KRC Comments On Revised Proposal To End Northern Kentucky Vehicle Emissions Testing

« Latest News

KRC Comments On Revised Proposal To End Northern Kentucky Vehicle Emissions Testing  Posted: January 4, 2005

Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.

Post Office Box 1070

Frankfort, Kentucky 40602

(502) 875-2428 phone (502) 875-2845 fax


January 4, 2005


John Lyons, Director

Division for Air Quality

803 Schenkel Lane By Email and mail

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601


Ms. Kay Prince, Air Programs Branch By Email and mail

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta GA 30365


Re: 401 KAR 59:760 and

Proposed SIP Revision; Northern Kentucky


Dear Mr. Lyons and Ms. Prince:


These comments are submitted on behalf of the Board and membership of the Kentucky Resources Council, Inc., in response to the solicitation of public comment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on a proposed revision to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan for the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton County 1-hour ozone maintenance plan, and adoption of a new administrative regulation, 401 KAR 59:760, Commercial motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing operations.


Through this regulation, which if adopted would require the use of high transfer-efficiency spray guns for auto body refinishing operations, and the adoption of regulatory language in 401 KAR 59:185 establishing a vapor pressure limit for solvents used in cold cleaning degreasing operations in the three counties, the Cabinet hopes to secure approval of a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) to substitute these regulations for the northern Kentucky vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the maintenance portion of the 1-hour ozone SIP.


After reviewing the text of the proposed administrative regulation, and consistent with the obligations of the Commonwealth of Kentucky under the approved State Implementation Plan, the Kentucky Resources Council (KRC) offers these comments:


1. KRC reminds the agency that unless and until the Environmental Protection Agency approves an amendment to the State Implementation Plan to remove the vehicle testing program as an approved pollution reduction measure, the approved SIP, including the vehicle testing program, must continue to be maintained and enforced as a matter of federal law. Sweat v. Hull, 200 F.Supp. 2d 1162 (D. Ariz. 2001); Clean Air Council v. Mallory, 226 F.Supp.2d 705 (E.D. Pa. 2002); Kentucky Resources Council v. US EPA, 304 F.Supp.2d 920, 930 (WD Ky. 2004). In the event that the Cabinet reverses it current interpretation and undertakes any action to terminate the Northern Kentucky Emissions Check program prior to or absent lawful approval by U.S. EPA of such a SIP revision, KRC reserves the right to initiate a citizen suit or to seek other appropriate remedies to assure that the SIP obligations are followed.


2. The proposed amendment to the current State Implementation Plan (SIP) to eliminate the I/M program as a maintenance control measure, requires that the agency demonstrate to EPA that the elimination of the measure will be offset by other comparable reductions in emissions resulting in equal or better clean air benefit, and also that the elimination of the measure will not interfere with progress towards attainment of the new 8-hour ozone standard, for which the northern Kentucky region has been designated as nonattainment. The amendment fails to satisfy both obligations.


The proposed termination of the current I/M program will result in the emission of an additional .78 tons per summer day of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and .29 tons per summer day (tpsd) of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), as well as 12.5 tons of Carbon Monoxide (CO) per summer day in year 2005, requiring that the Commonwealth identify measures to compensate for these lost reductions in that year in throughout the maintenance period.


Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act prohibits approval by the Administrator of any SIP revision that ?would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.” EPA has notified the Commonwealth of Kentucky, in the context of the belated amendment to the Jefferson County ozone SIP, that both the 1-hour ozone standard, (with which Northern Kentucky is in attainment), and the 8-hour ozone standard, (for which Northern Kentucky’s counties are designated as “nonattainment”), are “applicable requirements.”


Section 110(l) is intended to prevent backsliding in progress towards maintaining or achieving attainment of healthful air quality standards.


If the only applicable standard were the 1-hour ozone standard, in order for alternative reductions to be substituted for those obtained through a control measure in an approved SIP, those substituted reductions would need to be “equivalent emissions reductions, both locally and regionally[.]” Letter of March 19, 2004 from Beverly Bannister, Director, Air Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region IV EPA to Director, Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, p. 1. Equivalent reductions must be “surplus, quantifiable, enforceable and permanent [,]” and the revised set of controls must be shown to result in equivalent or better air quality benefits.


The 8-hour standard for ozone, and the fine particulate standard, both of which are “applicable” requirements, complicates the required demonstration by the state and complicates approval of elimination of any current control measure by EPA. Since the attainment demonstrations required of nonattainment areas (including Northern Kentucky’s counties of Boone, Campbell and Kenton) have not yet been submitted, Kentucky has not yet identified those additional reductions (if any) that will need to be achieved in order to demonstrate attainment of the more stringent 8-hour standard in the required timeframe.


EPA indicated in a May 11, 2004 letter to the Metro Louisville Air Pollution Control District that a “strict interpretation” of Section 110(l) would delay any approval of changes to SIP control measures since 110(l) would allow EPA to approve a SIP revision removing a SIP requirement only after determining through development of appropriate demonstrations that it would not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. Since that attainment demonstration was not yet made, EPA indicated a belief that such a “strict interpretation is [not] necessary or appropriate[]” and that


[p]rior to the time that attainment demonstrations are due for the new standards,

EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret 110(l) to allow substituting equivalent

emissions reductions for a control measure in the SIP. EPA believes that it

would be defensible to interpret the statute as allowing such a substitution, so

long as actual emissions in the air are not increased. We believe that this

would represent noninterference with the obligation to demonstrate attainment

of the new standards in the period prior to submission of the attainment plan. Our

Office of General Counsel advises that in order to defend this interpretation,

the equivalent reductions would have to represent actual new emissions

reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time frame to the time the

existing SIP measure is terminated, in order to preserve the status quo level of

emissions in the air. Thus, an area could not claim as substitute emissions

reductions those reductions that had already occurred and achieved actual

reductions in the air at a time not contemporaneous with the termination of the

existing SIP control measure.


The May 11, 2004 letter continued, in language that is particularly relevant to the proposed use by the Commonwealth of a portion of the “reductions” achieved with Newport Steel shut in the Wilder facility’s electric arc furnace:


Although we cannot give you a firm definition of “contemporaneous” for this

purpose, we believe a rule of reason would apply.


Finally, the May 11, 2004 letter disallowed the use of those control measures that were being installed by sources pursuant to Federal requirements as part of a Federal control measure:


Additionally, a State cannot claim a promulgated Federal control measure

for equivalent reductions. These Federal control measures will occur in any

event without any state action. Thus, such reductions would not provide

equivalent new excess reductions to substitute for termination of an existing

State program. Furthermore, without an approved attainment demonstration,

it is not known what measures the area needs in order to attain the new



With this background, KRC submits these specific comments concerning the suitability of proposed 401 KAR 59:760 as an “equivalent” control measure.


a. EPA Should Defer Approval of A SIP Revision Until the Cabinet Makes The Attainment Demonstration For the 8-Hour Ozone Standard And Demonstrates That The I/M Program Is Not Necessary To Achieve That Standard


EPA has acknowledged that a “strict” (or one might say the only plain) reading of Section 1001(l) would prohibit approval of a proposed SIP revision to remove a maintenance measure adopted to maintain the 1-hour ozone SIP, until that state had undertaken the attainment demonstration for the 8-hour ozone standard and demonstrated that the elimination of the measure would not result in interference with reasonable further progress towards attainment of the standard.


KRC believes this “strict” interpretation is the only interpretation consistent with the plain language and intent of the Act, and that removal of an approved and implemented control measure controlling both precursors of ozone and particulates, at a time when it is not known what additional reductions will be needed to attain the 8-hour ozone and fine particulates standard in the northern Kentucky airshed, is of questionable legality. Until EPA completes the guidance on what constitutes “interference” (guidance which the May 12, 2004 memo from Tom Helms to Air Program Managers indicated is under development), it is difficult to understand how the EPA could defend an ad-hoc finding of “non-interference.”


The Commonwealth’s effort to remove the I/M program prior to adopting an attainment strategy for the 8-hour standard is unwise as well. What the Commonwealth is proposing is to remove from the array of measures available to meet the new standard, a currently implemented and effective control measure, without knowing what additional reductions may be needed and what control measures are available and at what cost.


There are a limited number of available tools for reducing ozone precursors from the affected airshed. Prior to removing the I/M program from the array of available control measures, the attainment demonstration for the new standards should first be developed and the I/M program be shown to be truly surplus to those measures (either in place or to be adopted) needed to meet and maintain the new 8-hour and fine particulate standards. It would do a great disservice to the region if the I/M measure were removed in the short term, only to prove necessary (from a cost or availability standpoint) to achieve the more rigorous ozone and particulate standards, necessitating significant restart costs, a shifting of emissions control costs to other sectors, or imposition of more intrusive controls on on-road mobile sources.


Both a plain reading of Section 110(l) and SJR 3 appear to require that the Cabinet first determine whether the I/M program will be necessary for achievement of the 8-hour ozone standard prior to approval of removal of the measure from the current SIP.

The designation of the northern Kentucky counties under the 8-hour ozone standard and the fine particulate designation has now occurred. The new standards are “applicable requirements” under federal law.


Additionally, under Section 4 of SJR 3, because the area served by the Northern Kentucky Emissions Check testing program has been redesignated as nonattainment under the 8-hour ozone standard, the Cabinet is required to formulate a SIP for the ozone standard “that does not rely upon a vehicle emissions testing program, unless the same is required by law or necessary for the approval of the State Implementation Plan.” The implementation strategy for the 8-hour ozone standard does not require an I/M program as one of the mandated control measures for the nonattainment category into which the northern Kentucky counties have been designated. Whether the measure is “necessary”, however, requires the Cabinet to undertake an attainment demonstration to determine both the necessity and availability of additional control measures to achieve the newer standard.


b. Assuming That The May 11, 2004 Interpretation Is Permissible, The Proposed SIP Amendment Falls Short of Providing Equivalent, Surplus, Quantifiable, Permanent And Enforceable Emissions Reductions To Offset The Loss Of The I/M Reductions


Assuming, for the sake of argument that the EPA interpretation of Section 110(l) is a permissible one and that in the absence of the attainment demonstration for the 8-hour standard, control measures for the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan can be removed and other reductions substituted, the Commonwealth’s submittal fails to provide equivalent, surplus, quantifiable and enforceable emissions reductions to offset those lost in the event of shutdown of the I/M program.


If the I/M program terminated, approximately ¾ of a ton of additional VOCs and almost 1/3 of ton of additional NOx will be present in the summer air each day than would have been present had the I/M program been continued.


As mentioned previously, to change an accepted control strategy in the SIP, there must be a demonstration of how air quality will be affected both locally and in applicable downwind area for the applicable criteria pollutants. The proposal must demonstrate that the revised strategy or set of controls will result in equivalent or better air quality benefits. The submission by the Commonwealth fails to do so.


i. Newport Steel Reductions Cannot Be Used


In comments submitted on August 12, KRC argued that the Commonwealth’s proposal to take credit for the shutdown of the electric arc furnace from the Newport Steel Wilder facility in order to produce .07 tpd VOC and .29 tpd NOx credits, was inappropriate since the reductions were not contemporaneous with the cessation of the VET program, and also because the use of historical emissions numbers is inappropriate since, if the facility had restarted, actual emissions would have been lower under the terms of a pending enforcement order.


By letter dated August 31, 2004, EPA Region IV informed the Commonwealth that the proposed Newport Steel Emission reductions could not be used since they had occurred more than three years prior to the emission increases expected from the planned closure of the VET program. KRC incorporates its prior comments on this topic and urges EPA to maintain its position concerning the use of Newport Steel emissions reductions.


ii. Reliance On NOx SIP Call Reductions Would Be Inappropriate


As argued in the August 12, comments, KRC believes that any reliance by the state or EPA on reductions in NOx emissions that will occur due to controls being installed by utilities in response to the NOx SIP Call would be inappropriate. While there are regional reductions being achieved in NOx emissions that may benefit nonattainment areas by reducing boundary emissions, it is inappropriate to rely on those reductions to offset the losses in emissions reductions from terminating the I/M program.


The legal reasons that the “NOx SIP Call” reductions cannot be used are twofold – first, the reductions would not be considered “permanent” or “enforceable” absent an Agreed Order from a utility pledging to make the compliance strategy permanent, coupled with permanent retirement of equivalent NOx allowances; and second, the reductions are (as noted in the May 11, 2004 EPA letter) not surplus, since the reductions occurred under a federally promulgated requirement and would have occurred notwithstanding.


Additionally, assuming that the use of those NOx emission reductions were appropriate, appropriate modeling and analysis would be needed to demonstrate that reductions of NOx from utility stack height emissions would yield the same or better air quality benefit in ozone formation reduction as from ground-level exhaust emissions of VOCs and NOx.


iii. The Commonwealth Has Not Demonstrated That Proposed Reductions Due To 401 KAR 59:185 Are Surplus, Quantifiable, Or Enforceable


The Division for Air Quality proposes to rely on recently-adopted 401 KAR 59:185 establishing a vapor pressure limit for solvents used in cold cleaning degreasing operations in the three counties, to generate .71 tpsd of VOC reductions to offset much of what would be lost from terminating the I/M program.


The use of these proposed reductions is questionable for a number of reasons, but before turning to those reasons, KRC expresses a continuing frustration with the lack of state response to basic information requests necessary for commenters or EPA to determine whether the reductions claimed to follow from these proposed revisions will in fact occur.


By e-mail letter dated July 27, 2004, KRC requested of the Division of Air Quality certain information needed to assess the proposed SIP Amendment. The letter stated in pertinent part:


I am also writing to inquire as to the documentation supporting the calculations in the SIP revision. Specifically, I would appreciate a response to these requests and a copy of any supporting documentation that would answer these questions:


* * * *


7. What is the basis for the Cabinet's assumption that implementing a cold cleaning degreasing regulation will yield 1.34 tons per day of reductions in the three northern Kentucky counties?


8. Does the Cabinet possess an inventory of suppliers and users of these solvents who would be affected by the regulation?


9. Does the Cabinet have supporting documentation concerning the number of "sources" overall that will be affected; the number of gallons of solvent(s) used in the processes of those sources, and which sources may already have installed the storage, use and recovery procedures that would be required by the regulation?


9 (sic). How does the Cabinet intend to monitor and enforce the regulation? Will permits be required for sources using cold cleaning degreasing solvents? How frequently will such facilities be inspected?


10. How will the Cabinet determine and demonstrate that the claimed reductions are being achieved?


Thank you in advance for providing answers to the questions and the supporting documentation necessary to determine whether the proposed SIP revision will provide, as it is required to, permanent, surplus, enforceable and equivalent reductions sufficient to offset the lost emissions reductions of CO, NOx and VOC from ending the vehicle testing program.


I am copying EPA Region IV with this information request, and requesting of that agency that to the extent that the answers and supporting documentation are not available, that the SIP revision request be deemed incomplete pending development and submittal of such documentation.


The agency response, in a letter dated July 30, 2004, was that


we consider this part of your letter to be a submission with the public comment

period and will respond to your questions when the comment period expires at

the end of August.


With all due respect. the items identified by KRC are not merely comments but are informational items essential to a determination by the public and by EPA as to whether the proposed SIP revision meets the requirements of Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Due to the failure of the agency to include that information in its SIP submittal package, the revision should be determined to be incomplete unless and until the information is produced and made public.


Based on the limited information provided by the state and the additional information available from the public record, KRC submitted comments on August 12, 2004 concerning the proposal to use the amendments to 401 KAR 59:185 as substitutes for the reductions lost from terminating the I/M program.


Among the reasons that the proposed emissions reductions from amendments to 401 KAR 59:185 do not appear to be appropriate for use are these:


a. The proposed reductions from the current form of the regulation are not surplus. 401 KAR 59:185 is, to the best that commenter can determine, a part of the current SIP, having been approved on June 23, 1994. (59 F.R. 32343). As a current control measure that is part of the SIP, such emissions reductions as may have been achieved by the past application of the regulation when the area was nonattainment and those yet being achieved cannot be considered new or surplus. Only such reductions are can be demonstrated to be surplus, enforceable, quantifiable and permanent from the amendments to the regulation (if any) would be available.


b. The Commonwealth has failed to demonstrate that the proposed amendments to the existing regulation will yield quantifiable, enforceable and permanent reductions.


The emissions factors used to project current emissions from cols solvent degreasing are not grounded in actual use data, but appear to have been based on generalized per-capita estimates. There has been no inventory provided to the public for review, of facilities that are actually currently using solvent-based degreasing processes, whether those facilities are operating at higher vapor pressures, nor of facilities selling such solvents for use by facilities in the area. The actual usage and emissions from solvent-based degreasing has not been assessed, and the applicability of historic emissions data has not been validated.


The proposed amendments lack enforceability as well. The Cabinet has not adopted a permitting or licensing process for area sources emitting VOCs from cold solvent degreasing processes by which to determine compliance of users with the vapor pressure and workplace limits. No indication has been provided of the number, location, size and type of degreasing equipment and processes used by actual facilities within the affected counties, nor of the manpower needed to conduct compliance inspections of the facilities to determine whether the new vapor pressure limits will be met. Absent the most rudimentary information concerning solvent sales and usage, the proposed amendments are not enforceable, and actual emissions reductions are not quantifiable. The proposed restrictions and reporting obligations on solvent vendors is likewise problematic absent a demonstration of how such users (located both within and outside the affected area) will be identified, how reporting and vapor limits compliance will be monitored, and how limits will be enforced as a practical matter.


Finally, assuming that the Commonwealth provides documentation of actual reductions that will be achieved, an inventory or sources and vendors, and mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance in order to yield real, quantifiable and permanent reductions, the proposed regulation amendment provides that compliance with the new vapor pressure limits will not be required until December 15, 2007 for sources that become subject to the regulation. The SIP Amendment provides no offsetting reductions for those lost by terminating the I/M program at the end of 2004 and until the enhanced regulation becomes enforceable.


In short, the quantifiable, enforceable emissions reductions of the I/M program are proposed to be replaced by a regulatory measure that assumes the current level of emissions based on generalized per-capita assumptions rather than a genuine inventory, and proposes new regulatory limits on an as-yet unidentified regulated population of vendors and users with no proposed strategy for enforcement and monitoring of the new limits.


EPA, in its August 31, 2004 letter, provided no comments concerning the adoption of this regulation or whether the proposed reductions would be considered acceptable to offset in part the loss of the VET program, and whether the reductions would satisfy Section 110(l). KRC assumes EPA will provide such comments during the formal federal review process, since it will be obligated to respond to these and other comments in determining whether to approve the state submittal. 5 U.S.C. 553.


iv. For Reasons Consistent With Those Express Above, The Adoption Of Proposed

401 KAR 59:760 Does Not Satisfy The States’ Obligation To Provide Offsetting

Reductions That Are Quantifiable, Enforceable And Permanent.


The proposed regulation, 401 KAR 59:760, according to the Cabinet’s description, will “require the use of high transfer-efficiency spray guns for auto body refinishing operations.


The regulation will apply, by its terms, to “new and existing commercial motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing operations in Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties.” The regulation requires that, after February 1, 2005, a person applying a finish to mobile equipment shall use one of 9 enumerated methods of applying finishes to mobile equipment, or any other method demonstrated to be equivalent in emissions reductions to HVLP or electrostatic spray application methods.


By February 28, 2005, sources “subject to this regulation” shall submit documentation to substantive that “high efficiency transfer application techniques of coatings are in use at their facility.”


The problems with utilizing this regulation as a substitute for the known, quantifiable, enforceable and permanent reductions achieved through the continuation of the VET program, are many.


Initially, from the scant Regulatory Impact Analysis provided by the agency, it is impossible to determine the level of current compliance with the high efficiency transfer application techniques within the regulated population. When asked to list the types and number of individuals and businesses affected, the Cabinet responded summarily that “approximately 70 businesses” will be affected. The type of businesses affected is not disclosed.


It is apparent from the Regulatory Impact Analysis that the agency does not know the level of current compliance within the regulated population with the high transfer efficiency application requirements, since in answering how the businesses will be impacted, the agency answered “[t]hose that must purchase new spray guns will quickly recoup their investment by reducing material consumption by as much as 60%.” The answer presumes that some, at least, already use application equipment that would meet the regulation. Depending on the extent to which the newly-regulated population already has achieved these reductions, the claim that adoption of this standard will result in new, contemporaneous, offsetting reductions for the end of the VET program may be largely illusory.


Absent an inventory of affected facilities and the current regulatory and emissions status of those facilities, the proposal to substitute this regulation for the known reductions achieved in the VET program falls short of the mark. The agency must demonstrate that adoption of the regulation will result in real, contemporaneous reductions comparable in impact to those lost from termination of the program.1


Additionally, the proposed regulation lacks enforceability. The Cabinet has not adopted a permitting or licensing process for area sources emitting VOCs from commercial motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing operations, nor has the agency provided a meaningful explanation of the manpower needed to conduct compliance inspections of the facilities to determine whether the new requirements will be met. Absent the most rudimentary information concerning the number of affected facilities and their emissions profile and regulatory status, the proposed amendments are not enforceable, and actual emissions reductions are not quantifiable.


The Commonwealth must provide documentation of actual reductions that will be achieved, an inventory of affected sources, and the mechanisms that will be used to monitor and enforce compliance in order to yield real, quantifiable and permanent reductions. The “equivalent” reductions must represent “actual new emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time frame to the time the existing SIP measure is terminated[,]” and it is unclear whether any new reductions will in fact be achieved.


v. The Proposed Regulation Is Ambiguous In Its Coverage


It is less than clear from the proposed regulation what aspects of the application of VOC-containing compounds to mobile equipment is intended to be regulated by the new regulation.


The regulation is, according to Section 2, applicable to “all commercial motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing operations” in Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties.

Section 1 defines “commercial motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing operation” as one applying a coating containing a VOC as a pre-treatment, primer, sealant, basecoat, clear coat or topcoat to “mobile equipment for commercial purposes.” Mobile equipment is defined as any equipment that may be drawn or is capable of being driven on a roadway” including cars, trucks, and the like.


Section 3 requires that any commercial motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing operation use one of the listed or a comparable technique “to apply any finish to mobile equipment” yet does not define “finish.” It is unclear whether the regulation intends that any coating containing a VOC and applied as a pre-treatment, primer, sealant, basecoat, clear coat or topcoat” be subject to the efficiency standard of 10 psig or less, or whether some subset of that list of coatings is intended to be regulated in application. A definition of the term “finish” or the substitution of the term “any VOC-containing coating” is needed to clarify the scope.


The propose exemptions are likewise of concern, since the term “application of automotive touch-up repair and refinishing materials” can be read to exclude all application of automotive . . . refinishing materials.” The logic for excluding (1) and (3) must be explained, since they appear broad enough to exclude complete re-coating of vehicles under the rubric of “airbrushing” or “touch-up” refinishing.


Finally, Section 5 is confusing in two respects. First, it introduces the term “high efficiency transfer application techniques” but does not define the term. Second, it appears to conflict with the exemptions in Section 4, since it requires that “high efficiency transfer application techniques” be employed by all “sources subject to the provisions of this regulation” rather than limiting the requirement to those coating applications subject to Sections 2 & 3 of the regulation.




In closing, KRC recognizes that the existing I/M program has vocal opponents, as well as many quiet supporters who understand that notwithstanding the minor annoyance of having one’s car periodically tested, achieving healthful air quality requires reductions from on-road mobile sources as well as other sources of ozone pollutant precursors, and that vehicle maintenance monitored through I/M programs is part of the emission control equation.


The wisdom of eliminating I/M programs from the array of available controls is a matter to be debated in the arena of politics, public health and economic policy. Reductions in ozone pollution impose economic costs on sources, just as non-control imposes costs on the public in the form of increased illness and pollution-related death. Within legal limits, a community must decide whether the costs of non-maintenance of cars should be paid by small or large businesses, which is the result of the proposed strategy in the SIP amendment.


The legality of eliminating the current I/M program as a control measure, however, depends on demonstrations of equivalency in pollution reductions achieved elsewhere and non-interference with achievement of health-based air quality goals. The Commonwealth’s submittal falls short in both regards and cannot be approved as submitted. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.





Tom FitzGerald



cc: Carl Millanti, DAQ,

John Gowins, DAQ,


1 The proposal must also demonstrate through appropriate modeling that the substitution of this and the companion regulation, which seek to control VOCs and to substitute those reductions for the lost VOC and NOx controls from the VET program, will result in equivalent reductions in ozone formation.



By Kentucky Resources Council on 01/04/2005 5:32 PM
« Latest News