Steven L. Beshear 

Governor 

Energy and Environment Cabinet Leonard K. Peters 

De~artment for Environmental Protection Secretary 

Division for Air Quality 

200 Fair Oaks Lane, 1st Floor 

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 -1403 

www.air.ky.gov 

February 8,20 11 

Ms. Gwen Keyes Fleming 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 303 03-8960 

Dear Ms. Fleming, 

The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet hereby requests that the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) approve the enclosed amended regulation as a revision to the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP). The amended Regulation 2.05, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality, Version #lo, incorporates the requirements 

of, and are no less stringent than, the federal PSD regulation as codified in 40 CFR 52.2 1. 

A public comment period was held from September 18, 2010, through October 18, 201 0, during 

which comments were received. A public hearing regarding this SIP revision was conducted by the 

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (APCD) on November 17,2010. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 5 1.103(a), two hard copies and a disc containing all documents are included, 

and an electronic version of this submittal has been provided. 

The Cabinet appreciates your prompt response to this request. If you have any further questions 

or concerns regarding this submittal, please contact Laura Lund at (502) 564-3999, ext. 4428, or 

Laura-Lund@ky.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Leonard K. Peters 

Secretary 

Cc: Dick Schutt 

Lynorae Benjamin 

I~KP/Il 

Enclosures 

An Equal Opportunity Employer MlFlD 
GREG FISCHER 

MAYOR 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 

LAUREN ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

January 20,20 1 1 

Mr. John Lyons, Director 

Division for Air Quality 

200 Fair Oaks Lane, lSf Floor 

Frankfort, KY 4060 1 

Dear Mr. Lyons: 

The Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (APCD) requests that the enclosed material for 

amended Regulation 2.05 Prevention of Signcjicant Deterioration of Air QualiQ be submitted to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to the Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

On January 14,201 1, the EPA made a finding that APCD failed to submit a revision to its portion of 

Kentucky's EPA-approved SIP to satisfj requirements of the Clean Air Act to apply Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements to greenhouse gas-emitting sources and, subsequently, 

established a federal implementation plan (FIP) to apply in Jefferson County, Kentucky. This submission 

corrects the SIP deficiency; as such, APCD requests that EPA approve the revisions and rescind the FIP. 

The enclosed material is comprised of the following: 

1. Administratively complete package of Amended Regulation 2.05 Prevention of Sign$cant 

Deterioration ofAir Quality, Version #9, adopted May 20, 2009. Version # 8 of Amended 

Regulation 2.05 Prevention of SigniJcant Deterioration of Air Quality, is currently in 40 CFR 

$52.920(c) EPA-Approved JefSerson County Regulations for Kentucky. APCD has no record that 

EPA approved the SIP revision request for Version #9, submitted by DAQ on July 1,2009. As a 

courtesy, the request is included in this package. 

2. Letter (and attachments) submitted by APCD on November 17,20 10 requesting that EPA 

approve Version 9. 

3. Administratively complete package of Amended Regulation 2.05 Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality, Version # 1 0, adopted November 17,20 10. 

Enclosed are two paper copies and two CD7s, one of each for the EPA and one of each for the Kentucky 

Division for Air Quality @AQ).Your prompt consideration of this request is appreciated. If you have any 

questions or comments, please contact Ms. Cynthia Lee, Environmental Manager, at (502) 574-7217. 

Sincerelv. 

Lauren Anderson 

Executive Director 

Enclosures 

wmv.louisvilleky.gov 

WWW.LOUISVILLEKY.GOV/APCD 850 BARRET AVENUE, ROOM 205 LOUISVILLE, KENT 
Completeness Checklist and PollutantJArea Identification 

Regulation 2.05, Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

1. Submission Letter 

2. PollutantlArea Identification 

3. Regulation 2.05 Version 9 SIP submission (July 2009) 

4. Regulation 2.05 Version 9 - Revision request letter 

5. Regulation 2.05 Version 10 (December 201 0) 

a. Regulation - RedlineIStrikeout version 

b. Regulation - Final version 

c. Regulatory Impact Assessment 

d. Policy Committee Meeting Notice and Minutes 

e. Public Notice - Comment Period 

f. Public Notice - Public Hearing 

g. Public Hearing Minutes 

h. CommentResponse Document 

i. Board Minutes 

j . Regulation Tracking Form 

PollutantIArea Identification 

Pollutant: All 

Affected Area: Jefferson County, Kentucky 

Location: Louisville MSA 

Area Designation: Nonattainment - Annual PM2.5; 

Attainment - all other pollutants 

Resulting Emissions Changes: Refer to section 3 above. 

Increase 

Decrease 
- 

Air Pollution Control District 

of Jefferson County, Kentucky 

SIP Revision Submittal 

Regulation 2.05 v915-20-09 

June 19,2009 
I JERRY E. ABRAMSON 

MAYOR 

Mr. John Lyons, Director 

Division for Air Quality 

200 Fair Oaks Lane, 1 * Floor 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 

LAUREN ANDERSON, MECUWEDIRECTOR 

June 19,2009 

I Dear Mr. Lyons: 

The Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County (District) requests that the enclosed 

materia1 be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency @PA) as a revision to the 

Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP). Enclosed are two 

paper copies md two cd's, one of each for the EPA and one of each for the Kentucky Division for 

Air Quality @AQ. 

I The enclod material is comprised of the following: 

1. Amended ReguIation 2.05 Prevention of Signzj?cant Deterioration of Air Qua&, 

Version #9, adopted May 20,2009, effective June 20,2009. This amended regulation 

would replace Version #8 (June 19,2002) that is currently in 40 CFR §52.92(c) EPAApproved Jeflwsoon County RegzIatiom for Kentucky. 

I 2. Tfie supporting documentation demonstrating legal adoption of these regulations by the 

Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson County. 

The District thanks you in advauce for your and your staff's cooperation and assistance If you have 

any questions regarding this request please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Cynthia H- Lee, 

Environmental Manager, at (502) 574-721 7 or me. 

Sincerely, 

a 

Executive Director 

(502) 574-6009 

www.louisvilleky.gov 

\VWW.LOUISVILLEKY.GO\zIAPC~ 8 50 BARRET AVENUE, ROOM 255 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40204-1 745 502.574.6000 PAX: 502.574.5 306 
Mr. John Lyons 

Jme 9,2009 

Page 2 

Enclosures 

Cc wlo Enclosure: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, EPA-4 

Ms. Cynthia H. Lee 
Completeness Checklist 

Regulation 2.05 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

1. Submission Letter 

2. Pollutant/Area Identification 

3. Regulation - Redline/Sbrikeout version 

4. Regulation - Final version 

5. Regulatory Impact Assessment 

6. Committee Meeting Minutes 

7. Fkblic Notice - Comment Period 

8. Public Notice - Public Hearing 

9. Public Hearing Minutes 

1 0. CommentlResponse Document 

1 1. Board Minutes 

12. Adoption Procedures Checklist 

PollutanC/Area Identification 

Pollutant: All 

Affected Area: Jefferson County, Kentucky 

Location: Louisville MSA 

Area Designation: Nonattainment - hual PM2.5; 

Attainment - all othex pollutants 

Area SIP Status: Ozone - maintenance, PMzs - pending 

Resulting Emissions Changes: N/A 

Increase 

Decrease 
Version #9, Drajft #3-Proposed May 20,2009 

[If adopted, this will amend Iiegulation 2.05 v.8/6-19-02] 

REGULATION 2.05 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 

Jefferson County, Kentucky 

Relates To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Pursuant To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Necessity and Function: KRS 77.280 authorizes the Air Pollution Control Board to adopt and 

enforce all orders, rules, and regulations necessary or proper to accomplish the purposes of KRS 

Chapter 77. This regulation, which adopts the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of 

Air Quality program, provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality where 

the national ambient air quality standards have been achieved. 

SECTION 1 General Provisions 

40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of SigniJicm Deterioration of Air Quality CJuZv I, 2008 2004) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference with the following changes: 

1.1 Subsecrion @fl) Plan disauuroval is not incoroorated 

1.2 The term 'fudm*nis.iraforfr as it appears in 40 CFR 52.21 shall mean the LouisviIIe 

Metro Air Pollution Control District fiereinafler "Disirid"), except that: 

1.2.1 In subnarama~h fb)(3)(iii) (relating to "nef emissions increaset'), shall Pnean 

either the District or the Administrdor of the United States Environmental 

Protectrion Apencv (USEPA). 

1.2.2 In the fallow in^ subsections. it shall continue to mean fhe Admhislrutor of the 

USEPA: 

1.2.2.1 (b)fl7), 

1.2.2.2 &)(3 7)(i), 

1.2.2.3 (6)(43), 

1.2.2.4 O(48) (ii), 

1.2.2.5 fb)/SO)fil, 

1.2.2.6 (b)t51), 

1.2.2.7 (a), 

1.2.2.8 Of2), 
Version #9, Draz #3-Proposed Mq 20,2009 

[Ifadopted this will amed Regulafion 2.05 v.8/6-19-02] 

1.2.2.10 (t). 

1.3 Subsection (c) Ambient air increments shall have the followina sentences added at the 

end: "No sinde new or modified stationary source may consume an inordinate 

portion of the avdable increment, as determined bv the Board me Board mav 

consider air qualitv and economic imacts on the comunitv in determinim the 

apvropriate amount of increment allowed for a new or modified stationaw source." 

1.4 Subsection (h)(l) shall read- "The decree of emission limitation required for control of 

anv air pollutant under this se&'on shall not be affected in any manner by a dispersion 

technique pursuanf to District Regulation 2.10 Stack Heipht Considerations." 

1.5 Subsection is added and shall read: "The Board may reauire an increase in the 

stack heipht of o proposed new source or modificah'on if the applicant's modeling 

demonsiration indicates an inordinate amount of increment consumvtion. In no event 

shall such increased stack heidt exceed the stack heizht allowed for the modeling 

demonstration pursuant to subsection (;h)(l) ofthis Bemlation. " 

1.6 Subsection fa) Public ~articipation is not incorporated The District shall follow the 

1.7 Subsection (s) Environmental im~act statement is not incornorated 

1.8 Subsection fu) Delegation of authority is not incornorated 

1.9olIuwinp sections of 40 CFR 52.21 are not incornorated herein: 

1.9.1 The second sentence of Of2)(iiii)fa), 

1.9.2 /b)f55), 

1.9.3 /b)f56), 

1.9.4 (6)(57t 

1.9.5 (b)f58), 

1.9.6 fee). 

1.10 The fiecutive Director of the District shall transmit to the Administrator of the 

USEPA a co~v of each permit applicafion filed under this readdion and shall notitj? 

2.05-2 
Version #9, Duaff #3-Proposed May 20,2009 

flfadopted, this will amend Regulation 2.05 ~.8/6-19-02] 

the Ad~ninisfrator of the USEPA of each si'nificanl adion the Executive Director 

takes on the avnlicaiion. 
Vmion #9, Drag? #3-Proposed May 20,2009 

[If abpted, this will amend Regulation 2.05 v-8%-19-02] 
Version #9, DPaP #3-f roposed May 20,2009 

[If awed, this will amend Regulation 2.05 v.816-19-02] 
Version #9, Draft #3-Proposed May 20,2009 

[Ifadopted this will amend Regulation 2.05 v.8/6-19-02] 

Adopted v114-19-72; effective 4- 19-72; amended vZ6- 13-79, ~314-21-82, v4/11- 16-83, v514-16- 

86, ~612-17-88, ~7/4-19-89, ~8/6-19-02, v9/ 
REGULATION 2.05 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 

Jefferson County, Kentucky 

Relates To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Pursuant To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Necessity and Function: KRS 77.180 authorizes the Air Pollution Control Board to adopt and 

enforce all orders, rules, and regulations necessary or proper to accomplish the purposes of KRS 

Chapter 77. This regulation, which adopts the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of 

Air Quality program, provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality where 

the national ambient air quality standards have been achieved. 

SECTION 1 General Provisions 

40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of Significant Deterior&ion of Air Qualify (July 1, 2008) is adopted 

and incorporated by reference with the following changes: 

1.1 Subsection (a)( 1) Plan disapproval is not incorporated. 

1.2 The term "administrator" as it appears in 40 CFR 52.21 shall mean the Louisvilfe Metro 

Air Pollution Control District (hereinafter "District"), except that: 

1.2.1 Ln subparagraph (b)(3)(iii) (relating to "net emissions increase"), it shall mean either 

0 the District or the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). 

1.2.2 In the following subsections, it shall continue to mean the Administrator of the 

USEPA: 

: .2.2.1 @I0 71, 

1.2.2.2 (bX3 7)(i), 

1.2.2.3 fb)(43)? 

1.2.2.4 (b)(48)(ii), 

1.2.2.5 (b)(So)(i), 

1.22.6 (bX5 11, 

1.22.7 (g), 

1.2.2.8 (lm 

1.2.2.9 (397 

1.2.2.10 (0. 

Subsection (c) Ambient air increments shalI have the following sentences added at the 

end: "No single new or modified stationary source may consume an inordinate portion of 

the available increment, as determined by the Board. The Board may consider air qualiiy 

and economic impacts on the community in determining the appropriate amount of 

increment allowed for a new or modified stationary source." 

Subsection @)(I) shall read: "The degree of emission limitation required for control of 

any air pollutant under this section shdl not be affected in any manner by a dispersion 

technique pursuant to District Regulation 2.10 Stack Height C~nsider~ons.~' 

Subsection Q(3) is added and shall read: "The Board may require an increase in the 

2.05-1 
stack height of a proposed new source or modification if the applicant's modeling 

demonstration indicates an inordinate amount of increment consumption. in no event 

shall such increased stack height exceed the stack height allowed for the modeling - 

demonstration pursuant to subsection (h)(l) of this Regulation." 

Subsection (q) Public parfic@ation is not incorporated. The District shall follow the 

applicable public participation procedures in District Regulation 2.07. 

Subsection (s) Environmental impact statement is not incorporated. 

Subsection (u) Delegation of authority is not incorporated. 

The following sections of 40 CFR 52.21 are not incorporated herein: 

The second sentence of (b)(2)(iii)(a), 

(b)(55), 

@)(56)> 

(b)(57), 

(b)(58), w* 

The Executive Director of the District shall transmit to the Administrator of the USEPA a 

copy of each permit application filed under this regulation and shall notify the 

Administrator of the USEPA of each significant action the Executive Director takes on 

the application. 

Adopted v114-19-72; effective 4-1 9-72; amended v2/6-13-79, v3/4-21-82, v4/11-16-83, ~514- 16- 

86, ~60-17-88, ~7/4-19-89, ~8/6-19-02, ~915-20-09. 0 
Purpose of the Draft Proposed Action: 

The purpose of the draft proposed action is to update the existing regulation to be consistent with 

the current EPA prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulation (40 CFR 52.2 1 (July 1, 

2008)). The draft proposed action incorporates the federal PSD regulation, including the 

provisions for permits based on plant-wide applicability limits (PALS). 

The proposed amended regulation specificalIy exciudes those sections of 40 CFR 52.21 stayed by 

court order. 

Estimated Costs and Savings: 

The draft proposed action does not change the cost or savings associated with meeting the current 

federal requirements. 

Feasibility of All AIternatives: 

There are no alternatives available; these changes are required by EPA. 

Comparison with Any Minimum or Uniform Standards: 

There are no changes in the draft proposed action that are inconsistent with the federal 

requirements. Any differences are included in the current District regulation. 

3 

Report on Public Outreach Efforts: 

A notice of Soma1 review was sent to various members of the community, EPA Region 4, and 

the Kentucky Division for Air Quality. A legal notice of a public comment period was published 

in the Courier-Journal on February 20,2009; comments were received through March 23,2009. 

In addition, an open meeting will be held May 20,2009 to discuss the draft regulation. 

Air Pollution Control District May 20,2009 
Wnutes 

Policy Committee Meeting 

of the 

Loaide Metro Air PolZntion Control Board 

Febrnary 18,2009 

A meeting of tfie Policy Committee of the LauisvilZe Metro Air Pollution Control Board was called to 

order on February 18,2009, at 9:48 a.m. in the Second Floor Conference Room of the Louisville Metro Air 

Pohtion Control District, 850 Bmt Avenue, Louisville, Katucky, by Committee Chair, Mr. Ronald 

Thomas. Ms. Vanessa Ibfk, committee member, and Dr. Robert Powell, ad hoc committee member, were in 

attendance. A quorum was present. 

The following Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District @istcict) SIM members were present: 

Lam Anderson, Joseph Schwehht, Cynthia Lee, Paul G. Aud, Michelle Stites, and Monica Little. Also 

present was Astistant County Attorney Stacy Fritze. 

1. Draft amendment to Regutation 2.05 Prevention of Significant Detab~atim of Air @dal&, 

Version #9, Draft #2 - External, February f 6,2009 

Ms. k said the purpose for the draft amendment to Regulation 2.05 is to update the existing regulation to 

reflect economic growth, dance air quality on public land, and protect public hem and welfme for either 

new sources or existing major sources. 

Ms. Stites stated that since Regdation 2.05 was adopted, the federal program made several revisions and 

rhe District's proposed amendmats will incorporate the federal changes. In addition, sevd updates were 0 made to tRe ieegu1ation after the Jmuary 2OO9 Board meeting to include two provisions that give specific 

9utrhority to the Board and address other enviromental factors in the community. Ms. Stites said the 

amzndments are consistent with the cmmt EPA prevention of sigaificant deterioration (PSD) regulation (40 

CFR 52.21). Also, the draft proposed action L?r,oOyr&=s -the fdd PSD regdatio:: which ineludes ths 

provisions fur permits based on plant-wide applicability limits (PALS). 

Ms. Lee reported that one comment tvas received from Ford Motor Company which was favorable. 

Ms. Lee said the District recommends that the Policy Committee approve fhe pruposed amendments to 

Regulation 2.05, Vnsion #9, Dr& #2, External - Februarfr 16, 2W9, to begin the fod public review 

process. 

Motion: Mr. Thomas moved that tbe proposed amendments to Regulation 2.05 begin the fomd 

public review process as reco~llf~lmded by the District. 

The motion passed unanimously. 

@ RonaldThomas 

Chair Secretary-Treasurer 
~oajd itpens a 

nubl~comment 

aosed amehdmenis to DM& 

Reguiations 2.03 

Preyention of 

Sanlficarrt DetePrdposed February 1 2b09. if 

ado~ftSd hy the 

hard. it wit1 be 

sutnnftted to the 

US. En\tlmrnp~- tat Protection 

Agency for induWritten statements wlfi be ac cepted by the 

aaard. Soaenh L 

surer, Liuisvilla 

Metro Air Polk.. 

tion control aistm 85D Bar& 

Ava, LoulwHle. 

KY 40204-17458 

until Z:00 p.m. March 23- 2009. wriften &aremats wW also 

5e aece ted 

ei-n&y 

until the same deadime via the 

Internet at the e-man ~ddress 

stzrte-li.1klts will 

be aizapted at 

the ~ubhc hear- 

- .- 

Root. 

A paper CQpY of 

the roposed regu%tims may beabhedfrwn 

Monlca Littie 

(502) 574-7246: 

between S a.m. 

ions may be dewniordsd 

f r o-m .t h'e 

03strfct's website at nwwwMlfe 

ky&mvf~wc~fDo . &&htrn5- 

W&ce of Pubiie 

Heating 

The Louisville 

Metro Alr Polfutinn control 

Beard wlll ccn- duct a public hearfn on'May 20.2d. on omposed amendments to District 

Regulaflon 2.05 

Preventldn ol 

Slgnffkant trete- , ioR1hn of Air uali, Version 

9, Draft 33 - 

Pro osed, May 2aL. WrKten and oral stateme& wlll be ae ee ted at the 

nu& heilrfng at , 

l0:m a.m. Is the 

Beard Room, 850 

Batret Awe. Loaisvllle. I# 

adopted by the 

Board, It wril be , submlttetl to the 

U.S; Envhnrnen- tai Protection 

cy for Qdu- %?in the %entucky State Im- Ehyq=.a 

thrP%3re"d' 

reguLion may beabkahdfmm~ 

Manlca Littie, 1502) 574-7246, b waen 8 a.m. 

an% 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. An e14E- 
Public Hearing Minutes 

of the 

LouhiUe Metro Air Pollution Control Bod 

May 20,2009 

A public hearing of the Louisville Meo Air Pollution Control Board was called to order on 

May 20,2009, at 10:04 am. in the Board Room of the Louisville Metro Air f ollution Control 

District @isfrict), 850 Bmet Avenue, Louisvflle, Kentucky, by the Chairman, Dr. Robert 

Powell. 

The Chainnm read the opening anzzomcementt;;, rutes and purpose of the Pubfic Hearing, 

which was to review proposed amendments to Regulation 2.05 P~wentiun of Detepioration of 

Air Qziala'ty, Version #9, Ifraft #3 -Proposed May 20,2009. 

1. Regulation 2.05 Prevention ofDeferioration ofAir Quality, Version #9, D& #3 - Proposed 

May 20,2009 

MchelXe Stites, Environmental Coordinator, reviewed the proposed amendments to 

Regulation 2.05 that were requiEed in order to be consistent wi& the cment EPA prevention of 

significm- deterioration (PSD) regulation. Ms. Stites said the draft regulation incowrated the 

fed& BSD reahtion. - 

a Ms. Stites said that dwing the public comment period, ~%e District received comments from 

the Kentucky Division for Air Quality and EPA stating their approval of the changes. 

Mr. Greg Long, representing the ford Motor Company, expressed Ford's support of tbe 

proposed modifications to Regulation 2.05, which will allow the local Ford plants to remain 

flexible md competitive. 

- Ms. Emily Borne, representing the Clifton Comm?..mity Council, stated Ule council encornages 

the Board to conhue to enforce regulations to improve the community's air quality. 

Adjournment 

The public hearing adjourned at 10: 1 1 am. 

ROW W. Powell, MD. 

Chairman Secretary-Treasurer 
Regulation 2.05 

Preve~tion of Signzmt Deterioration of Air Quality 

Version #9, Draft #3 - Adopted May 20,2009 

1. Public Comment Period: 2-20-09 to 3-23-09 

1. John Lyons, Kentucky Division for Air Quality @AQ) (Rec'd 3/23/09) 

2. Richard Schutt, Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency @PA) (Rec'd 3/26/09) 

Comment: Prior concurrence is granted because the proposed regulation does not 

appear to be less stringent that the corresponding Commomealth of Kenhcky 

adminisdrative regulation MR 51,017. 

OAQ) 

Response: The District agrees. 

Comment: Incorporation by reference of the Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 with 

District amendments is appropriate. 

@PA) 

Response: Tine District agrees. 

Comment: me District should include a complete date for the referenced version of the 

federal nrde to provide clari~ for applicubbiliy and enforcement purposes. 

@PA) 

Response: The District agrees and the complete date has been included in Version 9, 

Draft 3. 

Comment: In provision 1.2.2 of Section 1, General Provisions, the Disaict should 

i~lclude references to paragraphs b(43), b(48)(ii), and b(50)e)when identzaing 

the term "Administrator ". 

@PA) 

Response: The District agrees and those paragraphs have been included in Version 9, 

Draft 3. 

13[. Public Hearing: 5-20-09 

m. Substantive Changes Resulting from Public Review Process 

a None as a result ofthe Public Comment Period. 

Regulation 2.05 
Minutes 

Regdar Meeting 

of the 

Lonisville Metro Air Pollntion Control Bmrd 

May 20,2009 

The regular meeting of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board (Board) was called 

to order on May 20,2009, at 10: 12 a.m. in the Bod Room of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution 

Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chairman, Dr. Robert Powell. 

Other Board members present were Ms. Bhara Sexton Smith, Ms. Vanessa RuiXh, Mi Ronald 

Thomas, Ms. Bonnie Biemer, and Mr. Bill Jamb. A quorum was present. 

The following Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District) staff members were 

present: Joseph Scheinhart, Terri Phelps, Eva Addison, Steven Gravatte, Michelle Stits, Steve 

Taylor, Esin Vachon, Craig Butler2 Karen Thorne, Shon Clemom, Marha Gammons, Monica 

Little, and District interns f)ustin Gohs and Steven Grice. AIso present was Assistant County 

Attorney Matt hmme, and County Attorney staff member Tammy Brown. 

The following guests were present: Emily Boone, Clifton Corn- Council; Greg 

Brotzge, Louisville Chemistmy Partnership; Tim Corrigan, GLI; Brad Dillon, GD&M; Tim 

Hooker, LFI; Frank: Kennedy, KEC; Greg Long, Ford-Louisville Assembly Plant; Cheryl-Lpe 

Patrick, Frost Brown Todd; Sarah Scheetz, E.ON U.S.; Lawan Stznm, Stites 6t Harbison; and 

Paigc Mosser Theriac, Theriac Environmental Codfants, Inc. 

. Approval oflMinnte~ 

The minutes of the Public Hearing and regular Board meeting held on Ad1 15,2009, were 

approved as written. 

Public Comment 

Emily Boone, representing the Clifton Comdity Council, said the residents of Clifton were 

concerned about the community's air quality. Ms. Borne also said they appeciate the work .the 

District is doing to improve air quality. 

A. Proposed Amendments to Regulation 2.05 PPevetziion ofsignz~~caprf rfDe&ration ofAk 

Qtrali@, Version #9, Draft #3 - Proposed May 20,2009 

Ms. Siites, hvjronmental Coordinator, said the District recommends that the Board adopt 

Regulation 2.05, Version #9, Draft #3, as proposed. 

Motion: Ms. Mi moved to adopt de amendments to Regulation 2.05 as proposed by 4he 

District. 

The motion passed unanimously. 
B. Presentation c+f Climate Action Report 

Ms. Stites presented an overview of the Climate Action Report which was released to the 0 

public on Earth Day, April 22,2009. She said the report was -&e&ed by fhc Climate Change 

Cormnittee of the Partnership f'or a Green City, which includes LouisviZZe Mefro Government, 

the University of Lou~ille, and Jefferson Com~ Public Schools. Ms. Stites stated the report 

contains a variety of greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies for the cornunity that 

address areas such as energy use, land use, .transportation, urban forestry, mter and local 

impacts. She said the next steps inclade a review of the report: by the individual partners, 

commimity education and outreach, and implementation, which is currently underway. The full 

report is available at http~/www.louisvil1eky.gov/ APCW C1imateChangeReport.bMs. Biemer said she was very pleased with the committee's report. 

Committee Reports 

A. STAR Advisory Gronp 

Dr. Powell said the STAR Advisory Group (SAG) held its ha1 meeting on April 17, 2009. 

The SAG finished the agenda fiom the previous meeting and the next step is to recommend 

sfxategies to the District and Board. 

B. Policy Committee 

Mr. Thomas, Chair of the Policy Committee, reported the Policy Committee met on May 13, 

2009, to review and discuss District Regulation 2.04. He stated the committee's decision to start 

the public comment period for Regulation 2.04 was rescinded because of comments received 

0 

fiom EPA. The District will start the public comment period after EPA's concerns with 

Regulation 2.04 have been resolved. 

Staff Reports 

A. Director 

Mr. Schweinhart reported that Ms. Anderson, Executive Director, was out of town attending a 

Region 4 Air Director's conference in Atlanta, Geor@a. He said the District is involved in 

nmmus efforts to improve the comunlty's air quality wfiich incl~de implementation of 

strategies included in the Climate Action Report, reviewing and updating District regulations, 

and involvement in the upcoming recommendations fim the STAR Advisory Group. 

B. Air Quality Data 

Dr. Powell stated the community experienced historical lows in PMzs eoncentmtions in April 

2009 because of milder spring arinds, and a general downtmn in manufacturing due to fhe 

economic conditions. He also shkd that ozone levels were low. 

The air quality monitoring reports were submitted for fiiing. A wpy of each report is 

attached to tfie original minutes. 

Louisville Metro 

Air Pollution Control Board 

Board Meeting 

Nfay 20,2009 
C. Enforcement Statns Reports 

The dorcement reports were submitted for w. A copy Ls aftached to the original 

minutes. 

D. Escess Emission Report 

The April 2009 Ejccess Emission Reporbs were submitted for filing. A copy is aihched to the 

ori@ minutes. 

E. Pemi4 Apptitation Reparts 

The permit application reports were submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original 

minutes. 

F. Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Awards 

The list ofthis month's Lawn Cmefor CIemer Air Award recipients was submitfed for filing. 

A copy is attached to the original minutes. 

Next Meeting 

The next regular Board meeting scheduled Wednesday, June 17,2009, at 10:00 amAdjournment 

The meeting was adjourned at 1032 am. 

WdPa 

Robert W. Powell, M.D. 

Louisville Metro 

Air Pollution Control Board 

Board Meting 

May 20,2009 
Regulation Tracking Form 

Regalation: 2.05 

Title: Prevention of Signilkant Deterioration 

Originator: Michelle Stites 

A&& 

-- 

Date Approved 

Draft 1 - Internal 01-20-09 MS 

Preliminary Regulatory Impact Assessment 01-20-09 MS - 

Review by Director 01-21-09 19L 

Draft 1 - Externd 01-21-09 MS 

Draft 2 - External 02-16-09 MS 

Review by Policy Committee 02-1 8-09 JS 

Draft 2 - Proposed 02-18-09 JS 

Send To EPA / KY DAQ (Formal Proposed Package) 02- 19-09 RIL 

Notice in Newspaper, 30-Day Public Comment Period (closes 3-23-09) 02-20-09 JS - -- - 

Notice in Newspaper, Public Hearing 02-20-09 JS 

2"d Notice in Newspaper, Public Hearing 05-08-09 JS 

Public Bearing @raft 3) 05-20-09 JS 

Board Action 

Final Regulatory Impact Assessment 05-20-09 h4S 

Final C~mnent/Response Document 05-20-09 CL 

SIP Submittal 06- 19-09 CL 
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 

JERRY E. ABRAMSON 

MAYOR 

LAUREN ANDERSON. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

November 17,201 0 

Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

6 1 Forsyth Street, S W 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Re: SIP Approval for APCD Regulation 2.05, Prevention of Signzjkant Deterioration Version 

8 (hfq 2009) 

Dear Ms. Fleming: 

The Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (APCD) submits the following information 

in support of EPAYs approval of amendments to the Jefferson County Portion of the Kentucky 

State Implementation PIan (SIP), specifically, APCD Regulation 2.05 Version 9, Prevention of 

Sign2ficant Deterioration, which includes, among other things, the New Source Review (NSR) 

reform provisions that were not vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia in New York v, EPA, 41 3 F.3d 3 @.C. Cir. 2005). 

I. The Agency 

MCD is the air poIiution control agency of Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky. Established 

in 1945 as the Louisville Smoke Abatement Commission, it became the Air Pollution Control 

District of Jefferson County in 1952 pursuant to Chapter 77 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes 

(KRS). Concurrent jurisdiction was granted by the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet 

(formerly the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet) pursuant to KRS 224.20- 

130. However, APCD's regulations may be more stringent than either federal or state law.' 

a KRs 224.20-130(2); see also 70 op. Att7y Gen. 610 (1970). 

\V\V\\'.LOUISVILLEKY.COVI*\PCD 850 BAKRET AVENUE. ROOM 205 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40204-1745 502.574.6000 FAX: 501 574.j-306 
. 

Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Page 2 

@ As the only local air pollution control agency in Kentucky, APCD operates a rigorous 

construction permit program. With the exception of some small sources subject to APCD 

Regulation 2.02, Air Pollution Regulation Requiremenrs and Exemptions, all stationary sources 

constructing or installing new processes or equipment, or making modifications to existing 

processes or equipment in Louisville Metro must submit a construction permit application to 

APCD and receive a valid construction permit prior to commencing construction pursuant to 

APCD Regulation 2.03.~ These pre-construction requirements ensure that NSR applicability is 

considered frequently and evaluated periodically. 

11. PSD Regulatory History 

From adopting Iocal regulations in the early 1940's to later implementing the federal Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, APCD has been a leader in protecting air quality. 

As part of that leadership role, APCD actively participated as a stakeholder during the 

development of the NSR ~rn~rovements.~ These improvements, which were proposed in 1996 

and finalized in December 2002, included five key elements: (1) Plantwide Applicability Limits 

(PALS), (2) the Clean Unit Test, (3) the Pollution Coatro! Project Exclusion, (4) a revised 

baseline for determining pre-change emissions, and (5) an actual-to-projected-actual test. 

0 A. Regulation 2.05 Version 8 

On June 19,2002, APCD updated its 1989 PSD regulation and adopted Regulztion 2.05 Version 

8, Prevention of SigniJicant Deterioration, which incorporated 40 CFR 52.21, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, (July I, 200 1) by reference.' This version of APCD Regulation 2.05, 

adopted without the NSR Improvements, was subsequently approved into the SIP on November 

3, 2003.~ Concerned about some of the NSR Improvements, Version 8 remained both the 

locally-approved version and the SIP-approved version for nearly seven years. 

B. Regulation 2.05 Version 9 

On May 20, 2009, APCD adopted Regulation 2.05 Version 9, Prevention of SigniJicant 

Deterioration, which incorporated 40 CFR 52.21, Prevention of Signrjkant Deterioration (July 

1,2008) by reference, and included three of the five NSR Improvements: (1) PALS, (2) a revised 

These small sources typically emit less than five tons per year of a regulated air pollutant or 1,000 pounds of a 

hazardous air poIlutant. 5 See, for example, Transcript of NSR Reform Subcommittee Meeting as to New Source Review Reform 

Rulemaking, September 17, 1996, available at h~://wwrv.e~a.eov!ttn/nsr/~ed~anfaca.udf. 4 A copy of Regulation 2.05 Version 8 is attached as Attachment 1. 5 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Kentucky: Permit Provisions for Jefferson County, KY, @ 68 Fed. Reg. 62236 (2003). 
Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Page 3 

baseline for determining pre-change emissions, and (3) an actual-to-projected-actual test:6 A 

public comment period was held from February 20, 2009 through March 23, 2009. A public 

hearing regarding this SIP revision was conducted by APCD on May 20,2009. 

The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet submitted the amended regulation on APCD's 

behalf to EPA on July 1, 2009, for approval as a SIP revision on the basis that the amended 

regulation incorporates the requirements of, and is no less stringent than the federal PSD 

program as codified in 40 CFR 52.21. To date, EPA has not approved Version 9 into the SIP. 

C. Regulation 2.05 Version 10 

On September 18, 2010, APCD proposed adopting a new version of APCD Reguiation 2.05 by 

incorporating 40 CFR 52.21 as of July 1, 2010, to implement the Tailoring Rule for GHGs and 

new provisions applicable to PM2.5. This proposed version also includes the thee non-vacated 

NSR Improvements. Written comments on the proposed amendments to Regulation 2.05 

Version 10 were accepted until October 18, 2010. A public hearing to adopt the proposed 

re,dation is p!amed fix Nw.rember $7, 201 0, 2nd vd1! i~clucle an opportmity to make m oral 

statement. 

Adoption of the NSR Improvements will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or any applicable reasonable 

further progress goal. 

As an urban county-wide program with thirty-eight major sources, APCD does not process many 

major PSD permits. Most sources avoid PSD permitting by taking limits, including becoming 

synthetic minor sources. In fact, in nearly ten years, APCD has analyzed two projects under 

PSD: (I) a revised Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determination for American 

Synthetic Rubber Company in August 2009 and (2) a PAL permit for Ford Louisville Assembly 

Plant in July 2010. In the same nearly ten year period, APCD has issued 305 col~struction 

pe-ts t3 m~;nv T;tlo 17 cn,,,n~ . . LL,uL , ,,,, . ,, ,,. constrixtion pemzts ;~cori;zlfate cmiit fidcd ccii';io! 

requirements and, in most cases, more stringent local requirements, such as those that apply to 

emissions of VOCs under APCD ReguIation 7.25, Standard of Pe~formance for New Sources 

Using Volatile Organic Compounds, and to emissions of toxic air pollutions under APCD's 

Strategic Toxic Air Reduction (STAR) Program regulations. Consistent with section 1 lO(1) of 

the Clean Air Act, the District believes that the adoption of the NSR Improvements will not 

interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any applicabIe reasonable further 

progress goals. 

6 A copy of Regulation 2.05 Version 9 is attached as Attachment 2. These three provisions have not been vacated. 
Gwen Keyes FIerning, Regional Administrator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Page 4 

A. Status of the Louisville Area Wit :h Regards to the NAAQS 

Emissions from onroad, nonroad, and area sources collectively in Louisville Metro contribute to 

the majority of criteria pollutants, with the exception of sulfur di~xide.~ There, emissions fiom 

the largest industrial sources in Louisville Metro, i.e., the Title V and Federally Enforceable 

District Origin Operating Permit (FEDOOP) sources, contribute 92% of these emissions. 

Notably, 88% of the county's total sulfur dioxide emissions are attributable to Louisville Gas and 

Electric's (LG&E) local power generating operations, including its Cane Run and Mill Creek 

Stations. 

Particulate 

Matter 4% 5% 71% 80% 20% 8% 

Ammonia 61% <I % 25% 86% 14% P <I% 

Because sources that may be subject to ReguIation 2.05 have not been the primary driver for past 

or current nonattainment designations, the proposed changes to Regulation 2.05, including 

adoption of the NSR Improvements, are not anticipated to interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS or any applicable reasonable further progress goaIs. 

I. 1-hour Ozone NAAQS 

EEectiiz Ji~?ilary 5, ! 392, 5 cc~?:es in ad xor;?d Lor;isvi!ic, Kcnhcky fkffcrson Co.m:j:, aid 

portions of Bullitt and Oldham Counties in Kentucky; and Clark and Floyd Counties in their 

entireties in Indiana) were designated "moderate" nonattainment for the I-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The Louisville area was redesignated to attainment for the I -hour ozone NAAQS on October 23, 

2001. On June 15,2005, EPA revoked the I-hour ozone standard for all areas except for the 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact Areas. 

. . 

11. 8-hour Ozone NAAQS 

7 A fill summary of APCD's analysis is enclosed as Attachment 3. 
Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Page 5 

In 1997, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to change the form and level of the NAAQS to an 8- 

hour standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). Effective June 14, 2005, the previous I-hour 

nonattainrnent area and the remaining portions of Bullitt and Oldham Counties in Kentucky were 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This area was subsequently 

redesignated to attainment for the 1997 &hour ozone NAAQS, effective August 6,2007. 

Effective May 27, 2008, EPA stren-hened the %hour ozone NAAQS by revising it to 0.075 

ppm. Consistent with a directive of the new Administration regarding the review of new and 

pending regulations, the Administrator reviewed a number of actions that were taken by the 

previous Administration. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS final rule was included in this review. 

Based on EPA's reconsideration, on Jznuary 19,20 10, EPA proposed to set different primary and 

secondary ozone NAAQS than those set in 2008, to provide requisite protection of public health 

and welfare, respectively. Louisville Metro has monitored ozone levels in 2010 that exceed 

EPA's proposed range of 60 - 70 ppb for the new standard. Initially, EPA expected these new 

NAAQS to become final by August 3 1,2010, but now expects them to be finalized by December 

31,2010. 

iii. PMZ.~ NAAQS 

@ On January 5, 2005, EPA published designations for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 

NAAQS. The Louisville area was designated as an attainment area for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 

NAAQS. However, this same area was designated as nonattainrnent for the 1997 annual PM2.s 

NAAQS and has remained designated as a nonattainment area for that NAAQS. Compliance 

with the 1997 PM2.5 annual NAAQS is 15 micrograms per cubic meter (&rn3). The annual 

PM2 5 design value for the Louisville area for the period of 2007-2009 is 14.7 &m3 and is 

meeting the standard. A preliminary review of 2010 data indicates that the 2008-2010 design 

value will be lower than 14.7 @m3 and Indiana, Kentucky, and Louisville air pollution 

personnel are collaborating on submitting redesignation requests to EPA Regions N and V soon. 

On October 17, 2006, md effective December 18, 2006, EPA published a rulemaking regarding 

the P& NAAQS. Specifically, EPA retained the annual PM2.j NMQS of 15 pg/m3 and 

revised 24-hour Pbf2.5 NAAQS, changing it from 65 p& to 35 Irg/d. The revision of the 24- 

hour PM2,5 NAAQS in 2006 triggered the designation process for the NAAQS. Based on 2006- 

2008 data, the Louisville area was determined to be in attainment with the 24-hour PM2.j 

NAAQS on November 13, 2009. The area is anticipated to remain in attainment with the 

standard because a downward trend in 24-how PM2.j levels continued for the 2007-2009 time 

period and is supported by year-to-date data for the current design value monitoring period of 
Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Page 6 

iv. Nitrogen Dioxide (NOz) NAAQS 

On January 22, 2010, effective April 12, 20 10, EPA strengthened the health-based NAAQS for 

NO2. EPA established a new 1-hour NOz standard at the level of 0.10 parts per million (pprn). 

Additionally, EPA retained, with no change, the current annual average NO2 standard of 0.053 

ppm. There are no areas in Louisville with violating monitors nor is the area designated 

nonattainment for either the annual or new 1-hour NOz standards. A combination of local, 

regional, and national pollution control measures will assure continued attainment of both 

standards. 

Y. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS 

On June 2, 2010, effective August 23, 2010, EPA strengthened the health-based NAAQS for 

S02. EPA established a new I-hour SO2 standard at the level of 0.075 ppm. At that same time 

EPA revoked the two existing primary standards of 0.14 ppm evaluated over 24-hours, and 0.03 

ppm evaluated over an entire year, because they would not add additional public health 

protection given a I-hmxr stmdard at 0.075 ppm. No ziiezs in LouisviEe are designated 

nonattainment for the new 1 -hour SO2 standard; however, there are monitors in Jefferson County 

that are violating the standard. Additional control measures will need to be implemented by key 

a stationary sources to assure attainment with the new 1-hour standard. 

For the foregoing reasons, APCD respectfully requests that EPA approve APCD Regulation 2.05 

Version 9, Prevention ofSigniJicant Deterioration, and amend the SIP accordingly. Approving 

Version 9 will clarify the applicability of the local and federal PSD regulations and reduce 

potential confusion that may arise on Jan~~ary 2, 201 1, when the applicable greenhouse gas 

regulations take effect. 

As always, we appreciate your consideration of this submittal and assistance in protecthg 

Louisville Metro's air quality. If you have any questions, please contact me at (502) 574-6009 or 

Paul Aud, Environmental Engineering Manager, at (502) 574-7234. 

Sincerely, 

Lauren Anderson 

Executive Director 

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

a 850 Barret Avenue 
Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional Administz-ator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Page 7 - 

Louisville, Kentucky 40204 

cc: John Lyons, Director, Division for Air Quality 

Kentucky ~neqg and Environment Cabinet 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

4 

REGULATION 2.05 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 

Jefferson County, Kentucky. 

Relates To: IKRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Pursuant To: KRS. Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Necessity and Function: KRS 77.180 authorizes the Air Pollution Control Board to adopt and enforce 

all orders, rules, and regulations necessary or proper to accomplish the purposes of KRS Chapter 77. 

This regulation, which adopts the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

program, provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality where the national 

ambient air quality standards have been achieved. 

SECTION 1 General Provisions 

40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of SigniJicant Deterioration of Air Quality (2001) is adopted and 

incorporated by reference with the following changes: 

Paragraph (a) Plan disapproval is not incorporated. 

A new paragraph (a) General is added and shall read as follows: 

(I) The term "Administrator," shall be read as ''District" except in the following paragraphs, 

k m-hieh case the tern "Adgiinistrator" slid be i~ad as "Administrato~ of the EPA": 

(i) Paragraph @)(2)(iii)(h) wot in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(h)(l) or (2)], 

(ii) Paragraph @)( 17), 

(iii) Paragraph @)(37)(i), 

(iv) Paragraph (f)( 1 )(v) 

(4 Paragraph (f)(4) 

(vi) Paragraph (g) 

(vii) Paragraph (l)(2) 

(viii) Paragraph (p)(l) 

(ix) Paragraph (P)(2) 

(2) The terms "reviewing authority" and "permitting authority" shall be read as "District." 

(3) The term "section," when referring to 40 CFR 52-21, unless otherwise specified in this 

regulation, shall be read as "Regulation." 

(4) The term "of this chapter" shall be read as "40 CFR." 

(5) Any reference to a pennit issued under this section shd include a permit issued under 

this Regulation. 

Paragraph (b)(l)(ii) shall read "A major stationary source that is major for volatile organic 

compounds or nitrogen oxides shall be considered major for ozone. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) shall read "Any net emissions increase that is significant for volatile 

organic compounds or nitrogen oxides shall be considered significant for ozone." 

Paragraph @)(I 3) shall be replaced by paragraph @)(I 3) of 40 CFR 5 1.166 (2001). 

Paragraph (b)(14) shall be replaced by paragraph (b)(14) of 40 CFR 51.166 (200 1). 

Paragraph @)(I 5) shall be replaced by paragraph @)(I 5) of 40 CFR 5 1.166 (200 1). 

Paragraph @)(I 8) shall be replaced by paragraph @)(I 8) of 40 CFR 5 1.166 (2001). 

Paragraph @)(29) is not incorporated. 

Pxagraph (b)(30) shall read "Volatile organic compoundr (VOC) is as defined in 

Regulation 1.02." 

Paragraph (c) Ambient air increments. shall have the following sentence added at the end: 
@ "No single new or modified stationary source may consume an inordinate portion of the 

available increment, as determined by the Board. The' Board may consider air quality and 

economic impacts on the community in determining the appropriate amount of increment 

allowed for a new or modified stationary source." 

1.12 Paragraph (f) is added and shall read as in 40 CFR 5 1.166 (200 1) paragraph (0 with the 

following changes: 

1.12.1 Paragraph (f)(l) shall read "The District, after notice and opportunity for public comment 

pursuant to the procedures in ReguIation 2.07 Public Notification for Title K PSD, and 

Ofset Permits; SF Revisions; and Use of Emission Reduction Credits, and approval by 

the Board, may exclude the following concentrations in determining compliance with a 

maximum allowable increase:" 

1.12.2 The first sentence of paragraph (f)(2) shall read 'Wo exclusion of such concentrations 

pursuant to paragraph (Q(l)(i) or (ii) shall apply more than five years after the effective 

date of the order to which paragraph (f)(l)(i) of this section refers or the plan to which 

paragraph (f)(l)(ii) of this section refers, whichever is applicable." 

Paragraph (h)(l) shall read "The degree of emission limitation required for control of any air 

pollutant under this section shall not be affected in any manner by a dispersion technique 

pursuant to Regulation 2.10 Stack Height Considerations." 

Paragraph (h)(3) is added and shall read "The Board may require an increase in the stack 

height of a prolpcd new source or modificatioa if the qplicmt's mndeling dmomtration 

indicates an inordinate amount of increment consumption. In no event shall such increased 

stack height exceed the stack height allowed for the modeling demonstration pursuant to 

paragraph (h)(l) of this Regulation. 

Paragraphs (i)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (ix), and (x) are not incorporated. 

Paragraph (i)(4)(vi) shall be replaced by paragraph (i)(4)(i) of 40 CFR 5 1.166 (200 1). 

Paragraphs (i)(9), (1 O), (1 I), (1 2), and (1 3) are not incorporated. 

The last sentence of paragraph (1)(2) shall read "In addition, the use of a modified or 

substituted model shall be subject to notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 

the procedures in Regulation 2.07 Public NotiJicationfor Title y; PSD, and Oflset Permits; 

SIP Revisions; and Use of Emission Reduction Credits. 

Paragraphs (m)(l)(v), (vii), and (viii) are not incorporated. 

Paragraph (p)(l) shall be replaced by paragraph (p)(l) of 40 CFR 5 1.1 66 (200 l), except that 

the phrase "The plan shall provide that" is not incorporated. 

Paragraph (p)(3) is not incorporated. 

h &e last sentence of paragraph @j (5) Tine phase "... Sate may authorize &e kc'uninisisai:or 

..." shall be replaced by the phrase "... District may ..." and the word 'To" preceding the word 

"issue" is not incorporated. 

References to paragraph (q) in paragraphs (p)(6), (3, and (8) are corrected to read 

paragraph ($1- 

The word "shall" in the last sentence of paragraph (p)(6) shall read 'cmay". 

The word "shall" in the last sentence of paragraph (p)(7) shall read "may". 

Paragraph (q) Public participation. shall be replaced by paragraph (q) of 40 CFR 5 1.166 

(2001) with the following changes: 

The introductory phrase "The plan shall provide that:" is not incorporated. 

Paragraph (q)(2)(ii) shall read "Follow the applicable procedures of Regulation 2.07 

Public Nohj5cation for Title F/: PSD, and Oflset Permits; SIP Revisions; and Use of 

Emission Reduction Credits in processing applications under this regulation." 
1-26.3 Paragraphs (q)(2)(iii), (iv), (v), and (vi) are not incorporated. 

1.27 Paragraphs (r)(l) and (2) are not incorporated. 

1 -28 Paragraph (s) Environmental impact statements. is not incorporated. 

1.29 Paragraph (t) Dirputedperrnits or redesignations is not &corporated. 

1.30 Paragraph (u) Delegation of authority. is not incorporated. 

1 -3 1 The phrase " in writing no later than the close of the comment period under 40 CFR 1%. 10" 

in paragraph (v)(l) is not incorporated. 

1.32 The word "shall" in paragraph (v)(2) shall be replaced by the word "may". 

1.33 The phrase "under 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on July 30, 1987, or any earlier version of this 

section," shall be replaced by the phrase "under 40CFR 52.21 or this Regulation as in effect 

on July 30,1987, or any earlier version of 40 CFR 52.21 or this Regulation,". 

SECTION 2 Availability 

Copies of the full text of 40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of SigniJicant Deterioration of Air Qudity 

(2001), as modified pursuant to Section I, are available from the District at the following addresses: 

2.1 Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 

850 Barret Avenue 

Louisville, Kentucky 40204 

2.2 The District's Internet home page: 

http ://--apcd.org 

Adopted v1/4-19-72; effective 4- 19-72; amended v216- 13-79, ~314-2 1-82, ~4111-16-83, v5/4-16-86, 

~612- 17-88? ~7/4-19-89, ~8/6-19-02. 

REGULATION 2.05' Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air QuaIity 

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 

Jefferson County, Kentucky 

Relates To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Pursuant To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Necessity and Function: KRS 77.180 authorizes the Air Pollution ControI Board to adopt and 

enforce alI orders, rules, and regulations necessary or proper to accomplish the purposes of KRS 

Chapter 77. This regulation, which adopts the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of 

Air Quality program, provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality where 

the national ambient air quality standards have been achieved. 

SECTION 1 General Provisions 

40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of SigniJicant Deterioration of Air Qualify (July 1, 2008) is adopted 

and incorporated by reference with the following changes: 

1 - 1 Subsection (a)(l) Plan disapproval is not incorporated. * n 

1 .L The tern "zesmtor:' zs it appem in 40 CFR 52-21 sI.j?ll mem the So~idle Metro 

Air Pollution Control District (hereinafter "Districty7), -except that: 

In subparagraph (b)(3)(iii) (relating to "net emissions increase"), it shall mean either 

the District or the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). 

In the following subsections, it shall continue to mean the Administrator of the 

USEPA: 

(b)(17)7 

@)(3 7)(i)7 

Cb)(43), 

(b)(48)(ii), 

(b)(50)(i), 

03x5 11: 

(g), 

C1\/3\ 

!,A,ft,.G,l> 

b?), 

(0- 

Subsection (c) Ambient air incremen~s shall have the following sentences added at the 

en& 'TJo single new or modified stationary source may consume an inordinate portion of 

the available increment, as determined by the Board. The Board may consider air quality 

and economic impacts on the community in determining the appropriate amount of 

increment dlowed for a new or modified stationary source." 

Subsection (h)(l) shall read: "The degree of emission limitation required for control of 

any air poIlutant under this section shall not be affected in any manner by a dispersion 

technique pursuant to District Regulation 2.10 Stack Height Considerations." 

Subsection (h)(3) is added and shall read: "The Board may require an increase in the 

2.05- 1 
stack height of a proposed new source or modification if the applicant's modeling 

demonstration indicates an inordinate amount of increment consumption. In no event 

shall such increased stack height exceed the stack height allowed for the modeling 

demonstration pursuant to subsection (h)(l) of this Regulation." 

Subsection (q) Public parficiparion is not incorporated. The District shall follow the 

applicable public participation procedures in District Regulation 2.07. 

Subsection (s) Environmental impact statement is not incorporated. 

Subsection (u) Delegation ofauthority is not incorporated. 

The following sections of 40 CFR 52.21 are not incorporated herein: 

The second sentence of @)(2)(iii)(a), 

@)(55)9 

@)(56>7 

('3)(57), 

(W5Q 

(cc). 

The Executive Director of the District shall transmit to the Administrator of the USEPA a 

copy of each permit application filed under this regulation and shall notify the 

A&i-tor ~.f the ?JSEpLos sf ezcf: si@iscmLt zctio:~ the ",xecuiiVe C'ii&~r ides i;~ 

the application. 

a Adopted v114-19-72; effective 41 9-72; amended v2/6-13-79, ~314-21-82, ~411- 16-83, ~514-16- 

86, ~612-17-88, ~7/4-19-89, ~816-19-02,v9/5-20-09. 

7- Emissions Inventory: kfferson County 2008 - SO2 - 

Version #I 0- External September 201 0 

[If adouted this version would amend the Mky 2009 version ofRearlation 2.051 

1 1 REGULATION 2.05 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 

Jefferson County, Kentucky 

Relates To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Pursuant To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Necessity and Function: KRS 77.180 authorizes the Air Pollution Control Board to adopt and 

enforce all orders, rules, and regulations necessary or proper to accomplish the purposes of KRS 

Chapter 77. This regulation, which adopts the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of 

Air Quality program, provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality where 

the national ambient air quality standards have been achieved. 

SECTION 1 General Provisions 

40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of SigniJicant Deterioration of Air Quality (July 1,20lO088) is adopted 

and incorporated by reference with the following changes: 

1.1 The following portions of 40 CFR 52.21 are not incorporated: 

1.1.1 

1.1.2 

wax1 

the second sentence of 

12 2 

&)(2)(iii)(a), 

1.1.3 (b)(55), 

1.1.4 (b)(56), 

1.1.5 &)(57), 

1.1.6 (b)(58), 

1.1.7 (s), 

1.1.8 (u), 

1.1.9 (cc), 

1.1.10 (q), The District shall follow the applicable public participation procedures in District 

Regulation - 2.07. 

1.2 The term "administrator" as it appears in 40 CFR 52.21 shall mean the Louisville Metro 

Air Pollution Control District (hereinafter "District"), except that: 

31 1 1.2.1 - In subparagraph (b)(3)(iii) (relating to "net emissions increase"), it shall mean 

either the District or the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). 

1.2.2 In the following subsections, it shall continue to mean the Administrator of the 

USEPA: 

1.2.2.1 (b)(l7), 

1.2.2.2 (b)(37)(i), 

1.2.2.3 (b)(43), 

1.2.2.4 (b)(48)(ii), 

1.2.2.5 (b)(49), 

1.2.2.54 -(bx50m 

1.2.2.61 -(b)(5 119 

1.2.2.78 
Version #I 0- External September 2010 

[If adopted this version would amend the Mav 2009 version of Renulation 2.057 

1.2.2.89 - (1)(2), 

1.2.2.9D (p), 

1.2.2.1LQ (t). 

1.3 Subsection (c) Ambient air increments shall have the following sentences added at the 

end: "No single new or modified stationary source may consume an inordinate portion of 

the available increment, as determined by the Board. The Board may consider air quality 

and economic impacts on the community in determining the appropriate amount of 

increment allowed for a new or modified stationary source." 

1.4 Subsection @)(I) shall read: "The degree of emission limitation required for control of 

any air pollutant under this section shall not be affected in any manner by a dispersion 

technique pursuant to District Regulation 2.10 Stack Height Considerations." 

1.5 Subsection @)(3) is added and shall read: "The Board may require an increase in the 

stack height of a proposed new source or modification if the applicant's modeling 

demonstration indicates an inordinate amount of increment consumption. In no event 

shall such increased stack height exceed the stack height allowed for the modeling 

demonstration pursuant to subsection (h)(l) of this Regulation." 

T?D <3 3 1 I I\ JA.LII 

1 .&I43 The Executive Director of the District shall transmit to the Administrator of the USEPA a 

copy of each permit application filed under this regulation and shall notify the 

Administrator of the USEPA of each significant action the Executive Director takes on 

the application. 

SECTION 2 Effect of Stav, Vacatur, or Withdrawal 

Pursuant to KRS 77.180, any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of Simificant 

Deterioration of Air Ouality (July 1, 201 0) that is subsequently stayed. vacated, or withdrawn by 

USEPA or a federal court shall be deemed stayed, vacated, or withdrawn by the District. 

2.1 For any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.2 1 Prevention of Simificant - - Deterioration of 

Air Quality (July 1, 2010) that is subsequently stayed, the effectiveness of the section or 

subsection shall be delayed until the completion of the reconsideration process or the 

resolution of the proceeding for iudicial review. The period of delay shall begn and end 

on the date specified in the notices of stay published in the Federal Register for that 

section or subsection. 

2.2 For any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.2 1 Prevention of Siwificant Deterioration of 

2.05-2 
Version #I 0- External September 2010 

ado~ted this version would amend the May 2009 version of Renulation 2.057 

87 

88 

89 

Air Oualitv (July 1, 2010) that is subsequently vacated or withdrawn, the section or 

subsection shall be null and void as of the date specified in the notice of vacatur or 

withdrawal published in the Federal Register for that section or subsection. 

90 

91 Adopted v114- 19-72; effective 4-1 9-72; amended v216- 13-79, v314-2 1-82, ~4111- 16-83, ~514-16- 

92 1 86, v612-17-88, ~714-19-89, ~816-19-02, ~915-20-09, vlO/ - - . 93 
REGULATION 2.05 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 

Jefferson County, Kentucky 

Relates To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Pursuant To: KRS Chapter 77 Air Pollution Control 

Necessity and Function: KRS 77.180 authorizes the Air Pollution Control Board to adopt and 

enforce all orders, rules, and regulations necessary or proper to accomplish the purposes of KRS 

Chapter 77. This regulation, which adopts the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of 

Air Quality program, provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality where 

the national ambient air quality standards have been achieved. 

SECTION 1 General Provisions 

40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of Signijicant Deterioration of Air Quality (July 1, 2010) is adopted 

and incorporated by reference with the following changes: 

1.1 The following portions of 40 CFR 52.21 are not incorporated: 

1.1.1 (a1 ), 

1.1.2 the second sentence - of @)(2)(iii)(a), 

1.1.3 (b)(% 

1.1.4 (b)(56), 

1.1.5 (b)(57), 

1.1.6 (b)(% 

1.1.7 (s), 

1.1.8 (u), 

1.1.9 (cc>, 

1.1.10 (q), The District shall follow the applicable public participation procedures in District 

Regulation 2.07. 

1.2 The term "administrator" as it appears in 40 CFR 52.21 shall mean the Louisville Metro 

Air Pollution Control District (hereinafter "District"), except that: 

1.2.1 In subparagraph (b)(3)(iii) (relating to "net emissions increase"), it shall mean either 

the District or the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). 

1.2.2 In the following subsections, it shall continue to mean the Administrator of the 

USEPA: 

1.2.2.1 (b)(17), 

1.2.2.2 7)(i), 

1.2.2.3 (b)(43), 

1.2.2.4 @)(48)(ii), 

1.2.2.5 
1.2.2.10 w7 

1.2.2.1 1 (9. 

1.3 Subsection (c) Ambient air increments shall have the following sentences added at the 

end: "No single new or modified stationary source may consume an inordinate portion of 

the available increment, as determined by the Board. The Board may consider air quality 

and economic impacts on the community in determining the appropriate amount of 

increment allowed for a new or modified stationary source." 

1.4 Subsection (h)(l) shall read: "The degree of emission limitation required for control of 

any air pollutant under this section shall not be affected in any manner by a dispersion 

technique pursuant to District Regulation 2.10 Stack Height Considerations." 

1.5 Subsection (h)(3) is added and shall read: "The Board may require an increase in the 

stack height of a proposed new source or modification if the applicant's modeling 

demonstration indicates an inordinate amount of increment consumption. In no event 

shall such increased stack height exceed the stack height allowed for the modeling 

demonstration pursuant to subsection (h)(l) of this Regulation." 

1.6 The Executive Director of the District shall transmit to the Administrator of the USEPA a 

copy of each permit application filed under this regulation and shall notify the 

Administrator of the USEPA of each significant action the Executive Director takes on 

the application. 

SECTION 2 Effect of Stay, Vacatur, or Withdrawal 

Pursuant to KRS 77.180, any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of SigniJcant 

Deterioration ofAir Quality (July 1,2010) that is subsequently stayed, vacated, or withdrawn by 

USEPA or a federal court shall be deemed stayed, vacated, or withdrawn by the District. 

2.1 For any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of SigniJicant Deterioration of 

Air Quality (July 1, 2010) that is subsequently stayed, the effectiveness of the section or 

subsection shall be delayed until the completion of the reconsideration process or the 

resolution of the proceeding for judicial review. The period of delay shall begin and end 

on the date specified in the notices of stay published in the Federal Register for that 

section or subsection. 

2.2 For any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of Signifiant Deterioration of 

Air Quality (July 1, 2010) that is subsequently vacated or withdrawn, the section or 

' 

subsection shall be null and void as of the date specified in the notice of vacatur or 

withdrawal published in the Federal Register for that section or subsection. 

Adopted v114-19-72; effective 4- 19-72; amended v216- 13-79, v314-2 1-82, ~4111-16-83, v514- 16- 

86, ~612-17-88, ~714- 19-89, ~816- 19-02, ~915-20-09, ~10111-17-10. 
Purpose of the Proposed Action: 

The purpose of the proposed action is to implement portions of the federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 3 15 14 

(June 3,2010) (Final Rule to be codified at 40 CFR Part 52.21) (the "Tailoring Rule") relating to 

Regulation 2.05, Prevention of Signrficant Deterioration of Air ~uality.' 

The federal Tailoring Rule establishes "the applicability criteria that determine which stationary 

sources and modification projects become subject to permitting requirements from greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions under the PSD and Title V programs of the Clean Air ~ct."~ Id. The US. 

EPA has determined that the federal Tailoring Rule is necessary "because without it PSD and 

Title V requirements would apply as of January 2, 201 1, at the 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) 

levels provided under the [Clean Air Act], greatly increasing the number of required permits, 

imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, 

and severely impairing the functioning of the programs." Id. To ease the burden imposed by 

regulating GHG emissions, the federal Tailoring Rule phases in the applicability of the programs 

to GHG emissions by targeting the largest emitters first. 75 Fed. Reg. 3 15 14,3 15 16. 

The District has amended Regulation 2.05 by updating the version of 40 CFR 52.21 currently 

incorporated by reference from the July 1, 2008, version to the July 1, 2010, version. The 

change is intended to be consistent with the federal requirements, including provisions applicable 

to PPV12.5. 

In addition, the District added a new Section 2, pursuant to KRS 77.1 80, to Regulation 2.05 to 

address the effect of any stay, vacatur, or withdrawal of any section or subsection of 40 CFR 

52.2 1, Prevention of SignzJicant Deterioration of Air Quality (July 1, 20 1 0). Specifically, any 

such action by EPA or a federal court shall be deemed stayed, vacated, or withdrawn by the 

District. Consistent with section 1 lO(a)(2)Q(i) of the Clean Air Act, the District has determined 

that administering and implementing the PSD program consistent with EPA's preliminary 

The District will address implementing the portions of the Tailoring Rule relating to Regulation 2.16, Title V 

Operating Permits, in a separate rulemaking. 

The term "greenhouse gas (GHG)" refers specifically to the air pollutant regulated in the Tailoring Rule, including 

those families of fluorocarbons that constitute "'the six well-mixed GHGs."' 75 Fed. Reg. 31514, 31519; see 40 

CFR 52.210(49) . 
framework for regulating GHGs is appropriate.3 This new section is not intended to limit the 

District's authority to adopt a more stringent PSD regulation in the future. 

As adopted by the Board, Regulation 2.05 will be submitted to EPA for inclusion in the 

Kentucky State Implementation Plan. 

Estimated Costs and Savings: 

The proposed action does not change the cost or savings associated with meeting the federal 

requirements for implementing the Tailoring Rule. 

Feasibility of A11 Alternatives 

There are no alternatives available; these changes are required by EPA. 

Comparison with Any Minimum or Uniform Standards: 

There are no changes in the proposed action that are intended to be inconsistent with the federal 

requirements. Based upon a review of the current SIP-approved version and the current District 

version of Regulation 2.05, the District believes that there has been no relaxation of the Jefferson 

County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan. 

Report on Public Outreach Efforts: 

A draft of Regulation 2.05 was sent for formal review to all persons who have requested to be 

informed of proposed changes to any District regulations; EPA Region 4; and the Kentucky 

Division for Air Quality. In addition, pursuant to Regulation 1.08, Administrative Procedures, 

the public had a 30-day period in which to make written comments and an opportunity to 

comment at the public hearing held on November 17,2010, prior to adoption of the regulation. 

Comments were submitted to the District during the public comment period and at the hearing 

held on November 17,2010.~ NO substantive changes to proposed regulation made as of the 

public review process. 

EPA has committed to developing and implementing other necessary elements, including streamlining techniques, 

such as defining Pm for various source categories, establishing presumptive BACT emission limits for certain 

source categories, procedures for outlining the use of general pennits and permits-by-rule, electronic permitting, and 

"lean" techniques for permit process improvements, while phasing in permitting requirements over the next three or 

four years. 75 Fed. Reg. 31514,31586. 

See the Comment and Response Document for Regulations 1.02,2.08 and 2.16, dated November 17,2010. 
JERRY E. ABRAMSON 

MAYOR 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 

LAUREN ANDERSON, MECUTlVE DlRECTOA 

Notice of Meeting 

Poky Committee of the Louisville Metro Air PoIlution Control District 

The Policy Committee of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Boxd will meet in 

the 2" Floor Conference Room of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District at 1 1 :00 

am. on Wednesday, September 15,2010. The Board invites the pub1i.c to attendAgenda 

1. Call to Order - Recognition-of Quorum 

2. Draft amendment to Regulations 1.02 - Dejinifions, 2.05 -Prevention of 

Signij?cuprt Deterioration, 2.08 - Fees, and 2.16 - Title V Operating Permits. 

3. Adjourn 

\YIVW.LOUISVILLERY.COVIAPCD 850 BARRET AYEHUE. ROOlt 205 ,LOUlSVlt,LE, KENTUCKY 40204-1 743 503-574.6000 FAXI 502.574.5306 
Minutes 

Policy Committee Meeting 

of the 

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board 

September 15,2010 

A meeting of the Policy Committee of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board was called to 

order on September 15,2010, at 1 1:00 a.m. in the 2"d Floor Conference Room of the LouisvilIe Metro Air 

PoIlution Control District (District), 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Committee Chair, 

Mr. Ronald Thomas. Codttee members attending were Mr. Bill Jacob and Mr. Steve Thomas. A 

quorum was present. 

The following District staff members were present: Lauren Anderson, Rachael Hamiiton, Pad Aud, 

Cynthia Lee, Erin Vachon, Michelle Stites and Monica Little. Also attending was Assistant County 

Attorney Stacy Fritze Dott. 

The following guests attended the meeting: Michelle Blumel, E.ON US.; Dennis Conniff, Frost 

Brown Todd and Greater Louisvifle, Inc.; Cheryl Fan, Hexion Specialty Chemicals; Arnita Gadson, 

Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission; Lora Gowins; Kentucky Division for Air Quality; Laura 

Lund, Kentucky Division for Air Qua&; and Sarah Scheetz, E.ON U.S. 

1. Draft amenciment to Zeguiations 1.62 - iiefnitions; Reguiaiion 2.05 -Prevention of 

Signz@canf Deterioration; ReguIation 2.08 - Fees; and Regulation 2.16 - Title V Operating 

Permits 

Ms. Hamilton said the purpose ofthe dd amendments to Regulations 1.02,2.05,2.08 and 2.16 was 

to implement the federal prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Rules, 75 Fed. Reg. 3 1514 (June 3,2010) (to be codified at 50 CFR Parts 52.21 and 70.2) (the 

"Tailoring Rule"). She said Regulation 2.05 was amended to implement portions of the TaiIoring Rule 

relating to the District's PSD program, while Regulations 1.02,l .O8 and 2.16 were amended to 

implement portions related to the District's Title V Operating Permits program. Ms. Hamilton explained 

the amendments to the regulations and how they are affected by the Tailoring Rule. 

Mr. Jacob asked if EPA used a formula to calculate GHG emissions and if best available control 

technology (BACT) would be delayed. Ms. Anderson said that while the formula for calculating ''tons 

per year COP equivalent (tpy CQe) was explained in ReguIation 2.1 6, Section 1, Definitions, other rules, 

such as EPA's GHG reporting rule, also addressed calculating GHG emissions. She said the federal 

regulations for GHG become effective January 2,201 1, and that EPA had not yet proposed any BACT to 

implement the Tailoring Rule. 

Ms. Hamilton said the District recommended that the Policy Cormnittee approve the PSD and Title V 

Tailoring Rule proposal. to begin the 30-day public comment period. 

Motion: Mr. Steve Thomas moved that draft amendments to Regulations 1.02,2.05,2.08 and 2.16 be 

released for the formal 30 day comment period as recommended by the District. 

The motion passed unanimously. 
Adjournment 

The meeting adjourned at 1 1 : 15 a.m. 

gPLy2-&.- 

Ronatd Thomas 

Chair Secretary-Treasurer 

Louisville Metro 

Air Pollution Control Board 

Policy Committee Meeting 

September 15,2010 
THE COURIER-JOURNAL XNC. 

STATE OF mNTITCKY 

County of Jefferson 

I, WMle @G of THE COURIER-JOURNAL, clerk of 

THE COURIER JOURNAL general circulation printed 

and published at Louisville, Kentucky, do solemnly swear 

that from by own personal knowledge, and reference to 

the fdes of said publication, the advertisement of: 

Title: Notice of Public Lines: 95 

Comment Period and Hearing 

Date: 9/18/2010 Total Inches: 1~9.26 

wmia wire 

Signature of person making proof 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this @-day of October, 2010. 

Mtary Puhbc, State at Large, KY 

My commission expires June 14,2014 

Notice of PublL . Comment Perio 

and Hearlng 

The Louisvill 

Metro Air Polh 

tion Contrc 

Board opens 

public commer 

I & erlod Septerr er 18 2010. b 

amendments t 

Dlstrrct Regula tfons 1.02 vli 

Draft #I, Definl 

tions, 2.05 vl 

Draft #1, Preven 

tlon of Signffl cant Deterlora 

tio'n, 2.08 v24 

Draft #1 Fees 

2.16 v6. ~;afl #I 

Title V Operathi Permits tha were pro osec on ~eptemier 15 

2010. If adoptet by'the Board 

Regulations 1.0: 

and 2.05 wlll bc 

submitted to €PI 

for inclusion ir 

the Kentuck] State lmplemen tation Plan. Reg uiations 2.08 anc 2.16 will be sub. 

mitted to EPA foi 

' lncluslon in th~ 

Distr1ct:s Tltte V 

Operatrng Pro. 

gram. 

Written statements wilf be ac- cepted by the 

Board Secretary-Treasurer, 

Rachael Hamliton, Louisville 

Metro Air Pollutlon Control District, 850 Barret 

Ave Loulsvifle, KY z0204-1745, 

until 5:00 p.m. October 18,2010. 

Written statements will also 

be accepted e!ecironicaly un- 'trl the same deadline via the 

internet at the 

e-mail address 

"airregs@Jouls 

vlfleky.gov". Oral 

statements will 

be acce ted at 

the PublPc hearing on November 17, 2010, at 

10:OO a.m. in the 

Board Room, 850 

Barret Ave., Loulsvllle. 

A paper copy of 

the roposed ieguktions may' be obtained from 

Monica Little 

(502) 574-7246: 

between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Mon- 

'day through Frl- 

\day. An electronlc copy of 

the rppbsed reguPations may be downloaded 

from the 

District's website at 

~'mvw.ioulsvllle 

&egtph'pp'/Do 

- 
1, qh W of THE COURIER-JOURNAL, clerk of 

THE COWER JOURNAL general circulation printec 

and pnbfiihed at Louisville, Kentucky, do solemnly swear 

that &om my own personal howledge, and reference to 

the files of said publication, the advertisement of: 

Title: Notice of Public Hearing L;?es: 87 

Date: lli'6i2010 Total inches: k8.48 

Signature of person making proof 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of November, 2010. 
AIR POLLUTION CONTKOL DISTRICT 

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 

JERRY E. ABRAMSON 

MAYOR 

, September 20,201 0 ', 

Ms. Lynorae E. Benjamin, Chief 

Aii Planning Branch, APTMD 

U.S. EPA, Region 4 

100 Alabama Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3 104 

Dm Ms. Benjd: 

Enclosed is a prehearing pa&.age for amendments to District Regulations 1.02 ~12~.Drafi #I, . ' . 

DeJnitiom, 2.05 v10, Drafl#l, Prevention of SignjTcant Deterioration, 2.08 v24, Draft #Iy 

Fees, 2.16 v6, Drafi #1, Title Y Operating Permits. The purpose of the draR proposed action is 

to implement the federal Prevention of Siepiscant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 3 1514 (June 3,201 0) (to be codified at 40 CFR Parts 52.21 and 

70.2) (the "Tailoring Rde"). Copies of these proposed regulations are being sentto you for 

formal review, comment, and prior concurrence. 

Please note that a separate PreIiminary Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared to 

evaluate the impact of the proposed changes to the District's PSD (Regulation 2.05) and Title V 

Operating Permits (Regulations 1 .02,2.08 and 2.16) programs. If adopted by the Board, ' 

Regulations 1.102 and205 will be submitted to U.S. EPA for inclusion in the-Keptuclq State 

Implementation Plan. The District will like1y be requesting parallel SIP-processing for 

Regulation 2-05 firom U-S. EPA pursuant to the proposed federal Action to Ensure Authority to 

Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Signiscant Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call, 75 Fed. Reg. 

53892,53904 (September 2,2010) (Ikoposed Rule) in a separate submittal. Similarly, if 

adopted .by the Board, Regulations 2.08 and 2.16 will.be submitted to EPA for, inclusion in the 

District's Title V Operating Permit program. 

The writ& comment began on September 18,2010. Written statements will be accepted 

by the Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson Countyy Rachael Hamifton Secretary-Treasurer, 

850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, 402041745, until 5:00 p.m. October 18,2010. Oral 

statements will be accepted at the public hearing on November 17, at 10:OO am. in the Board 

Room, 850 Banet Ave., Louisville.. . . .. 

WWI.LOUISVILLEKY.COVlAPCD 8 SO BARRET AVENUE; ROOM 205 LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40204-1 745 502.574.6000 FAX: 502-574.5306 
Please fo&d any cements to my attention and contact me at (502) 574-521 8 if you have any 

questions regarding this proposed regulation amendment. 

Sincerely, 

dbael k Hamilton 

Regulatory Specialist 
Steven L. Beshear 

Governor Energy and Environment Cabinet Leonard K. Peters 

Department for Environmental Protection Secretary 

Division for Air Quality 

200 Fair Oaks Lane, 1 st Floor 

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 -1403 

www.air. ky.gov 

Ms. Gwen Keyes Fleming 

Regional- Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

6 1 Forsyth Street, S W 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Dear Ms. Fleming, 

September 29,20 10 . ' 

The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet hereby requests that the U.S. EPA approve the 

enclosed proposed amended regulations by parallel processing as a revision to the Louisville Metro Air 

Pollution Control District (District) portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

purpose of the proposed amendments is to implement the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rules. These are the proposed amendments: 

Regulation 1.02 ~12, Draft #I, Definitions 

Regulation 2.05 v10, Draft #I, Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Regulation 2.08 v24, Draft #1, Fees 

Regulation 2.16 v6 Draft #I, Title V Operating Permits 

The written comment period began on September 18,20 10. Written comments will be accepted 

through 5:00 pm on October 18,2010. Oral comments will be accepted at the public hearing on 

November 17,2010 at 10:OO am in the District Board Room. 

Please contact Rachael Hamilton, Regulatory Specialist with the District, at 502-574-5218, if YOU 

have any questions regarding the proposed amendments. 

Cc: Lynorae Benjamin 

Richard Schutt 

JSLng 

Enclosures 

An Equal Opportunity Employer WID 
I Steven L. Beshear 

Governor 

CbrnmonwcaiCh of Kentucky 

Energy and Environment Cabinet 

Department for Environmental PMtecti~n 

Division for Air Quality 

200 Fair Oaks Lane, 1' Fbor 

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 

www.air. ky.gov 

October 5,201 0 

Ms. Bachael Hamiltan 

Board Secretary-Treasurer 

LouisviIle Metro Air Pollution Control District 

850 Barret Avenue 

Louisville, KY 40204- 1745 

Dear Ms. Hamilt~n: 

Leonard K. FwWrs 

Secretary 

I On September 17, 2010, the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (Division) received an 

electronic submittal hrn the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District) 

concerning amendments to its Prevention for Signifim Bet~oratbn (PSD) and Title V 

regulations The ameadments me intended to incorporate portions of the federal PSD and Title 

V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. 

The following regulations m psrt of the package of proposed amendments: 

Regulation 1.02, Deflm'riom; 

Regulation 2.05, Prevenrion ofSzgnifcatiun Doteriorati~n; 

Regulation 2.08, Fees; 

Regulation 2.1 6, Title V Opmatitzg Permi& 

After reviewing the submittal, the proposed regulations do not appear m be less sningent 

than the corresponding Comm~nwealth of Kentucky administmtive regulations. Therefore, 

pursuant to KRS 224.20-130, the Division grants prior cancmce for this xgulatory actionThis action is contingent upon U.S. EPA, Region 4, filly approving Regulations 1.a2.05, 2.m, 

and 2.16 as revisions to the Jefferson County portiw of the Kentucky State Implementation Ph. 
Ms. Rachd Hamilton 

October 5,2010 

Page 2 

Although the Division is granting prior concurrence for the submitted regulations, the 

Division lists the following concerns with the District's regulations: 

1. 40 C.F,R. 52.2l(a)j 1) states that, "The provisions of this section (meaning section 52.21 

of 40 C.F.R Part 52) are applicable to my State hplementation Plan which has been 

disapproved with respect to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in any 

portion of any State where the existing air quality is better than the national ambient air 

quality standards." The Division finds that although the District has excluded 40 C.F.R. 

52.21(~}(1) from Regulation 2.05, it is still inappropriate to reference 40 C.F.R. 5221. 

Since both the Commonwealfb of Kentucky and the District currently have approved 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs, it is mre appropriate for the Disaict to 

reference 40 C.F.R. 5 1.166 and include the necessary modifications. 

2. Due to U.S. EPA, Region 4, conducting an apprmability review on a case-by-case basis 

for each refmnce of 40 C.F.R. 52.21, the Division did not have a list of appmvabiMy 

criteria to evaluate Regulation 2.05. Alw, because the Commonwealth of Kf~~tucky's 

PSD regulation, 401 KAR 51:017, is based on 40 C.F.R.. 51.166. evaluating the 

regulation and determining comparable stringency was more difficult than if Regulation 

2.05 had referenced 40 C.F.R. 51.166. Without U.S. EPA's cdtmia list, the Divisi~n 

cannot determine if U.S. EPA, Regim 4, will approve the regulations into the Katucky 

State Implementation Plan. 

If you have any questions concerning this determination of concurrence or the Division's 

concerns, please contact Ms. Andrea Smith at (502) 564-3999 or by c-md at 

Andrea.Smith@kv. nov. 

0 

Sincerely, 

John S. Lyons 

Director 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

Ms. Lauren Anderson 

Executive Director 

Air Pollution Control District 

850 Barret Avenue, Room 205 

Louisville, Kentucky 40204 

Dear Ms. Anderson: 

The Region 4 Office of the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received the 

Louisville Air Pollution Control District September 20,2010 prehearing submittal proposing 

revisions to the Louisville portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) ) relating to 

Regulations 1.02 - "Definitions" and 2.05 - "Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air 

Quality." Specifically the revision incorporates by reference regulatory changes amended in the 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule (75 FR 3 15 14) and the New Source Review (NSR) PM2.s 

Implementation Rule (75 FR 28321). We have completed our review and offer comments below 

for your review and consideration. 

'Regulation 1.02 - Definitions 

Greenhouse Gas 

"Major source" definition - Section 1,1.40 defines "major source" as "...any stationary source 

that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tons per year or more of any air pollutant subject to 

regulation under the Act except greenhouse gases (GHGs) ... or, 100,000 tpy of Cote 

pursuant to Regulation 2.16." 

The Tailoring Rule (75 FR 3 15 14) does not exempt GHGs from the I00 ton per year 

(tpy) major source threshold. As discussed in the preamble to the Tailoring rule (p. 3 1 Dl), 

"Both of the following conditions need to be met in order for title V to apply under Step 2 to a 

GHG emission source: (1) An existing or newly constructed source emits or has the potential to 

emit GHGs in amounts that equal or exceed 100 tpy calculated as the sum of the six well-mixed 

GHGs on a mass basis (no GWPs applied); and (2) An existing or newly constructed source 

emits or has the potential to emit GHGs in amounts that equal or exceed 100;000 tpy calculated 

as the sum of the six well-mixed GHGs on a C02e basis (GWPs applied)." 

We recommend removing the revised language exempting GHGs from the 100 tpy threshold (i.e. 

"except greenhouse gases (GHGs) as defined in 40 CFR 86.18 18-1 2(a) in order to be consistent 

with the Tailoring Rule. In addition, we recommend deleting the revised language in reference 

to the C02e threshold pursuant to Regulation 2.16 (i.e. "or, 100,000 tpy of C02e pursuant to 

Regulation 2.16") since a major source for GHGs is defined by both the 100 tpy threshold and 

the 100,000 tpy C02e threshold which is already addressed in the definition of "Subject to 

regulation" in Regulation 2.1 6. 

Internet Address (URL) http:llwww.epa.gov 

Recycltd/Aecyclrble. Printed wUh Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mhmum 30% Postconsumr) 
Regulation 2.05 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Greenhouse Gas 

Section 2 - Effect of Stay, Vacatur, or Withdrawal - Pursuant to KRS 77.180, any section or 

subsection of 40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of Signifcant Deterioration of Air Quality (July 1,2010) 

that is subsequently stayed, vacated, or withdrawn by EPA or a federal court shall be 

deemed stayed, vacated, or withdrawn by the District. 

Due to the uncertainty, surrounding any potential judicial action on the Tailoring Rule, EPA 

will not take action on the incorporation of Section 2 into the Louisville portion of the Kentucky 

SIP. 

NSR Implementation Rule 

Section 1 - General Provisions - Please consider adding 40 CFR 52.21(i)(l)(xi) as an 

exclusion. On February 11,2010 (75 FR 6827), EPA proposed to repeal the Grandfathering 

provisions regarding the PMlo surrogate policy. The proposal states that "ZfEPA adopts aJinal 

rule to repeal the grandfathering provisions, any PSD permit applications covered by the 

grandfathering provisions that have not yet been approved and issued apnal and effective PSD 

permit will not be able to rely on the PMlO Surrogate Policy to satisfi the PM2.5 requirements." 

(page 6833). 

We appreciate your transmittal of this package for our consideration. If you have any 

questions, please contact Lynorae Benjamin at (404) 562-9040, or have your staff contact 

Twunjala Bradley of the EPA Region 4 staff at (404) 562-9352. 

Chief 

Air Planning Branch 

Cc: Rachael Hamilton, APCD 

Laura Lund, KDAQ 
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

Comment and Response Document 

Regulation 1.02 

Definitions 

Version 12, External - Proposed September 15,2010 

Public Comment Period The following comments were received during the public comment 

period. 

Comment: Because the Tailoring Rule does not exempt GHGs j-om the 100 ton per year 

major source threshold, the proposed revision to the definition of "major source" 

in section 1.40 should be deleted in order to be consistent with the Tailoring Rule. 

- US. EPA 

Response: The District agrees and will recommend that the proposed amendment to 

Regulation 1.02 section 1.40 be adopted by the Board. 

Public Hearing The following comments were received during the public hearing held on 

November 17,20 10. 

Comment: 

Response: 

Comment: 

Response: 

The District should include the deJinitions of greenhouse gases and CO2 

equivalents in Regulation 1.02. 

- Greater Louisville Inc. Air Toxics Task Force (GLIATTF) 

As noted by the cornmenter, definitions for these terms are included in Regulation 

2.16. There are also included by reference in Regulation 2.05. Consequently, the 

District does not believe it is necessary to include the definitions in Regulation 

1.02. 

The proposed deJnition of "major source" in Regulation 1.02 section 1.40 should 

be amended by deleting "or 100,000 tpy of C02e pursuant to Regulation 2.16" 

and inserting "or 100,000 tpy of GHGs as measured in Cole. 

- GLIATTF 

As noted by the commenter, this definition is included in Regulation 2.16. It is 

also included by reference in Regulation 2.05. Based on comments submitted by 

EPA during the public comment period, the District will recommend that the 

proposed amendment to Regulation 1.02 section 1.40 be adopted by the 

Board. 

Concurrence: The Kentucky Division for Air Quality granted prior concurrence on October 5, 

2010. 

Substantive Changes Resulting from Public Review Process: Based on comments submitted 

by EPA during the public comment period, the District recommended that the 

proposed amendment to Regulation 1.02 section 1.40 not be adopted by the 

November 17,20 10 1 
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

Comment and Response Document 

Board. As a result, the Board did not take any action on Regulation 1.02 version 

12. 5 

November 17,20 10 
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

Comment and Response Document 

Regulation 2.05 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Version 10, External - Proposed September 15,2010 

Public Comment Period The following comments were received during the public comment 

period. 

Comment: 

Response: 

Comment: 

Response: 

Comment: 

Response: 

Comment: 

7%e District should consider adding 40 CFR 52.21 6) (l)(xi) as an exclusion. On 

February 11, 201 0, (75 FR 682 7)) EPA proposed to repeal the Grandfathering 

provisions regarding the PMlO surrogate policy. The proposal states that ''If 

EPA adopts a final rule to repeal the grandfathering provisions, any PSD 

applications covered by the grandfathering provisions that have not yet been 

approved and issued a Jiplal and eflective PSD permit will not be able to rely on 

the PMlo Surrogate Policy to satisfi the PM2.5 requirements. " 

- US. EPA 

The District believes that it is premature to adopt, at this time, the proposed 

change. 

Due to the uncertainty surrounding any potential judicial action on the Tailoring 

Rule, EPA will not take action on the incorporation of Section 2 into the 

Louisville portion of the Kentucky SIP. 

- US. EPA 

By declining to incorporate Section 2 into the Kentucky SIP, the District 

recognizes that this provision will be locally, but not federally, enforceable. 

Rather than 40 CFR 52.21, Regulation 2.05 should reference 40 CFR 51.166 as 

the more appropriate reference for this provision since it applies to Prevention of 

Signijicant Deterioration (PSD) programs like the Cabinet's and the District's 

that have been approved by US. EPA. 

- Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality 

The District acknowledges the Cabinet's preference for the reference to 40 CFR 

5 1.166 in lieu of 40 CFR 52.2 1. But, as the Cabinet correctly notes, the District 

continues to exclude 40 CFR 52.21(a)(l) fiom its PSD program as it has since it 

adopted the regulation by reference in 2002 and was approved into the Kentucky 

SIP in November 2003. Consequently, this version of the federal regulation, 

rather than 5 1.166, serves as the basis of the District's PSD program. 

Because EPA is conducting approvability reviews on a case-by-case basis for 

each reference in 40 CFR 52.21 and has not provided the Cabinet with a new 

criteria list, the Cabinet is not able to determine if EPA will approve the 

regulations into the SIP. 

- Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality 

November 1 7,20 10 3 
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

Comment and Response Document 

Regulation 2.05 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Version 10, External - Proposed September 15,2010 

Response: The District appreciates the Cabinet's review of the proposed regulations and 

comments. 

Public Hearing The following comments were received during the public hearing held on 

November 17,20 10. 

Comment: GLI ATTF strongly supports the District's inclusion of terms to stay or nullzfi the 

provisions in its amended regulations if the provisions of the federal GHG 

Tailoring Rule are stayed, vacated or withdrawn by EPA or a federal court. The 

ATTF recommends that the District consider adding a provision in Regulation 

2.05 to allow the District to stay, vacate or withdraw the proposed GHG 

amendments if the federal GHG Tailoring Rule is superseded by an act of 

Congress. 

- GLIATTF 

Response: The District may consider the approach suggested in drafting future program 

revisions. 

Concurrence: The Kentucky Division for Air Quality granted prior concurrence on October 5, 

2010. 

Substantive Changes Resulting from Public Review Process: None 

November 1 7,20 1 0 
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

Comment and Response Document 

Regulation 2.08 

Fees 

Version 24, External - Proposed September 15,2010 

Public Comment Period The following comments were received during the public comment 

period. 

Comment : The District's revisions to Regulation 2.08, which excludes GHG emissions, are 

consistent with the preamble to the Tailoring Rule, which discusses fees and 

explains why EPA is not proposing amendments to Title V fees at this time. 

- US. EPA 

Response: The District's proposed revisions are intended to exclude all GHGs subject to 

regulation from the total emissions calculated for fee purposes, including those 

emissions by sources that do not exceed the 100,000 tpy emission threshold for 

GHGs. 

Public Hearing The following comments were received during the public hearing held on 

November 17,2010. 

Comment: The District should clarzjj that the proposed changes to Regulation 2.08 exclude 

all GHG emissions, not just those emitted over 100,000 tpy. 

- GLIATTF 

Response: The District's proposed revisions are intended to exclude all GHGs subject to 

regulation from the total emissions calculated for fee purposes, including those 

emissions by sources that do not exceed the 100,000 tpy emission threshold for 

GHGs. 

Concurrence: The Kentucky Division for Air Quality granted prior concurrence on October 5, 

2010. 

Substantive Changes Resulting from Public Review Process: None 

November 17,20 1 0 
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

Comment and Response Document 

Regulation 2.16 

Title v Operating Permits 

Version 6, External - Proposed September 15,2010 

Public Comment Period The following comments were received during the public comment 

period. 

Comment: The deJinition of "major source" in section 1.25.4 does not establish a ton per 

year emission threshold for determining major source applicability for GHGs for 

Title Vpurposes. Under the Tailoring Rule, (75 FR 31514) GHG emissions are 

not exempt @om the 100 ton per year major source threshold. As discussed in the 

preamble to the Tailoring Rule (Id.), "Both of the following conditions need to be 

met in order for Title V to apply under Step 2 to a GHG emission source: (1) An 

existing or newly constructed source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs in 

amounts that equal or exceed 100 tpy calculated as the sum of the six well-mixed 

GHGs on a mass basis (no G WPs applied); (2) An existing or newly constructed 

source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs in amounts that equal or exceed 

100,000 tpy calculated as the sum of the six well-mixed GHGs on a COs basis 

(GWPs applied)." For that reason, EPA recommends deleting the language at 

Section 1, 1.25.4, and revising the language at Section 1, 1.25.2 to read as 

follows: "A stationary source of air pollutants that emits or has the potential to 

emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to regulation, including any 

source ofhgitive emissions of a pollutant .... " This will help clarzfi that in order 

for Title V to apply both the 100 tpy mass basis threshold and the 100,000 tpy 

COs basis threshold must be met. 

- US. EPA 

Response: The District agrees that the definition of "major source" must reflect these two 

limits. However, because Regulation 2.16 uses the term "regulated air pollutant" 

as defined in section 1.34 throughout the regulation, the District believes that 

revising section 1.25.4 to include a source that "emits or has the potential to emit 

100 tpy or more of a regulated air pollutant or a pollutant subiect to readation, 

including . . ." and deleting proposed section 1.25.4 will clarify the applicability of 

the regulation to GHGs. The District will recommend that the Board adopt this 

proposed revision. 

Public Hearing The following comments were received during the public hearing held on 

November 17,20 10. 

Comment: The Greater Louisville Inc. 's Air Toxic Task Force (ATTF) strongly supports the 

District's inclusion of terms to stay or nullzfi the provisions in its amended 

regulations if the provisions of the federal GHG Tailoring Rule are stayed, 

vacated or withdrawn by EPA or a federal court. The ATTF recommends that the 

District consider adding a provision in Regulation 2. 16 to allow the District to 

November 17,20 10 6 
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District 

Comment and Response Document 

stay, vacate or withdraw the proposed GHG amendments if the federal GHG 

Tailoring Rule is superseded by an act of Congress. 

- GLIATTF 

Response: The District may consider the approach suggested in drafting future program 

revisions. 

Concurrence: The Kentucky Division for Air Quality granted prior concurrence on October 5, 

2010. 

Substantive Changes Resulting from Public Review Process: Based on comments submitted 

by EPA during the public comment period, the District recommended revising 

section 1.25.4 to include a source that "emits or has the potential to emit 100 tpy 

or more of a regulated air pollutant or a pollutant subiect to regulation, including 

.. ." and deleting proposed section 1.25.4 to clarify the applicability of the 

regulation to GHGs. The Board adopted this proposed revision during the public 

hearing on November 17,201 0. 

November 1 7,20 10 
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board 

Notice of Public Hearing and Board Meeting 

The Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board will hold a public hearing and its 

regular monthly meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 17,20 10, in the Board Room, 

850 Barret Avenue, Louisville. The Board invites the public to attend. 

Public Hearing Agenda 

1. Agreed Board Order with Eckart America Corporation 

2. Amendments to Regulations 1.02 - Definitions; 2.05 - Prevention of Signzjkant 

Deterioration; 2.08 - Fees; and 2.16 - Title V Operating Permits 

Meeting Agenda 

1. Call to Order 

A. Recognition of Quorum 

2. Introductions 

3. Public Recognitions 

4. Approval of Minutes - Public Hearing and regular Board meeting meeting held on 

October 20,2010 

5. Public comment1 

6. Unfinished Business 

7. New Business 

A. Agreed Board Order with Eckart America Corporation 

B. Amendments to Regulations 1.02 - Definitions; 2.05 - Prevention of SigniJicant 

Deterioration; 2.08 - Fees; and 2.16 - Title V Operating Permits 

C. Committee of the Whole to discuss draft STAR regulations 

8. Committee Reports 

9. Staff Reports 

A. Director 

B. Air Quality Data 

C. Enforcement Status Report 

D. Excess Emission Report 

E. Permitting Backlog Report 

F. Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Awards 

10. Adjourn 

The next Board meeting is Wednesday, December 15,2010, at 10:OO a.m. 

'~hls 1s a regularly scheduled agenda item to glve ~ndlv~duals and organmhons an opportunity to address the Board on au pollut~on 

Issues Presentations shall be lunlted to two mmutes, except that the Board Chau may, for cause, allow three minutes Persons wshmg to 

address the Board shall no* the Secretary-Treasurer (5021574-5218) and subm~t a completed speaker's registration card to the SecretaryTreasurer before 10 00 a m of the day of the Board meetmg 

Documents for this meeting that are available electronically may be found 

on the ~istrict's web page at the following URL: % % 

http://www.louisvilleky.g~~/~~~~/~ale~. 
Public Hearing Minutes 

of the 

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board 

November 17,2010 

A public hearing of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution ControI Board was died to order 

on November 17, 2010, at 9:02 a.m. in the Board Room of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 

District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Chairman, Dr. Robert Powell. 

General Statement, Rules and Purpose 

The Chairman read the opening announcements, rules and purpose of the Public Hearing which was to 

review an agreed Board Order with Eckart America Corporation and four amended District regulations: 

1.02 - Defmitions; 2.05 - Prevention of Signrficant Deterioration; 2.08 - Fees; and 2.16 - Title V 

Operating Permits. 

I. Agreed Board Order with Eckart America Corporation 

Ms. Phelps said the District alleged that Eckart America Corporation violated its construction 

pernit and directed the company to pay au administrative penalty. The company agreed to the terns of 

the order 

Ms. Phelps said Eckart operates a metallic pigment manufacturing facility pursuant to a Title V 

~ijerahig permit and coitsiructiozi perinit issued by the Disti-ict. She said in 2005 and 2006, the company 

reported that it had operated two ball mills that were not controlled by a condenser which is required by 

the construction perm* and had violated the permit limits for volatile organic compounds (VOC.) Ms. 

Phelps said that after the company had installed a condenser in 2006, the company reported a failure of 

the ball mills to comply with the VOC Iimits in 2006 and 2007. The company and the District met in 

2007 and agreed upon control efficiency and emission factors that wotrld be used to determine VOC 

emissions fiom the ball mills. The company was able to justify the use of the control efficiency and 

emission factors later by conducting stack testing which was approved by the District in 2009. Using the 

approved conttoi efficiency and emission kctors, the company was able to demonstrate compliance with 

the VOC limits after installation of the equipment in 2005. Ms. Pheips said that while the company 

demonstrated compliance with the VOC limits for the ball mills, the District had assessed the penalty for 

the company's operation of the ball miIls in 2005 and 2006 that were not controlled by a condenser. She 

said the required condenser represented best available control technology PACT) and served to minimize 

VOC emissions from the ball mills. Ms. Phelps said fbe administrative penaIty was based on the 

economic benefit to the company of operating the ball milts without the required condenser. She said the 

company agreed to pay the $19,000 administrative penalty. 

Ms. Phelps said the District recommended that the Board adopt the Agreed Board Order, as 

proposed. 

Statements 

No comments were made. 

Public Comments 

No comments were made. 
2. Amendments to Regulations 1.02 - Defiifions; 2.05 - Prevenfion of Sign1@7cnnf Deterioration; 

2.08 - Fees; and 2.16 - Title V Operating Permits 

Ms. Hamilton said the purpose of the proposed action to the regulations was to implement portions of 

the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. She said 

the rules affects two programs the District administers, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

program which is Regulation 2.05, the Title V program which is primarily Regulation 2.16, and 

associated fees in Regulation 2.08. Ms. Hamilton said the District originally reviewed all of its 

regulations and determined that Regulation 1.02 also needed to be amended in respect to clarifying the 

definition of "major source" which is used elsewhere in District's regulations. Ms. Hamilton said the 

District opened a public comment period from 9/18/10 through 10/18/10. She said comments were ' received from EPA and the Kentucky Division of Air Quality that were included in the comment response 

document. Ms. Hamilton said Greater Louisville Inc. (GLI) also submitted comments but they were 

received after the deadline. 

After reviewing the amendments to the regulations, Ms. Hamilton asked the Board to not approve the 

definitional change to Regulation 1.02. She said that after a thorough review of coinments from EPA and 

a review of the District's regulations, it was decided the amendment to Regulation 1.02 to ciarify the 

definition of "major sorrrces" was not necessary. Ms. Hamilton said in ReguIation 2.16, Draft 2, the 

District recommended that the first threshold tier for greenhouse gas purposes (GHG) subject to 

regulation be added to line 220; that the term "poll~rtant subject to regulation" be added; and the District's 

prior recommended proposal, line 259, be deleted. Ms. Hamilton said the District recommended adoption 

of the proposed versions of Regulations 2.05 and 2.08. -She said that in 2.08, the District clarifies that it 

wiff iiat sek fees associated iki'ih GHG zit ithis iiii~~. 

Public Comment 

Mr. Dennis Conniff spoke on behalf of GLI's Air Toxics Task Force. He said GLI's written 

comments were submitted after the comment deadline, brlt asked the Board to accept a copy of those 

wriften comments, which he submitted following his statement: so that they would be included in the 

comment response document. He said the Task Force did have questions that needed clarification in 

regard to Regulation 2.05, Section 2; and Regulation 2.16, Section 6. 

Statements 

Ms. Smith asked for cfarification on the District's recommendation to not adopt the amendments to 

Regulation 1.02. Ms. Hamilton explained that the amendment in Regulation 2.02 was to clarify the 

definition of ''major sources" and the District decided not to recommend the change based on EPA's 

review and recommendation. Ms. Smith also asked if the District had considered a timeline to collect 

fees for GHG. Ms. Hamilton said the District will continue to evaluate GHG implementation and assess 

the impact it has on the District's resources. 

The public hearing adjourned at 9: 17 a.m. 

Robert W. Powelt, M.D. 

Chairman 

Louisville Metro 

Air Pollution Control District 

Secretary-Treasurer 

2 Public Wearing 

November 17,20 10 
Minutes 

Regular Meeting 

of the 

huimille Metro Air Pollution Control Board 

November 17,2010 

The regular meeting of the LouisvilIe Metro Air Pollution Control Board was dled to order on 

November 17, 2010, at 9:18 a.m. in the Board Room of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 

District, 850 Barret Avenue, LouisviIle, Kentucky, by the Chairman, ~r: Robert Powell. Other Board 

members present were, Ms. Barbara Sexton Smith, Mr. Ronald Thomas, Mr. BiIl Jacob, and Ms. Bonnie 

Biemer. A quonun was present. 

The following Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District staff members were present: Lameti 

Anderson, Rachael Hamilton, Paul Aud, Matt Stull, Terri Phelps, Cynthia Lee, Eva Addison, Larry 

Garrison, Matt King, Craig Butler, Karen Thorne, Shannon Hosey, Steven Gravatte, Rick Williams, 

Starlet Raj, Emily Tyler, Mike Brown, Dee Lynch, Judy Lloyd, Devin Cassell, and Monica Little. Also .. ,..L present were Assistant County Attorneys Stacy Fritze Dott and Jennifer Swyers, and County Attorney 

staff member Tamrny Brown. 

The foliowing guests were present: Andy Battjes, Brown-Forman; Paul Bowe, Marcus Paint 

ampany; Rebecca Cash, LG&E & KULLC; Dennis Connie GLI Air Toxics Task Force; Tim Corrigan, 

Greater buisville, Inc; Sarah Lp Cunningham, Louisville Climate Action Network; Mike 

DeBusschere, KEC; Lora Gowins, EEC/DEP/DAQ; Corinne Greenberg, ICS-KY; Barbara Hall, FordKentucky Truck Plant; Joan Lindop, Sierra Club; Amy Lint, Advent; Laura Lund, EEC/DEP/DAQ; Sarah 

Scheetz, LG&E & KaLC; and Paige Mosser Theriac, Theriac Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

Approval of Minutes 

The minutes of the Public Hearing and regular Board meeting held on October 20, 2010, were 

approved as written. 

New Business 

A. Agreed Board Order with Eeltart America Corporation 

Ms. Phelps said the District recommended adoption of the Agreed Board Order with Eckart America 

Corporation, as proposed. 

Motion: Mr. Ronald Thomas moved to adopt the Agreed Board Order with Eckart America 

Corporation, as proposed. 

The motion passed unanimous~y. 

B. Amendment to Regulations 1.02 Definiriom, Version 12, External - proposed September 15, 

2010 

Ms. Hamilton said the District recommended that the Board not take action on Regulation 1.02, 

Version 12 based on a recommendation from the U.S. EPA. No action was taken. 
C. Amendment to Regulation 2.05 Prevention of Signzjicnzzt Deterioration, Version 10, External - 

proposed September 15,2010 

Ms. Hamilton said the District recommended that the Board adopt Regulation 2.05, Version 10, as 

proposed. 

Motion: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt Regulation 2.05 Prevention ofirgn$cmt Deterioration, 

Version 10, as proposed. 

The motion passed unanimously. 

D. Amendment to Regdation 2.08 Fees, Version 24, Externat - proposed September 15,2010 

Ms. ~amilton said the District recommended that the Board adopt Regulation 2.08 Fees, Version 24, 

as proposed. 

Motion: Ms. Beirner moved to adopt ReguIation 2.08 Fees, Version 24, as proposed. 

The motion passed unanimously. 

E. Amendment to Regnlation 2.16 Tifle V Operating Permits, Version 6, External - proposed 

September 15,2010 

Ms. Hamilton said the District recommended that the Board adopt Regulation 2.16 Title V 

Operating Permits, Version 6, Draft 2, with changes at lines 220 and 259. She said this will incorporate 

U.S. EPA's dual definition for the appIicabi1ity of greenhouse gases. 

Motion: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt amended Regtation 2.16 Title roperating Permits, 

Version 6, Draft 2, as proposed. 

The motion passed unanimously. 

F. ... Committee of the Whole to discuss STAR regu&ions 

Dr. Powell reported that at the October 20,2010 Board meeting, there was discussion about the best 

opportunity for the Board to discuss the STAR regulations. He said the Board discussed the option of 

having a Committee of the Whole meeting so that all Board members could participate in the discussion. 

Motion: Mr. Thomas moved to convene a Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss the 

draft amendments to the STAR regulations. 

The motion passed unanimously. 

Dr. Powell appointed Nlr. Jacob to Chair the meeting of the Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. Jacobs said the purpose of the Committee of the Whole meeting was to discuss the drafl STAR 

regulations. Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed amendments to the following STAR regulations; 1.02 

Definitions Version 12, External; 1.06 Stadradronury Source Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements Version 9, External; 5.00 Defiitions, Ver~ionl/EXie~at 5.01 General Provisions Version 

7, External; 5.1 1 Standards of Perjhrnumce for fikting Processes and Process Equipment Emitting 

Toxic Air PolIu~mts Version 4, External; 5.12 Standmrdr Performce for New or Mudzj9ed Processes 

and Process Equipment Emitting Toxic az~ PoIIurants Version 4, EtemaI; 5.20 Methodology for 

Determining Benchmmk Ambient Concentration of a Toxic Air Contaminant Version 3, External; 5.21 

Louisville Metro 

Air Pollution Control Board 

Board Meeting 

November 17,201 0 
Environmental Acceptabili@for Toxic Air Contaminants Version 6, External; and 5.22 Procedures for 

Determining the Maximm Ambient Concentration of a-Toxic Air Contamminit Version 3, External. Also 

included in the amended STAR regu1ation.s picket was a cross reference table, a table of parallel revisions 

and the comment response document. 

After a review and discussion of the draft STAR regulations, Ms. Anderson said the District 

recommended the release of Regulation 1.06 Stdonary Sozr~ce Monifori'g, Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requiremen& Version 9, External, for a 30-day public comment that wilI end on December 3 1, 

2010, and the release of the remainder of the STAR regulations for a 60-day public comment period that 

ends on January 3 1,201 1. 

Motion: Mr. Thomas moved that the Committee recommend to the Board that Regulation I .06 

Stationmy Solace Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Version 9, External, 

as proposed, be released for a 30-day public comment period and that STAR Regulations 

1.02, 5.00, 5.11, 5.12, 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22, as ~roposed, be released for a 60-day public 

comment period. 

Motion: Ms. Biemer moved to rise and report the recommendatioi~s of the Committee to the 

Board, and the Committee meeting was adjourned. 

Mr. Jacob presented the Committee's recommendations to Dr. Powell. Dr. Powell asked the Board 

if there was a motion to adopt the Committee's recommendations. 

Motion: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt tfie Committee's recommendations. 

The motion passed unanirnous1y and the Committee's recommendations were adopted. 

Siaff Reports 

A. Air QnaIity Data . . 

Ms. Cynthia Lee, Nianager of Environme~?td PTCI~SS, reported that Me cor"n-~!nIt.,l ~~~~~~~~~d vew 

unhealthy PMZ5 exceedances on October 22-24, 2010, that were caused by forest fires at Ft. Knox. She 

said the District wilf request that EPA determine the exceedances as an exceptional event. Mr. StulI said 

that air quality alerts were issued for the community and the District received several inquiries from the 

public about the smoke from the Ft. Knox fms. 

MS. Lee said that the ozone season has ended and no exceedances occurred since the previous Board 

meeting. 

The air quality monitoring reports was submitted for filing. A copy of the report is attached to the 

original minutes. 

B. Enforcement Status Report 

The enfokement report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the originaf minutes. 

C. Excess Emission Report 

The October 2010 Excess Emission Report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the 

original minutes. 

1 

1. Louisville Metro I Air Pollution Control Board 

Board Meeting 

November 17,20 1 0 
D. Permitting BackIog Report 

The permitting backlog report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original minutes. 

E. Lawn Care for Cleaner Air Awards 

The November 2010 Lawn Carefor Cleaner Air An~ard recipient report was submitted for filing. 

A copy is attached to the original minutes. 

Next Meeting 

The next regular Board meeting is scheduled Wednesday, December 15,20 10, at 10:00 a.m. 

Adjournment 

The meeting was adjourned at 1 O:37 a.m. 

Chairman / Secretary-Treasmer 

Louisdle Metro 

Air Pollution Control Board 

Board Meeting 

November 17,2010 
Regulation Tracking Form 

Regulation: 2.05 

Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Originator: Hamilton 

I I 

Review by Policy Committee u 

Acfivffy 

I 

Date 

Date Approved 

J 

v' 

J' 

if 

J 

Internal 

Preliminary Regulatory Impact Assessment 

Review by Director 

Draft 1 -External 

Draft 2 - External 

4 i isllo 

1151~ 

~(IS~IO 

14 i'