	   _.  Therefore, pursuant  to Section III  of P.L.
 31-504 (1970) as~amehSed~5y~P^-. 95-95  (1977), the  Clean  Air  Act  (CM) as
 amended and 40 CFR.  Part 60 and Part 61, we hereby delegate  our  primary
 authority for implementation and enforcement of NSPS and  NESHAPS,  respective-
 ly,  to  the State of :_	_	      	as follows:

 A.    Responsibility for  all sources located or to be located  in the State
      0-f  -___-___-_«_-»_ subject to the standards of performance for new sta-
      tionary sources  promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 and             thereto
      as  published  in  the  Federal  Register^ as of the      of your request
      letter  on _________________27™~^*^* categories of new sources covered by this
      responsibility are:   ,

 B.    Responsibility for all sor     T'Tted 3F to be located in the 54ate
      of             subject to the national  emission standards for hazardous
      ai>*^oTTTJtaritF promulgated in 40  CFR  Part 61 and            thereto  as
      published in  the Federal Register as  of the       of your request letter.
      The four hazardous air poTTutaritiF covered by this authority are  asbestos,
      beryllium,  mercury* and vinyl  chloride.

C.    This delegation  is based upon  the following  conditions:

      1,   Existing monthly  "CDS"  reports normally submitted  to EPA through
          program  plan reporting  will  be expanded to contain  pertinent
          information relating  to  the  status of sources subject to 40 CFR
          Parts  60 and 61.   As a  minimum,  the  following information should
          be provided to EPA:  the  name, address,  type and size of
          facility,      that operation  at the  facility           and
          of most  recent stack test, the compliance  status of  each facility
          with accompanying  explanations of noncompliance  where applicable;


                                     26

-------
       notice of enforcement actions brought against facilities subject
       to 40 CFR Part 60 or 61; surveillance actions undertaken for each
       facility; and the results of all reports relating to emissions
       data.

  2.    Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in the State of ______ will
       be the primary responsibility of the	.
       If the State determines that such enforcement is not feasible  and
       so notifies EPA,  or where the State acts in a manner inconsistent
       with  the  terms  of this  granted authority,  EPA mil  exercise  its
       concurrent enforcement  authority pursuant  to Section 113 of  the
       Clean  Air Act,  as  amended,  with respect to sources  within the
       State  of  __________  subject to the NSPS and NESHAPS.

 3,   Acceptance of this  delegation  of presently promulgated NSPS  and
      NESHAPS does  not commit the State to  request or       enforcement
      responsibility  of future standards  and  requirements.  A new  request
      for enforcement responsibility will be  required  for  any standards
      not Included  in Paragraphs  A and  B  above,
                                         ^fx -•
 4.   If at any  time there is  a conflict  between a  State regulation
      and a Federal regulation  (40 CFR  Parts  60 and  61), the Federal
      regulation must be applied  If  1t  1s more stringent than that of
      the State,  If the State does not have  the authority to enforce a
      Federal regulation, the pertinent portion of the delegation may be
      revoked.

 5.  ,  Performance tests  shall  be scheduled and conducted in accordance
      with the procedures set forth In 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 unless
      alternate  methods  or procedures are approved by the EPA Administra-
      tor.   Although the Administrator         the exclusive right to
      approve equivalent and  alternative      methods as specified in
      40  CFR 60.8(b) (2)  and  (3),  and 64.14, the       may approve
      minor  changes in methodology provided               are reported
   .   to  EPA  Region	.   The Administrator a1sr. retains the right  to
      change  an  opacity  standard as specified in  40 CFR 60'.ll(e).

6.    Additionally,  the  State  of       	must  require reporting  of
      all  excess emissions  from any~lSFs source in accordance with  40
      CFR 60.7(c).

7.   Alternatives  to  continuous monitoring  procedures or  reporting
      requirements,  ts outlined in 40 CFR  60.13(1),  may be approved by
      the State  with the  prior concurrence o-f  the EPA Administrator,
                                  f— {Zct^a -£?!; -£"£*&?   ff  o.n  cyafrv isf I
B,    If a source proposed  to  modify  its operation  or facility which
     may cause  the  source  to  be subject to  NSPS  requirements, the
     State shall notify EPA Region 	 and  obtain  a  determination
     on the applicability  of  the  NSPS regulations.
                                77

-------
            If the Administrator determines that the State procedure for
            enforcing or implementing the NSPS or NESHAPS is inadequate,
            or is not being effectively carried out» his delegation may be
            revoked in whole or part.  Any such revocation shall be effective
            as of the      specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
      10.    Information shall be      available to the public in accordance
            with 40 CFR 80.9 and 61.15(b).  Any records* reports, or infor-
            mation provided to, or otherwise obtained by» the State in accord-
            ance with the provisions of these regulations shall  be      availa-
            ble to the designated representatives of EPA      request.

 The  State  and EPA will  develop a system of communication sufficient  to
 guarantee  a  program that includes the items described below:

      a.    Each agency is informed of the current compliance status of
            subject sources  in  the State of            .

      b.    Prior  EPA concurrence  is  obtained on. any  matter  involving
            interpretation of 40 CFR  Parts  60 and 61  {including  unique
            questions  of applicability of the standards);  and

      c.    Enforcement actions  (including  requests for  information and
           enforcement actions based  thereon) already Initiated  by EPA
           prior to  this delegation,  shall be completed by EPA.

 A  notice  announcing       actions will  be published in the  Federal Register
 in the  near future.  The notice will -state,       other  things* that, effect-
 ive immediately, all reports required pursuant to NSPS and  NESHAPS, by sources
 located in  _____________ should be submitted to the _______^	____•
 Any such  reports which have      or may be recei>eFliy~EPAV~Re9iorr^_-_, wiTT
 be promptly transmitted  to this       agency.

 Since this  action is effective immediately, there is no requirement that the
 State of'___	notify EPA of its ar"»-•*•»"'•*   Unless -EPA receives from
 the State of  __	written  notice of objections  within ten (10) days
 of  the  date of receipt of this letter, the State will  be deemed to have
 accepted all  of the terms as stated herein.

Sincerely yours,
Regional Administrator
                                     28

-------
                                    EXAMPLE 2

                          AUTOMATIC DELEGATION LETTER
 Dear
 On                we delegated to the State of          the authority for
 impTSnentaHorTand enforcement of the Standards~oTTer7oniiance for New Sta-
 tionary Sources (NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for           A1r
 Pollutants (NESHAPS) that had      promulgated by EPA as of _________«
 On ^_____________^ EPA promulgated NSPS for ijo-mg._::

 As stated in our letter of ___^_____^_^_^^    we have  reviewed the pertinent
 laws of the State of _g^ ____ ,,..,,„„„ and your rules and regulations, and have
 determined that they provide an          and effective procedure for imple-
 menting and enforcing the NSPS in the State* of .__________•  Therefore* we
 hereby delegate our authority for the implementation  and enforcement of
 NSPS to the State of ______ as follows:

      Authority for all  sources located or to  be located in the State of
      _ subject to the Standards of  Performance for New Stationary
      Sources  for _ _ _ promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 as of the date
      of this  letter.

 This delegation is       upon the same conditions  as those stated in our
 letter of  ^ ^  ^ ...... ^ ..... t ..... ^.t              condition  4, relating to  Federal  facili-,
 ties,  has       voided by the  Clean Air Act            of 1977.   A copy of
 the              ,  letter was  published in the  notices section of the fMerjLL
            --—              j-   PR ^ _ |^  ^n associated -ulemaking was
                 ^          ^^       ^ _
pubTTsted  on .______-_____,^-^^    FR _ _ Jt to notify the public  that
certain  reporW*TH3:"appti'citfons required from operators of new sources
shall be syteitted  to the       of     _    ).  A notice announcing this
delegation will  be  published  in the*"^^eHT Re2iste£ in the near future.
Since this delegation is effective immediately, there is no need  for the
State to notify EPA of its acceptance.  Unless we receive from you written
notice of objections within ten days of the date on which you  receive this
letter, the State of _ will be deemed to have accepted all of the
terms of the delegation.

Sincerely yours,
Regional Administrator

-------
                                   EXAMPLE 3

                        DELEGATION AFTER STATE REQUEST
 Dear Mr. _ __:

 On                 , we delegated to the State of _:T:rT:rr._^       the authority
 f orTiipTeienHtTorTa nd enforcement of the Standards  of  Performance for Niw
 Stationary Sources (NSPS) and the National  Emission  Standards for Hazardous
 Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) that had      promulgated by EPA as of
 On           s           »           »
    _ _  _ __  „____      ., ______ -..-.- ....... .^.
 for ^ ....... ^    ........... : ..... ^ ....... ,             t"            »  and __________,.» respectively; on
               EPA"l>romuTgati
-------
Since this delegation is effective inmediatelys there is  no      for the
State to notify EPA of its acceptance.  Unless we receive from you written
notice of objections within ten days of the      on which you receive this
letter, the State of              will be        to have  accepted all of
the terms of the deleptTonT""™"

Sincerely yours,
Regional Administrator
                                    31

-------
               EXAMPLE 4

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR DELEGATION
          of NSPS and NESHAPS
               32

-------
  Standards o1 Performance for New
  Stationary                and
           £rtiis*ion           for
             Air
  Drt^atfofl of Authority to      of
  Missouri
    Through December 1.1579,  pursuant
  to Sections ill and 112 of the Qean Air
  Act as amended the              of
  the EavtronmentaJ           Agency
  (EPA) has promulgated
  establisoing standards of
  for 30           of aew stationary
  sources, and national
  standards for five hazardous air
  pollutants. Sections lll(c) and 112|d]
 direcuhe Admiffistrator to delegate Ms
 authority to implement and enforce the
 NSPS and NESHAPS to any state which
 has submitted adequate procedures.
 Nevertheless, the              retains
 concurrent authority to           mad
 enforce the          foUowfef
 dtlegition  of authority to the state.
   Oa April 18.      the        of the
 Mljoari            of Ht
                   submitted to the
 EPA                «       for
           of                  In that
        wen        of tie      of
 Missouri           which
 by          tht
 standard* and                  Hi
 for* is 40 CTR       60 and SL with
 certain exception*, Alto         were
 copies of statutes which provide the
 state with the requisite authority to
        the NSPS uad           After
 a thorough review of that request the-
 EPA reffaoaJ       has           that
 for the                 set      to
 paragntpim A tad B of the
       letter to the        ©I the
MDNR. delegation is            subject
to the conditions Ml forth is paragraphs
1 through 8 of
  Therefore, in a      dated December
IS,      ike                   notified
the MDNH that Its           request
had             Tta          letter
is reproduced below*
 December 18, 1980.
 Fred A. Lttttt, Difvetaf. Mitsouri
     Dgparmmt off/atuntJ Attoutces, P.O.
     Seat 179, /nffitfsan City, Mo.
   Detr Mr, Laf»«K Tim m m r«tpoa»t to your
 letttf of April m    w^atsttog dalegttian
 of authority for iaspiaaaeautioa «od
 enforccmeat of the Stairfjjdi of J%fa«j«nce
 for N*w $tatioa«y Soor«$ (NSPS) and the
 National Esaiioe Stanciaros for Hazardous
 Air Potttttaaii (NESHAPS) to the «*» of
 MtMOttfl Tou IsttKf sispercedes ibs
 dcleg     lentf     July 28,     It ,
 tantaisj A aew $«t of conditioas atf atkted
 in         aad                     with
 your staff sioct that d«t«.
  Wt hav« revicwtd the        Itwi of
 Lh« SUM of Mij-Kmn. «sd tb« fiiies sad
 regoUitioitt of ttt       Ar GMsawfvttioa
           Rd« 10     10-ftJjro aad l&~
     and hsvt d^ssraLLned that tbty provids
               cffscav® proc«
-------
      AA
           Plants: Btctric
    « Kraft Pulp Milk. Subpart BB
    * Grain Qtvcten. S«bp*rt 00
    • Gas Turbine Stcsric Generators. Subpart
      GG
    * Urn* Manufaeturinf Plants. Sobpart HH
    • Appendix A
    9 Appendix B
      S, Authority for til soorets looted In the
    State of Mwoari aubfect to lit NESHAPS
    promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61 a of
    December 1. J97E, as follow*
    « C«nerai Provision*. Subpan A
    « Aabtstoi, Subp«« S
    « BeryiJiujn, Sufepan C
    * Btt-yUittio Eoeket Motor Fuel Sobpart D
    * Mercury, Subp*rt E
   o Vlnyi QJorid*. Sttbpart f
   » Appendix A
     TbrEPA Is ia th« preets* ef
   f*p»a>uJg«tIag the work practice itasdards
   ti i result of litigation. Until this
   repromolgation it finiahed. the work practise
   standard* art not enforceable under S«etloa
   113 of the dean A» Aa M amended Asftm
   1977,
    Th* ddef »doa for      tad NISHAPS Is
   b»»«3 upon the following eeaditioss:
    L All seurets ia the e»t*goritt
  «lxms sludJ provide tfi a@ee»«y
  aotificatiom aad eemdwet pwforamfia*
  ffl f^^** *** *•
  tt «OTl Pwi 80 Sabpart A aod 40 CFR Pm
  « 5ttbp«rt A, The M»w«ri Department of
  NutuntJ Reaourew        «kall      only
  the w* of itstteg aethocU or JJ»^B»I
  specified in eaeb appUeabie Sobpm^Qf Part
  « and Put «. s»l«8» dj® B>A b*» giv«& prior
  *ppreviJ to an «Jt«ra«tJv» or •owtvtkot
  method
    2. The MDM1 will lutroct each
  affected by Uu NSPS or          ,0 p^jg
  copi« of all required aettBeaiioa*. punuaat
 « Subpart A. to tat Ol«c*or el the
 Enforcement Oiviaioa. EPA. Refisjt ¥tt 324
 East 11 tb Street Kitnaaj Qry, MO SliGi.
   3. All sources iubject ta Uie     anil
 NESHAK must monitor efflitskm* sa
 specified by the applicable Sabp«rt la
 additioa contoaoat mociteri«f taslmm«ista
 must be tcsited »ce«nilnt to the pwfonaaaoi
 sptcificatiofta at 40 C3X ftm a& Appendix a
 if she MDNR Cadi thai *       method for
 emission monJtorinf          ether than
 that specified te th«          pen ef 40 CFR
 Pan W or Part ei it iMeataaiy, lh« BWs
 cs«aar«iice shaO be ebitteed prier t®
 notifying the owner or apwsfor of the
 aceeptanct of the alternative test method
   *, L'poa pr,or •ppravaj  of the Director of
 we Air and Hazardswi Materials Division of
 me EPA.  Eegion V1L the Dk«tor of Us*
 J-rONH ai*y sub-delefile  the tuthsrity lo
 impJemem and enforce the NSPS aad"
 MESH APS to local air pollution control
i»p«!ncies in the *ute, when such agencies
 b»v<» demonseraied that they have equivalent
 or won itnngent program* in force. '
    S, Hit MDNR «h»Q notify At EPA of »oy
  request for t vMianee from the NSPS *nd
  .VE5HAPS «qulnncat» pnor to a»y ietioa on
  s«<± fwquwt, aad the MONK mO at no em«
  jrant » vtriaaot from any of At reqtaremeati
  of At      or           without the
  approval of the EPA.
    S. Any reqaests for WarmatioB pertaining
  to iOttt-ctn swbjec: to the NSPS or K*E5HAP5
  with waich the MDM1 caaaei comply
  btesttf* of its cs»Jld«aii»Iit^ requtrements.
  moat bt forwarded to the EPA,
    *, A new r«qB«3t for deiegaa'00 will be
         for  any f tawiwds aos wdudttl la
  At aute'i request «rf A|ffi! 18. 1S8Q. Aay
  NSPS md/9t NESHAPS promulgated by
  EPA. bat aot yet «dopt«i by tha »«», wffl be
  eBforwd by  tha EPA,
    i. If tha Director el th« Air &r>d Haxardom
  Ma ten sis Di vision det*raia« that * it«tt
  proctdaft for tsfoteinf or tmplameatini tha
  NSK or NESHAPS it iaadaquata. or ia aot
  betas effectively camtd «rt,
  nay b« twoktd la whole or te part If
  deficiencies art found ta tht MDNTR. prograo,
  the    *iB       the ^ffiNl of the»e
             will tpecify appropriate
           csaam. and will allow the
 MON1 * na.Ksi.bh tine to Implem«st ihcse
- measiirea, If thws defideades con Sin u« to
 *xi*t after the afiotttd tiat*. th* EPA »*y
 thea nwakt thia delegation. Tb« IPA wfll
 not% tit* state of It* iateot to (wvdbt tiais
 dslegsoon, and tht fteMM fwicvooitiaa. tl
 lettt IS days  prior to th* *ffteti«*  dste of tb«
 revocaooa. Asy f «eh nmentioa ihjdl bt
 effective aa of lt«t datt tpacifiad ta a •ttotfea
 of R® vocation" to tht Statt ef MUaourL
  Tke MDNR siteuld      tha «B«arrtaca
 cf th* EPA pnor to iasvlaf any ditermiiwiioa
 of th* tppiieability of tit      er
 when, there it no detr pmoideot tad it i»
 necet»ary te utttrpnt tlie rtfoktioM.
  A notici? snnQuncinf Ait dc!e-gaUon will be
 pubtiviwd  is A« f*d*»i Ra^rtv la te near
 future.
  Tii« d*)*gation to effeetiv* temediately;.
 Rew« «doBOwl«d|« »ec*pt»wt of thia
delegation, ia writinf. witMa tee ftQJ days of ,
nccipf of thfai  letter.
  If the MDN1 dsttisaimts that it can ao
longer tnforw or           ti* NSK aad/or
          it may rtfwui that the EPA
       thia delegation under Couditiofi t,
  If you bs v« tny question*. plttM canssct
mt at alB/374>W71. Th« »«moef of my ataff
who i* molt familiar with thia wbject Mr.
Craig W. Smitk fl«/3?4-eS2S, caa also
pro v id® Additional lafomatioa.
    Sincsrdy yours.
Dsvid- A. Wagoner.
Dinaer. Aif and hazaxdaui Materials
Divisions

-------
   Copies of the request for delegation of
 authority art available for public
 inspection at the Environmental
 Protection Agency, Region VH. 324 East
 llth Street Kansaj City. Missouri
   Effective immediately. *H reports,
 request*.                      and
 ether                required pwrsraaat
 to th« NSPS and
 listed in the above letter should b®
 submitted to tbe Missouri Department of
 Natural Resources, P.O. Box 1368.
 Jeffenon City, MUtouii 85101.
  Copies of nstifieatlosss required
 punmani to 40 CFE Part SO, Subpart A
 and 40 CFR Part 61, Subpsrt A si»U sko
 be stibmitted to tb® Director.
Eaforeanest Division at the EPA
regional office rot nuoaded,gbove,
  ^Thb Notice is issued under th«
au&ority of Sactioos 111 asd 112 of the
QMUB Air Act as .tmimded (42
7411 «ad 7412).
                               VH,
           FIM I~ti8-tt; &4* sssa,'
               35

-------
        5

        FOR
OF SSPS ASD
               -
36

-------
   Startdsrsi* of Psrformane* lor New
             Sources; Delegation of
   Authority to the      @i South
   Cam*1**
   AOH4CY; Eavtrojusseatal Protection
   Agency.
   ACTION: Information notice.
           : Section lll(c) el the Gets  •.
  Air Act permits EPA to delegate to the
  States the authority to          and
         At standards let oat in 40 GFE
  Part 60. Staad&rtts of Perfomjiuaw for
  New                         On
         23,      the      Of
  CamMaa asked S>A to         to It
  •othonty for NSPS        categoric*
  promuiiated between October IS,
  and January 29, 1981. EPA        the
  request on Mardi 1?, 1881. The
  sow ha* authority to'tmpieaeof
  enforce NSPS for fwromUoy produjciioa
  facilities kraft     mffls, Bss«
  majerofaetiaiaf plait*,      elevators,
         utility bofle*. *t*ti0a&ry gu
 ^ turbine*.
 *           t u.lfate pkau, and
 •atomobilt        «>«tof fadlttes,
 Application* tad
 tbes«                 bt      to the
 Sute't        of AJt QaidJty Control
            to EP A Region IV.
                       17,
            AppIiotHoas «ad
               all
 categories             prior to
 17,      lihouid be           to Ac
 Sooth Caroliaa DepErtatat of Health
                   Contttsl Bureaa of
 Air        Coatrei     lufl Street
 Goiurabm, South CaroIiJM      rather
     to            IV,
 Ray         of the EPA       IV, Air
                          404/881-
                             On
 October IS,     EPA          to
 South Carolms authority to
 •ad        the      «ad
            «s of October 18,     (set
,42 PR     }«mafy 24*      Oa
'ja»tt*ry 29*     the Slate ttquetttd that
 EPA delegate to it authority for the
 NSPS promu% a ted between October li,
 ism and January 29, 1981. Delegation of
 these ttaadard* w«s madt by the
 foEowing letter on March 17, 2981:
Mr. waika G. Crosby.

-------
    This deJtfation u b»«J apon the saint
  cottdtfiooa *« them sated Sa our letter of
  October 19, 1978, exetpt for condition 4
  fejirfffig federal faoHHes, A copy of this
  letter wm» pahUiaed in the Notices section of
  the Fedecai R*f»«r of January 24. 1SJT |4*
  FR 4iBa>,     with the associaitd
  fttksmktag noarnng the public that ceraia
  reports sad applications required from
  operators of new sources wiail b« submitted
  to fSs Slats of South Caniisa (42 FH 4124).
  AJJ the esndiagss Ustsd La the janusjy 24
  1977 F*detmi 1fat$aiut txa^jt coodilioD 4 we
  h*r«fay incorpo rased into tM$ daitfatioa by
  nfcnucc. A aotics announcing  tfals
  dotcptlea will b« publisht d io tht f ederet
  Rrpstsr IB the a«ar fctore.
        tils; delef ttion Is effective
  imsediatdy, tfaere u so need for tht Stilt Is
  es»t% EPA of to *6eept«a!. Unless we
  meeiw frem ya« writtea note of obfections
  within tea days of tilt da is on whjdi you
  rtctivcd tfal> tatter, the State of
  Quniios wfQ b«         to have accepted all
 of dat      of tli* d«J«f mtisa,
 Regime! AdrnMstmtoe.

   Effective Immediately, all
 applicaUoos, reports, and oth«
 carrespoodence required under the
 NSre for f«To«loy            ftcilJties,
 Strait pulp silk. Erne manufacturing
 plants,      elevators,, electric utility
 boilers, stationary gas torblB«s.
               plants, ammonium
 luifate plants, and sulombile surface
        facilities should be $«nt fq. the
 South          DepartecsS of Healtli
 and En¥iroa»cotal Confrol (set address
 above) rather      to the EPA legion IV
       In Atlanta.
 (Sfe, iilfe). Qe«a Mr Act (42 U.S.C 74ll(c)J
  Dated: May & im.
 l@hnA.yttk,
Acting Regtoiml ' Adamistmtor,
                    38

-------
                APPENDIX D
QUESTIONS AND
                   39

-------
                 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CONCERNING DELEGATION


I.    Preliminary Requirements for Assumption of Authority for NSPS and/or
     NESHAPS

     A.    Before delegation to a State or local agency could take place
   ,. .»•     would it be necessary for the agency to demonstrate adequacy of
          their program to:

          (1)  perform surveillance?

               A delegation request would not be required to be detailed
               concerning surveillance.  The Regional  Office may consider
               surveillance for other approved activities such as surveil-
               lance for existing sources subject to requirements contained
               in the SIP when making a determination  on the delegation
               request.   The State should have sufficient resources  to
               perform surveillance and the  RO should  carefully review
               this  aspect of the delegation,

          (2)   allow public disclosure of emissions  data?

               If the State or local  agency  cannot make  such data  avail-
               able  to the public,  they must be able and  willing  to make
               it available to EPA  upon request.

          (3)   report on  a routine  basis  to  EPA the status of NSPS and/or .
               NESH^?S sources?

               It would be necessary  for  the State to  report  routinely, but
               these  requirements would be the  same as already listed in
               40 CFR  51.

          (4)   provide adequate resources by listing in detail the resource
               allocation  for  the NSPS and NESHAPS programs?

               It may  be  that  the resources are adequate  if the State's
               general air program resources are adequate, however, this may
               depend on  the source population for the delegated programs,  A
               review of  the agency resources is necessary prior to delegation,
               Delegation  is high priority and if the State or local  agency
              or EPA feels the resources are inadequate, the grant mechanism
               shall  be used to encourage reallocation of resources for these
              delegation activities.


                                    40

-------
      (5)   enforce  NSPS  and/or  NESHAPS  in detail?

           If  the agency has an adequate enforcement program for SIP
           sources  then  the enforcement program is probably adequate for
           NSPS and/or NESHAPS  sources.  The delegated        must signify
           their intent  and capability  to carry out enforcement for the *
           delegated programs.

      (6)   have equivalent regulatory standards for NSPS and/or NESHAPS?

           The State or  local regulation for sources covered by NSPS
           and/or NESHAPS must  be at least as. stringent as the Federal
           standards or  the agency may adopt the Federal standards  by
           reference.

B". '  Can a State that has been delegated NSPS or NESHAPS:

     (1)  waive a  performance test after demonstration by the owner or
          operator of a source that the affected facility is  in compli-
          ance with the standard  as allowed under Section 60.8(b)(4}?

          Yes, but the State must notify the appropriate EPA  Regional
          Office of the waiver.

     (2)  determine representative conditions  for purposes  of conducting
          performance  tests  specified  in  Section  60.8(c)?

          Yes, however,  EPA most  be informed of  the conditions at
          which all  performance tests were  run if different than those
          normally  used.

     (3)   make determinations of  confidentiality?

          Yes,  however,  a determination by  the State agency that infor-
          mation is confidential  under  State law does  not bind EPA to
          a similar determination.   EPA will continue  to  follow the
          procedures of  40 CFR  Part 2 in determining the  confidentiality
          of requested information  under Federal law,

     {4}   approve smaller sampling  times or sampling volumes under the
          conditions specified  in Sections 60.46(b) or  (d)?

          Yes» however,  for the purpose of uniform enforcement of
          standards, any changes made in the test methods must be
          reported to EPA.

    (5)  authorize the  use of wet collectors in accordance with the
         specifications of Section 61.23(b)?

         Yes9 because control specifications are detailed.  However,
         EPA must be informed of all such authorizations*
                                41

-------
  C.    May delegations be made directly to local  programs  even  if the
       State has not received delegation?  Is -State approval  necessary for
       delegation to a local agency?

       (1)  Delegations may be made directly to local  agencies  if they
            meet all the necessary conditions for delegations and are
            recognized by EPA.

       (2)  State approval  for delegation to a  local program may not be
            necessary unless the State has      statutory  restrictions
            that would prevent the local  program  from  enforcing the
            delegated standards without State approval.

--»D.    Is  it necessary for  the request for delegation  from the State or
       local  agency  to include the date of Federal  approval for all
       applicable SIP revisions?

       No,  only  the  applicable SIP provisions must  be  cited.

 E.    Is  a  public hearing or  public comment period required prior to
       delegation for a State  to enforced  given NSPS  or NESHAPS standard?

       Because the NSPS or NESHAPS  regulations have undergone public
       comment when  they were          as  Federal regulations, and the
       delegation     not affect the  regulations or their applicability
       to sources there is no  Federal  requirement for a public hearing.
      Therefore, a  public hearing  is  not necessary unless the State has
           statutory requirements  to meet.

 F.   What is needed from the State or local agency to initiate the
      delegation process?

      A request from the Governor or a designated local  agency  official"
      requesting authority to implement and enforce the  NSPS and/or
      NESHAPS program.

 G-   Is a £M§i Register proposal necessary prior to  delegation  to a
      S ta te"tto~
      No» Immediate final  rulenaking may be used.   Then a notice  is
      published in the federal^ B®£iSl§L to notify  the  public.

 H.    Is  it possible to delegate NSPS and/or        to a State or local
      agency that does not have written- standards  for  the applicable
      sources covered and  has not adopted the standards by reference?
                                 42

-------
           Yes,  if the State or local  agency has  an  enforceable permit system,
           and they agree to specify the appropriate standards In the operating
           permit, it is  possible for the agency  to        the NSPS and/or
           NESHAPS programs.   The issued permits  do  not  have to be conditioned
           based on any EPA approval  because EPA  still retains concurrent
           enforcement authority for these standards.

     I.    If  a  test method or methods  inconsistent  with those approved by the
           Administrator  of EPA are  submitted by  a State requesting dele-
           gation, can delegation still  be granted?

           No, the State  must  agree  to  use EPA methods or an equivalent or
           alternate  test method  as  approved by the  Administrator for all
   ,-_»      sources subject  to  NSPS and  NESHAPS.   If  a State believes that its
          methods are  equivalent  to EPA methods or  are adequate for demon-
           strating compliance with  standards, then  the State may submit those
          methods  to  EPA for approval.  Until they are. approved,  however,  the
          State must agree to use the approved reference methods.

II.  Reserved Areas of Delegation
                                             * f'je:
     A.    What specific areas of the NSPS program are reserved for  the  Admini-
          strator because they require rulemaking and would  impact  on National
          consistency?  These specific areas cannot be delegated  to the State
          agency.

          (1)   The approval of equivalency for design, equipment, or  work  place
               standards  that will achieve a reduction in  emissions as  allowed
               for in Section lll(h)(3) of the CAA.   An  example of  this type
               of regulation is 60.114a.

          (2)   The approval of a waiver based on  innovative  technology  as
               allowed for in Section lll(j)^of the  CAA.

          (3)  Approval of equivalent and alternate  test methods  [60.8(b)(2)
              and (3)].

          (4)  The authority to establish alternative opacity  standards
               [60.11(e)3.

          (5)  Th® authority to issue  commercial  demonstration permits under
              .lybpart Da [60.45(a)].

          (6)  Approval of alternative  testing  times for primary aluminum
              reduction  plants  [60.195(d)l.

          (7)  Certain portions  of the  Stationary Gas  Turbines Standards
              dealing with  nitrogen fuel  allowance  [60.332{a)] and ambient
              condition  correction  factors  [60.335(a)(ii)3.
                                     43

-------
      (8)   The authority  to       applicability determinations pertaining
           to  sources  subject  to  the  NSPS and NESHAPS.  The delegated
           State agency may exercise  judgement       on the Compendium of
           Applicability  determinations  issued by EPA annually, and
           updated quarterly.  Any applicability determinations not
           explicitly  treated  in  the  EPA Compendium must be referred to
           EPA for a determination.   Also, any determinations      by the
           State agency        on  the  Compendium roust be sent to EPA for
           informational  purposes' in  order for EPA to 'maintain National
           consistency.

B.   The following questions discuss other areas not reserved for the
     Administrator that may be delegated to the State agency.

  " "  (1)  May a State authorize  the use of filtering equipment as
          explained in Section 61.23(c)?

          Yes, however,  EPA must be informed of all  such authorizations,

     (2)  May a State approve sampling techniques as specified in
          Section 61.43(a)?           *

          Yes, however,  EPA must be informed of all  such authorizations.

     (3)  May a State  use reference methods  with minor modifications  of
          methodology  like those  specified  in Section  60.8(b)(l}?

          Yes, however*  to ensure consistent use of  the test  methods,
          all  minor changes  in methodology must  be reported to  the
          appropriate  EPA Regional  Office.   This  should be done only
          when site specific conditions  preclude  the exact use of the
          test procedures.

     (4)   May  a State, which has  been delegated  NESHAPS enforcement
          authority, grant waivers of compliance  like  those specified
          in Section 61.11?

          Yes, delegation  to a State  that has a provision to grant
         waivers must be  conditioned  to allow the granting of sych
         waivers only for new standards.  The 90 day  limit for granting
         wtivers has expired  for existing standards,          waivers
              be granted within  90 days of their effective date  for
         ne^  standards,  the State must be granted the authority  in the
         delegation.
                                44

-------
 III. Implementation of NSPS and/or NESHAPS

      A.   Does a State or local agency have the authority to enforce NSPS
           and/or NESHAPS type regulations in their own regulatory framework
           even if they have not received delegation from EPA?

           Yes, nothing in the CAA restricts the State or local  agencies from
           promulgating and enforcing their own regulations.

      B.   If a State cannot or will- not use EPA test methods or equivalent
           methods*  what recourse does EPA have?

           EPA may exercise its concurrent enforcement authority and  require
           a  source  to use the EPA test method  to demonstrate compliance.
           An agreement to use EPA test         for all  sources  subject to
           the delegated programs should be      before the           are
           delegated.

      C.    Should  a  State  which has adopted standards  more stringent  than
           EPA's new source performance standards  be allowed  to  grant vari-
           ances to  meet the more stringent StaW requirement?

           Yes, as long  as  the  variances do not  prevent compliance with the
           specified Federal standards.

      D.    Is  a State prohibited  from enforcing  NSPS or  NESHAP against a
           source which commenced construction before  the effective date
           of  the delegation?

           There is no Federal  restriction on enforcing  the standards.  When
         ta program 1s delegated,  the State         responsibility for all
         'activities pertaining  to implementation and enforcement of the
           program, including any ongoing actions.  However,       States may
           have grandfathering  statutes which would allow the State to enforce
           standards  only against sources            construction after the
          State assvas responsibility.  In       cases, the Agency can
          develop a  cooperative           with the State for division of
          authority  for enforcing the standards.

IV.  Future Actions
     A.    Wtetritetlons woyld be necessary for future standards or changes
          proiwfgated by EPA in the delegation process:

          (1)  if the standards are revised by EPA?

               If the State adopted the standards by reference or used  auto-
               matic delegation, no action would be necessary on  the  part of
               the State.
                                      45

-------
      (2)  if a new or revised test method is promulgated?

           The State need only adopt the new method or an equivalent
           method.

 B.   Would a proposal for an automatic delegation be necessary  each time
      a new standard is promulgated?

      No, immediate final rulemaking may be used because the  standards
      have already been proposed for public comnent.

 C.   Does a  delegation to a State or local  agency expire?

      Nos delegation of authority has no expiration date and  therefore
      does not expire.

 0.   Is  it necessary for a State or local  agency to  request  delegation
      each time a  new standard is promulgated?

      Not if  an automatic delegation procedure  is in  effect.  The Regional
      Office  may notify the State or Iota!  program of the promulgation and
      concurrently publish a notice in  the fsdera^ Re£i_ste£ with no action
      required  by  the  State or local  program.   If automatic delegation
      is  not  in  effect,  the State has to  follow the procedures for assuming
      delegation of the  standards.

E.    Would redelegation  ever  be  necessary?

      There is no  appropriate  provision for redalegation  of a standard.
      The only time this might occur  Is if delegation were withdrawn
      from an agency for just  cause, or because some  legislative changes
      in the State  that would  not allow the delegated agency to implement
     or enforce the standards.   In this case, EPA would  assume responsi-
      bility for the programs.

     Redelegation would not apply when standards are revised or new
     standards promulgated, since the State agency would request dele-
     gation, only for the new or  revised standards and the previously
     delegated authority would remain in effect.-

F.   If EPA revises an NSPS or NESHAP after delegation has been given,
     does the standard have to be redelegated to the State?.

     No,  once a State has been delegated a program, it has the program
     until such time as EPA may determine that the State is no longer
     capable  of implementing or enforcing the program.  When regulations
     are  revised,  it is EPA's responsibility to notify the State of the
     changes, to work with the State, to provide any necessary assistance,
     and  to ensure that the legal authority to implement and enforce the
     revised  rules is maintained.
                                46

-------