COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

### ENVIRONMENTAL AND 

### PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CAPITAL PLAZA TOWER FRANKFORT KENTUCKY 40601 TELEPHONE: (502) 564-3350 August 24,2004

Mr. James I. Palmer, Jr. Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 Dear Mr. Palmer: On February 20, 2004, Kentucky submitted to EPA recommended attainmenthonattainmentdesignationsfor PM25 in accordancewith Section 107ofthe Clean Air Act. Kentucky's recommendation was based on EPA's guidance criteria that was available at the time. Kentucky felt confident of the information submitted and fully anticipated EPA's concurrencewith Kentucky's recommendations. On June 29,2004, Kentuckyreceived EPA's modified recommendations for designations under the PM2.5standard. It was troubling to find that EPA had used different emissions data fiom those which had been recommended for use by states in their submissions. Further, an emissions weighting scoring methodology which had not previously been made available to states was utilized by EPA in making its recommendations. To date, EPA has not fully advised Kentucky as to exactlyhow this weighted emissions scoring was applied to its decision making process. This obviouslyleaves the state with a difficult task in providing further informationon the additional countiesthat EPA has recommended fornonattainmentdesignation. Kentucky is also greatly concernedthat EPA has proposed nonattainment designationsof some counties due to the presence of a coal-fired electric generating unit within their borders. This approach is being applied to all counties within a Metropolitan Statistical Area with monitored nonattainment, as well as, those counties adjacent to those areas. Since EPA has previously stated that the implementation ofthe Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) combined with additional national programs to lower the sulfur content in gasoline and diesel will bring most areas into attainment with the fine particulate standard and preclude the need for local control strategies, it seems unnecessary to impose additional planning and reporting burdens on such counties. In fact many of these counties are rural in nature and free of any major industry beyond the single coal-fired electric generating unit. Such an approach will unnecessarily and arbitrarily impose the stigma of non-attainment and subject the area to requirements that could have serious adverse economicimpactsMr. James 

### I. Palmer, Jr. Page 2 August 24,2004

In keeping with the spirit of the 120-day consultationperiod provided by the Clean Air Act, Kentucky submitsherewith additional informationto support its original recommendation. Based on a detailed analysis of EPA's June 29, 2004 response, Kentucky is of the opinion that only the urban counties ofJefferson and Fayette should be designated as not meeting the annual fine particulate standard. Additional information is enclosed that supports the following designationrecommendations: 

### DESIGNATION 

### Comm Nonattainment Jefferson Nonattainment Fayette(partial) Attainment Rest of State Kentucky will comply with the Clean Air Act and cooperate with U.S. EPA in improvement of air quality for the citizens ofthe Commonwealth. However, Kentucky remains concerned about the potential impact of nonattainment designations since implementation requirements fornonattainmentareashavenot yetbeen determined. Please call me ifyou have any questions. My staffwill be contactingBeverly Banisterto request an opportunity for a face-to-face meeting to discuss the additional information we are providing. Sincerely,

~a.bda S. Wilcher Secretary LSW/cam Enclosure c: BeverlyBanister Lloyd Cress John Lyons Lona BrewerFebruary20,2004



### Mr. James

### I. Palmer, Jr. Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region4 AtlantaFederal Center 61Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 Dear Mr. Palmer: On May 21, 2003, you no1 tified Kentucky's Governor that proposed bouncdary designations under the new PM2.5 fine particulate standard were due by February 

### 15, 2004. At that time, EPA recommended that statesuse 2000-2002 fineparticulatemonitoring data to make those recommendations. Your office transmitted guidance dated April 1, 2003, fkom Jeffrey Holmstead setting presumptive nonattainment boundaries and offering states an opportunity to address several factors in assessing whether to exclude portions of metropolitan areas fiom nonattainrnent designation. EPA has yet to release draft implementationguidance on what the potential impacts may be for areas designated 

### as nonattainmentunder the new fineparticulate standard. States will be faced with many challenges implementing 

### this standard. Having no clear guidance on implementationissues associated 

### with these designationsimpedes our abilityto explainpotential impactsofthe designationsto our local communities. Nonetheless, section 107 ofthe Clean Air Act requires states to propose designationsfor areas within their respective boundaries, 

### as attainment or nonattainment areas. In order to comply with those provisions 

### in the Act, Kentucky offers the following designation recommendations under the PM2, standard. Supporting documentation, based on EPA's guidance criteriais enclosed.

### James. I. 

### Palmer Page 2 February20,2004



### Desienation Countv Nonattainment 

### ona attainment Jefferson Fayette DeferDesignation Boyd Attainment Rest ofState You will note that Kentucky has chosen to defer designation of Boyd County as either attainment or nonattainment for PM,,,. This is due to the significant variations in the ambient monitoring data, the substantial decline in emissions within Boyd County, and the current anticipatedimprovementsin air qualityin the tri 

### statemetropolitan statistical area over the next two years. As these improvements will be achieved well before any control plans might conceivably be implemented, it appears premature to make a determination for Boyd County at this time. Jefferson and Fayette Counties are designated as 

### nonattainment, and all remaining counties are designatedas 

### attainment. Kentucky wishes to comply with the Act and cooperate with U.S. EPA to improve and 

### preserve air 

### quality for the citizens of the Commonwealth. We remain concerned about the environmental and economic impacts of implementation of this standard, since implementation requirementsforthese areas are still being debated on anational level. Therefore, I

### urge EPA to completeitsimplementationguidelines asquicklyandjudiciously as possible. Please call me ifyou have anyquestionsorwould liketo discuss in 

### greaterdetail. Sin ely, 

# 7

Secretary Enclosure

c: KayPrince JohnLyons LonaBrewer