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 30303-8960 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, 2010, 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 MlFlDGREG FISCHER MAYOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

LAUREN ANDERSON,EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR 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 2.05Prevention ofSigncjicantDeterioration 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 ImplementationPlan (SIP). On January 14,2011, the EPA made a finding that APCD failed to submit a revision to its portion of Kentucky's EPA-approved SIPto satisfjrequirements of the Clean Air Act to apply Prevention of SignificantDeterioration (PSD) requirements to greenhouse gas-emitting sources and, subsequently, established a federal implementationplan (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 ofthe following: 1. Administratively completepackage of Amended Regulation 2.05 Prevention ofSign$cant Deterioration ofAir Quality,Version #9, adopted May 20, 2009. Version # 8 of Amended Regulation 2.05 Prevention ofSigniJcant Deterioration of Air Quality,is currently 

### in 40 CFR $52.920(c) EPA-ApprovedJefSerson CountyRegulations for Kentucky. APCD has no record that EPA approved the SIPrevision 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 17,2010requesting that EPA approve Version 9. 3. Administratively completepackage ofAmended Regulation 2.05 Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration of Air Quality,Version # 1 0, adopted November 17,2010. 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 considerationofthis request is appreciated. Ifyou have any questions or comments, please contact Ms. CynthiaLee, 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 PollutantJAreaIdentification Regulation 

### 2.05, Prevention of SignificantDeterioration of Air Quality
1. SubmissionLetter 2. PollutantlAreaIdentification 

### 3. Regulation2.05 Version 9 SIP submission (July 2009) 

### 4. Regulation 2.05 Version 9 -

### Revision request letter 

### 5. Regulation 2.05 Version 

### 10 (December2010) a. Regulation -

### RedlineIStrikeoutversion b. Regulation -

### Final version c. Regulatory Impact Assessment d. Policy Committee MeetingNotice and Minutes e. Public Notice - 

### Comment Period f. Public Notice -

### Public Hearing g. Public Hearing Minutes h. CommentResponseDocument i. Board Minutes j



### . Regulation Tracking Form


### PollutantIArea Identification

Pollutant: All Affected Area: Jefferson County, Kentucky Location: LouisvilleMSA Area Designation: Nonattainment 

### - Annual PM2.5; Attainment - 

### all other pollutants Resulting Emissions Changes: Refer to section 

### 3 above. Increase Decrease- 

### Air Pollution Control District 

### ofJefferson 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 CONTROLDISTRICT LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

LAUREN ANDERSON, MECUWEDIRECTOR 

### June 19,2009


# I Dear 

### Mr. Lyons:
The Air Pollution 

### Control District 

### ofJefferson County 

### (District) requests 

### that the enclosed 

### materia1be 

### submitted to 

### the 

### U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency 

### @PA) as 

### a revision to the Jefferson County portion of

### the Kentucky State 

### Implementation

### Plan 

### (SIP). Enclosed 

### aretwo paper copies 

### mdtwo 

### cd's, 

### one of 

### each 

### for the 

### EPA 

### and 

### one of each 

### forthe

### KentuckyDivisionfor 

### Air Quality @AQ. 

# I The enclod

### material 

### is comprised ofthe following: 

### 1. 

### Amended ReguIation2.05 Prevention 

### of 

### Signzj?cantDeterioration 

### 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) 

### EPAApprovedJeflwsoon County

### RegzIatiomfor 

### Kentucky. 

# I 2. Tfie

### supportingdocumentation 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 

### questionsregardingthis request

### please do not hesitate to contact

### Ms. Cynthia 

### H-Lee, Environmental 

### Manager, at 

### (502) 574-7217

### 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. SubmissionLetter 

### 2. Pollutant/AreaIdentification 

### 3. Regulation

### - Redline/Sbrikeoutversion 4. 

### Regulation 

### -Final version 

### 5. Regulatory ImpactAssessment 

### 6. Committee Meeting Minutes 

### 7. FkblicNotice 

### -Comment Period 8. Public 

### Notice -

### Public Hearing 9. 

### Public Hearing 

### Minutes 1

0. 

### CommentlResponseDocument 

### 11.

### 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 

### othexpollutants 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 

### amendIiegulation 2.05 v.8/6-19-02] 

### REGULATION 2.05 Prevention of SignificantDeterioration 

### ofAir Quality Air Pollution Control DistrictofJefferson 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. 

### Thisregulation, which adopts 

### the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Qualityprogram, provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of air 

### quality where the national ambient air 

### quality standardshave been achieved. SECTION 

### 1 General Provisions 40 

### CFR 52.21 

### Prevention of SigniJicmDeterioration ofAir 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 

### MetroAir 

### Pollution ControlDistrictfiereinafler 

### "Disirid"),except that: 

### 1.2.1 In subnarama~h fb)(3)(iii)(relating to 

### "nefemissions increaset'), shall Pnean either the District or the Administrdor of the United States Environmental Protectrion

### Apencv (USEPA). 

### 1.2.2 In thefallow in^ subsections.it shall continue

### to meanfhe 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

### 2.05v.8/6-19-02]

1.2.2.10 (t). 1.3 

### Subsection (c) 

### Ambient 

### air incrementsshall have thefollowina 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 incrementallowed for a new or modified stationaw source." 

### 1.4 Subsection (h)(l) shall read- "The

### decree of emission limitation required for control of

anv airpollutant underthisse&'on shall not be affectedin any manner by 

### a dispersion technique pursuanftoDistrictRegulation 2.10 Stack 

### Heipht Considerations." 1.5 

### Subsection is added and shall read: "TheBoard may 

### reauire an increase in the stack heipht ofo 

### proposed new source or modificah'on 

### ifthe 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 demonstrationpursuant to subsection (;h)(l) 

### ofthis Bemlation. " 

### 1.6 Subsection fa)

### Public ~articipation 

### is not incorporated The District shallfollow the

1.7 

### Subsection (s)Environmental im~act statementis 

### not incornorated 1.8 

### Subsectionfu)Delegation 

### of

### authority 

### is not incornorated 1.9olIuwinp sections of

### 40 

### CFR 52.21 are not incornoratedherein: 1.9.1 

### Thesecond sentence ofOf2)(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 

### ofeach 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 

### amendRegulation 

### 2.05v-8%-19-02]

### Version

### #9,

### DPaP #3-f 

### roposed May 20,2009 

### [If awed,

### this will 

### amendRegulation

### 2.05 v.816-19-02]

### Version

### #9,Draft #3-Proposed 

### May 20,2009 

### [Ifadopted this will amendRegulation 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/

### REGULATION2.05 

### Prevention of SignificantDeterioration of

### Air Quality 

### Air Pollution Control

### District ofJefferson 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 SignificantDeterioration of Air Qualityprogram, provides for the prevention of 

### significant deterioration of air quality where the national ambient air 

### quality standardshave been achieved. 

### SECTION 

### 1 General Provisions 40 CFR 

### 52.21 Prevention of Significant Deterior&ion of Air 

### Qualify

### (July 1, 2008) is adopted and incorporatedby reference with the followingchanges: 1.1 Subsection (a)(1) 

### Plan disapprovalis not incorporated. 1.2 The term "administrator" as it appears in 40 

### CFR 52.21 shall mean the LouisvilfeMetro Air Pollution ControlDistrict (hereinafter "District"), exceptthat: 

### 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 

### Inthe following subsections, it shall continue

### to mean

### the 

### Administratorof

### the 

### USEPA: 

## : .2.2.1 

## @I071, 

### 1.2.2.2 (bX37)(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 determinedby 

### the Board. The Board may considerair 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

- 

### demonstrationpursuant to subsection (h)(l) of this Regulation." Subsection 

### (q) Public parfic@ation 

### is not incorporated. The District shall follow the applicablepublic participation procedures in 

### District Regulation 2.07. Subsection (s) Environmental impactstatement 

### is not incorporated. Subsection (u) Delegation ofauthority 

### is 

### not incorporated. The following sections of 

### 40 

### CFR 52.21 are not incorporatedherein: The second sentence of (b)(2)(iii)(a), (b)(55), @)(56)> (b)(57), (b)(58), 

# w* The Executive Director of

### the District shall transmitto 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 4-19-72; 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 ofthe 

### draftproposed action isto 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, includingthe provisions for permits based on plant-wide applicability limits (PALS). The 

### proposed amended regulation specificalIyexciudes those sections of 40 

### CFR 52.21 

### stayed 

### by court order.

Estimated 

### Costs and Savings: 

### The draft 

### proposed action does not changethe cost or savings associatedwith 

### meeting the current federalrequirements.
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 draftproposed action that are inconsistentwith 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 forAir Quality. A 

### legal notice of a public commentperiod was 

### published 

### in the Courier-Journalon 

### February20,2009; commentswere received through March 23,2009. 

### In addition, an open meeting 

### will be held May 20,2009 to discussthe draft 

### regulation.

Air 

### Pollution Control District 

### May 20,2009

### Wnutes Policy Committee

### Meeting of

### the 

### LoaideMetro 

### Air PolZntion Control Board Febrnary 

### 18,2009 A meeting 

### of tfie 

### Policy Committee of 

### the LauisvilZe

### Metro Air 

### Pollution ControlBoard 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 BmtAvenue, 

### Louisville, 

### Katucky, by 

### Committee Chair, 

### Mr. 

### Ronald Thomas. 

### Ms. Vanessa

### Ibfk,committeemember, 

### and

### Dr. RobertPowell, 

### adhoc 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, CynthiaLee, 

### Paul 

### G. Aud, 

### Michelle 

### Stites, 

### andMonicaLittle. 

### 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 

### f6,2009 

### Ms. 

### k said

### thepurpose

### forthe draft

### amendmentto

### Regulation2.05 is 

### toupdatethe 

### existing

### regulationto reflect economic

### growth, 

### danceair 

### qualityon

### publicland, and

### protect public 

### hem 

### and welfme for 

### either 

### new sources 

### or existing major sources. 

### Ms. Stites stated that 

### sinceRegdation2.05 

### was 

### adopted, the

### federal program

### made several

### revisions and 

### rhe 

### District's proposed

### amendmats will 

### incorporatethe 

### federal changes. 

### In addition,

### sevd updateswere 

# 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 

### amzndmentsare

### consistent

### withthe cmmt 

### EPAprevention

### of sigaificantdeterioration 

### (PSD) regulation

### (40 CFR 52.21). Also, 

### the 

### draft proposed 

### action L?r,oOyr&=s 

### -thefdd PSD regdatio:: 

### which ineludes ths provisions furpermits 

### based 

### on plant-wide applicability

### limits (PALS). 

### Ms. Lee reportedthat 

### one 

### comment tvas 

### received from Ford 

### Motor Companywhich was 

### favorable. 

### Ms. Lee said the District

### recommends thatthe 

### Policy Committee 

### approve 

### fhepruposed 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 

### motionpassed unanimously.



# @ RonaldThomas Chair 

### Secretary-Treasurer~oajd itpens a nubl~c omment aosed amehdmenis to DM& Reguiations 2.03 Preyention of Sanlficarrt DetePrdposed February 1 2b09. if ado~ftSd hy the hard. it wit1 be sutnnfttedto the US. En\tlmrnp~- tat Protection Agency forinduWritten statementswlfi beac cepted by the aaard. Soaenh L surer, Liuisvilla Metro Air Polk.. tion control aistm 85DBar& Ava, LoulwHle. KY 40204-17458 until Z:00 p.m. March 23-2009. wriften &arematswW also 5e aece ted ei-n&y until the same deadime via the Internet at the e-man ~ddress stzrte-li.1kltswill be aizapted at the ~ubhc hear-

- .- Root.
A paper CQpY of the roposed regu%timsmay beabhedfrwn Monlca Littie (502) 574-7246: between S a.m.

ionsmay be dewniordsd f r o-m .th'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 amendmentsto 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 beae ee ted at the nu& heilrfngat , l0:m a.m. Is the Beard Room, 850 Batret Awe. Loaisvllle. I# adopted by the Board,It wril be 

## , submlttetl tothe U.S; Envhnrnen- tai Protection cyfor 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. Mondaythrough Friday. An e14E-

### Public 

### HearingMinutes 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 

### follution 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. Regulation2.05 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 

### ofthe 

### 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. 

### EmilyBorne, 

### representing the Clifton 

### Comm?..mityCouncil, 

### statedUle 

### council encornages the 

### Board to 

### conhue to 

### enforceregulations to 

### improve 

### the community's air 

### quality. Adjournment 

### The 

### public hearing 

### adjournedat 10:

### 11 

### 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 forAir Quality 

### @AQ) (Rec'd 3/23/09) 2. 

### Richard Schutt,

### Region 4, 

### Environmental

### Protection Agency 

### @PA) (Rec'd 3/26/09) Comment: 

### Prior concurrence isgranted because the proposed regulation does not appear to be less stringent that the corresponding Commomealth

### ofKenhcky adminisdrative regulation

### MR 51,017. 

### OAQ) Response: The District agrees. 

### Comment: 

### Incorporation by reference of the FederalRegulationsat 40 

### CFR 52.21 with District amendments is 

### appropriate. @PA) Response: Tine 

### District agrees. Comment: 

### meDistrict should include 

### a complete date for the referencedversion 

### 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: 

### Inprovision 1.2.2 ofSection 1, 

### General Provisions, theDisaict should i~lclude references to paragraphs b(43), b(48)(ii),

### andb(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 

### ChangesResulting 

### from Public Review Process 

# a None 

### as 

### a result ofthePublic Comment Period.

Regulation 2.05

### Minutes RegdarMeeting 

### 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. 

### inthe Bod Room of the 

### Louisville 

### Metro Air Pollution Control 

### District, 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, 

### Kentucky, by the 

### Chairman, 

### Dr.Robert Powell. OtherBoard 

### members present 

### were 

### Ms. BharaSexton 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, TheriacEnvironmentalCodfants,

### Inc.

. 

### Approval oflMinnte~
The minutes 

### of the Public Hearing and regular 

### Board meeting 

### held on 

### Ad1 15,2009, were 

### approvedas written. Public 

### Comment 

### Emily Boone, 

### representing

### the Clifton ComdityCouncil, 

### 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. ProposedAmendments 

### to Regulation2.05 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 

### Regulation2.05, 

### Version #9, 

### Draft #3, as proposed. Motion: 

### Ms. Mi 

### movedto 

### adopt de 

### amendmentsto Regulation 2.05 as 

### proposed

### by 4he District.



### The motion

### passed 

### unanimously.

### B. Presentation c+f ClimateAction 

### 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 availableat 

### http~/www.louisvil1eky.gov/ APCW C1imateChangeReport.b

### Ms.Biemer said 

### she was 

### very 

### pleased with the committee's report. Committee 

### Reports A. 

### STARAdvisory 

### 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 sfxategiesto 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 Regulation2.04. 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 

### Regulation2.04

### have

### been resolved. StaffReports 

### A. 

### Director


### Mr.Schweinhartreportedthat 

### Ms. Anderson, Executive

### Director, was 

### out oftown 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

### inthe upcoming 

### recommendations fim 

### the STAR 

### Advisory Group. 

### B. Air Quality

### Data 

### Dr. Powell statedthe community 

### experiencedhistorical lows 

### in PMzs eoncentmtions 

### inApril 

### 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 Nfay20,2009

### 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 EjccessEmission 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 

### ofthismonth's 

### Lawn Cmefor CIemer Air

### Award recipients was submitfed

### for 

### filing. A copy is 

### attachedto the original

### minutes. Next Meeting 

### The next regular

### Board 

### meeting scheduled

### Wednesday, June 17,2009,at 10:00 am

### Adjournment 

### The meeting was adjourned 

### at 1032am. 

# WdPa Robert

### W. Powell, 

### M.D.



### Louisville Metro Air 

### Pollution

### ControlBoard 

### 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 PreliminaryRegulatory ImpactAssessment 01-20-09 MS - Review by Director 01-21-09 19L Draft 1

## - Externd 01-21-09 MS Draft2 

## - External 02-16-09 MS Reviewby Policy Committee 02-18-09 JS Draft2 -Proposed 02-18-09 

### JS Send To EPA/ KY DAQ (Formal ProposedPackage) 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 

### inNewspaper, Public Hearing 05-08-09 JS Public Bearing @raft3) 05-20-09 

### JS BoardAction Final RegulatoryImpactAssessment 05-20-09 h4S Final C~mnent/Response Document 05-20-09 CL SIP Submittal 06-19-09 CLAIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
JERRY E. ABRAMSON MAYOR LAUREN ANDERSON. EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR



### November 17,201 0

Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator US EPA, Region 4 Sam

### Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

### 6 1Forsyth Street, S

### W Atlanta, GA 30303

Re: 

### SIPApproval 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 inNew York v, 

### EPA, 413 F.3d 3 

### @.C. Cir. 2005).


### I. The Agency


### MCD is the air poIiution control agency 

### of Louisville/JeffersonCounty, 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). Concurrentjurisdiction 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 regulationsmay be more stringent than either federal or state law.' 

# a KRs 224.20-130(2); see also 70 op.Att7yGen. 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 determiningpre-change emissions, and (5) an actual-to-projected-actual test. 

# 0 A. Regulation 2.05 

### Version 8
On June 19,2002,

### APCD updated its 1989PSD 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 ofSignrjkant Deterioration (July 1,2008) by reference, and included three of the five NSR Improvements: 

### (1) PALS, (2) a revised

These small sourcestypically emit less than fivetons per year of a regulated air pollutant or 1,000 pounds ofa hazardous air poIlutant. 5 See, for example, Transcript ofNSR Reform Subcommittee Meeting as to New SourceReview Reform Rulemaking, September 17, 1996, available at h~://wwrv.e~a.eov!ttn/nsr/~ed~anfaca.udf. 4 A copy of Regulation2.05 Version 8 is attached as Attachment 1. 5 Approval and Promulgation of ImplementationPlans 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 $7,2010, 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 cmiitfidcdccii';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 ofPe~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 1lO(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% <I%

P Because sourcesthat 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 furtherprogress 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 nonattainmentEarly Action Compact Areas.



### .. 11. 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

7 A fillsummary 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 Countiesin Kentucky were designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This area was subsequently redesignated to attainment for the 1997 &hour ozoneNAAQS, 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 19,2010, 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 submittingredesignation 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.jlevels continued for the 2007-2009 time period and is supported by year-to-date data for the current design value monitoring period ofGwen 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 SO2standard 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 attainmentwith the new 1-hour standard.

For the foregoing reasons, APCD respectfullyrequests 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 ExecutiveDirector LouisvilleMetro 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 ofAir Quality
Air Pollution Control District ofJefferson 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 ControlBoard to adopt and enforce all orders, rules, and regulations necessary or proper to accomplishthe purposes of

### KRS Chapter77. 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 ofAir Quality (2001) is adopted and 

### incorporatedby 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," shallbe read as ''District" except in 

### the followingparagraphs, 

### km-hieh case the 

### tern "Adgiinistrator" 

### slidbe 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 referenceto a pennit issued under this section shd include a permit issued under this Regulation. Paragraph (b)(l)(ii) shallread "A major stationary sourcethat is major forvolatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides shall be considered major for ozone. Paragraph 

### (b)(2)(ii) shallread "Any net emissions increase that is significant for volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides shallbe considered significantfor ozone." Paragraph @)(I

### 3) shall be replaced by paragraph @)(I 

### 3) of40 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 replacedby paragraph @)(I 5) of40 CFR 

### 5 1.166 (200 1). Paragraph @)(I

### 8) shall be replaced by paragraph @)(I

### 8) of40 CFR 

### 51.166 (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, afternotice and opportunityforpublic comment pursuantto the procedures in ReguIation 2.07 

### Public Notification for Title 

## K PSD, and OfsetPermits; 

### SFRevisions; and Use of EmissionReduction Credits, and approval by the Board, may excludethe following concentrations in determining compliance with a maximum allowable increase:" 1.12.2 The first sentence ofparagraph (f)(2) shall read 'Wo exclusion of such concentrations pursuantto 

### paragraph (Q(l)(i) or (ii) shall apply more than five years after the effective date ofthe order to which paragraph (f)(l)(i) ofthis sectionrefers or the plan to which paragraph (f)(l)(ii) ofthis section refers, whichever is applicable." Paragraph (h)(l) shall read "The degree of emissionlimitationrequired 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 ofa prolpcd new 

### source

### or modificatioa if the 

### qplicmt's mndeling dmomtration 

### indicates an 

### inordinate amountof incrementconsumption. 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) of40 

### CFR 5 1.166 (200 

### 1). Paragraphs (i)(9), (1O), (1I), (12), and 

### (1 3) are not incorporated. The last sentence of paragraph (1)(2) shall read "In addition, the use of a modified or substitutedmodel shall be subjectto notice and opportunity forpublic comment pursuant to the procedures 

### in Regulation 2.07

### Public NotiJicationforTitle 

## y; PSD, and OflsetPermits; SIP Revisions; and Use ofEmission Reduction Credits. Paragraphs (m)(l)(v), (vii), and (viii) are not incorporated. Paragraph (p)(l) shall be replaced by paragraph (p)(l) of40 

### CFR 5 1.1 66 (200l), except that the phrase "The plan shallprovide that" is 

### not incorporated. Paragraph (p)(3) 

### is not incorporated. h&e last 

### sentenceofparagraph @j 

### (5)Tinephase "... 

### Satemay authorize&e kc'uninisisai:or ..." 

### shall be replaced by thephrase "...

### Districtmay ..."

### 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" inthe last sentence ofparagraph (p)(6) shall read 'cmay". The word "shall" in the 

### last sentence ofparagraph (p)(7) shall read "may". Paragraph (q) 

### Publicparticipation. shall be replaced by paragraph (q) 

### of 40 CFR 5 1.166 (2001) 

### with the following changes: The introductoryphrase "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 OflsetPermits; 

### SIP Revisions; and Use of EmissionReduction Creditsin 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 ofauthority. is not incorporated. 1

-31 Thephrase "

### in writing no later than 

### the close ofthe commentperiod under 

### 40 CFR 1%. 10" 

### in paragraph (v)(l) is not incorporated. 1.32 The word "shall" 

### in paragraph (v)(2) shallbe replaced by the word 

### "may". 1.33 Thephrase "under40 CFR 52.21 as 

### in effect on July 

### 30, 1987, or 

### any earlier version of this section," shallbe replaced 

### by the phrase "under 40CFR 52.21 or this Regulation 

### as in effect on July 30,1987, or any earlier version of40 CFR 52.21 or this Regulation,". 

### SECTION

### 2 Availability Copies of the full text of 40 CFR 52.21 

### Prevention ofSigniJicantDeterioration of

### Air Qudity (2001), as 

### modified pursuant to Section 

### I, are 

### available fromthe District at the following addresses: 2.1 Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 850 BarretAvenue 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 SignificantDeterioration of

### Air QuaIity Air Pollution ControlDistrict ofJefferson County Jefferson County, Kentucky
Relates 

### To: KRS Chapter 77Air 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 FederalPrevention of SignificantDeterioration of 

### Air 

### Quality program, provides for the prevention of significantdeterioration of air quality where the national ambient air quality standards

### have been achieved. 

### SECTION 1 GeneralProvisions 

### 40 CFR 52.21 

### Prevention ofSigniJicantDeterioration ofAir Qualify (July 1, 2008) is adopted and 

### incorporated by reference with the following changes: 1



### - 1 Subsection (a)(l) 

### Plan disapproval isnot incorporated. * n 1 .L The 

### tern "zesmtor:' zs it appem 

### in 40 

### CFR 52-21sI.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 continueto mean the Administratorofthe 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 incrementdlowed 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 techniquepursuant to District Regulation 2.10 

### StackHeight 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) ofthis Regulation." Subsection (q) 

### Public

### parficiparion is not incorporated. The District shall follow the applicablepublic participation proceduresinDistrict Regulation 2.07. Subsection(s) 

### Environmental impact

### statement isnot incorporated. Subsection (u) 

### Delegation ofauthority is not incorporated. The following sections of40 

### 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 ofthe 

### USEPA a copy 

### of each permit application filed under this regulation and shall notify the A&i-tor ~.f 

### the 

### ?JSEpLos 

### sfezcf: si@iscmLtzctio:~ the 

### ",xecuiiVe C'ii&~rides i;~ 

### the application. 

# a Adopted v114-19-72; effective41 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.

# I EmissionsInventory: - MfananCo. KY 2008

EmissionsInventory: kfferson County 2008

# - SO2 

# 7-

-Version#I0- External September 201 0 [Ifadouted this version would amend the Mky 2009 versionofRearlation2.051
1 

# 1 REGULATION 2.05 Prevention of SignificantDeterioration 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 qualitywhere the national ambient air quality standardshave been achieved. SECTION 1 General Provisions 40 CFR 52.21 Prevention ofSigniJicantDeterioration of Air Quality (July 1,20lO088) is adopted and incorporated by reference with the followingchanges: 1.1 The following portions of 40 CFR 52.21 are not incorporated: 1.1.1 wax1 12 

## 2 1.1.2 the second sentence of &)(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 applicablepublic 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 ofthe 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 1.2.2.78Version #I 0- External September 2010 [Ifadopted this versionwouldamend the Mav 2009versionof 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) ofthis Regulation."

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

1.&I43 The Executive Director ofthe 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 ofSimificant Deterioration of Air Ouality (July 1, 2010) that is subsequently stayed. vacated, or withdrawn by USEPA or a federal court shallbe deemed stayed, vacated, or withdrawn by the District. 2.1 For any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.2 1Prevention 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 1Prevention of SiwificantDeterioration of 2.05-2Version#I0- External September2010 ado~ted this version wouldamendthe 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 4-19-72; 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/ - - 

## . 93REGULATION 2.05 Prevention of Significant Deterioration ofAir Quality Air Pollution Control District ofJefferson 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 SignificantDeterioration of Air Quality program, provides for the prevention of significantdeterioration 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 ofAir 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 Administratorofthe 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), 1.2.2.51.2.2.10 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 demonstrationpursuant to subsection (h)(l) ofthis Regulation." 1.6 The Executive Director of the District shall transmit to the Administrator ofthe 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 52.21Prevention ofSigniJicant 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 forjudicial 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 ofSignifiant 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 ofSignrficantDeterioration 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 applicabilityof the programs to GHG emissions by targeting the largest emitters first. 75 Fed. Reg. 3 1514,31516. 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 consistentwith 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 ofAir 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 1lO(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 separaterulemaking.

The term "greenhouse gas (GHG)" refers specificallyto 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 ImplementationPlan. 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 ofA11 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 Countyportion ofthe 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 ofthe regulation. Comments were submitted to the District during the public comment period and at the hearing held on November 17,2010.~ NOsubstantive 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 ResponseDocument for Regulations 1.02,2.08 and 2.16, datedNovember 17,2010.JERRY E. ABRAMSON MAYOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY

LAURENANDERSON, MECUTlVEDlRECTOA



### Notice 

### ofMeeting 

### Poky Committee of

### the Louisville Metro 

### Air PoIlution Control 

### District

The Policy Committee ofthe 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. 

### TheBoard invites the pub1i.cto attend
### Agenda 1. Call to Order -Recognition-of Quorum
2. 

### Draft amendmentto Regulations 1.02 

### - Dejinifions,2.05 -Prevention of Signij?cuprt

### Deterioration,2.08 - 

### Fees,and 

### 2.16 - 

### Title V OperatingPermits. 3. Adjourn

\YIVW.LOUISVILLERY.COVIAPCD 850 BARRET AYEHUE. ROOlt 205 ,LOUlSVlt,LE, KENTUCKY 40204-1 743 503-574.6000 FAXI 502.574.5306Minutes Policy Committee Meeting of the Louisville Metro AirPollution 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 ConferenceRoom of the LouisvilIeMetro Air PoIlution Control District (District), 850 Barret Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky, by the Committee Chair, Mr. Ronald Thomas. Codtteemembers 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; andRegulation 2.16 - Title VOperating Permits Ms. Hamilton saidthe purpose ofthe dd amendments to Regulations 1.02,2.05,2.08 and 2.16 was to implement the federal prevention of SignificantDeterioration(PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas TailoringRules, 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 amendedto implement portions of the TaiIoringRule relating to the District's PSD program, while Regulations 1.02,l .O8 and 2.16 were amended to implementportions related to the District's Title V Operating Permits program. Ms. Hamilton explained the amendmentsto the regulations and how they are affected by the Tailoring Rule. Mr. Jacob asked ifEPA used a formulato calculate GHG emissions and ifbest 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 2.16, Section 1, Definitions, other rules, such asEPA's GHG reportingrule, also addressed calculatingGHG emissions. She said the federal regulationsfor GHG become effectiveJanuary 2,201 1, and that EPA had not yet proposed any BACT to implementthe Tailoring Rule. Ms. Hamilton said the District recommended that the Policy Cormnittee approvethe PSD and Title V TailoringRule proposal.to begin the 30-day public comment period. Motion: Mr. Steve Thomasmoved that draft amendmentsto 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 11:15 a.m. 

# gPLy2-&.- Ronatd Thomas Chair Secretary-Treasurer

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board Policy Committee Meeting September 15,2010

## THE COURIER-JOURNALXNC. 

## STATE OF

## mNTITCKY County of Jefferson



# I, WMle

# @G of

# THE COURIER-JOURNAL, clerk 

# of 

# THE 

# COURIER

# JOURNAL general circulationprinted 

## and 

# published at 

## Louisville, Kentucky, 

## do solemnlyswear 

# 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 

# wmiawire Signatureof

### 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. Ifadoptet 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. mittedto EPA foi ' lncluslon inth~

Distr1ct:s Tltte V Operatrng Pro. gram.

Written statementswilf 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 hearingon November 17, 2010, at 10:OO a.m. inthe Board Room, 850 Barret Ave., Loulsvllle.

A papercopy 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 COWERJOURNAL general circulation

## printec 

## and 

# pnbfiihed at 

## Louisville, 

## Kentucky, do 

## solemnlyswear 

## that &om

# my own

## personal 

## howledge, and reference

## to 

# thefiles of 

## said 

# publication, the advertisement

## of:
Title: Notice of

### PublicHearing 

### L;?es: 87 Date: 

### lli'6i2010 Totalinches: 

### k8.48

Signatureof

### person 

### makingproof 

### Subscribed

### and sworn to

### before me 

### this

### 10th day of 

### November, 2010.AIR POLLUTION CONTKOLDISTRICT LOUISVILLE,KENTUCKY
JERRY E. ABRAMSON MAYOR

, 

### September20,2010 ',



### Ms. Lynorae 

### E. Benjamin, Chief Aii

### Planning Branch, 

### APTMD U.S. 

### EPA, Region 4 100Alabama Street, 

### S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 

### 30303-3

### 104 

### Dm 

### Ms. Benjd: 

### Enclosed 

### is a prehearingpa&.age for amendmentsto District Regulations 1.02 ~12~.Drafi #I,

. ' . 

### DeJnitiom, 

### 2.05 v10, Drafl#l, Prevention

### of SignjTcantDeterioration, 

### 2.08 v24, 

### Draft#Iy Fees, 2.16 

### v6, 

### Drafi#1, 

### Title 

### YOperating

### Permits. 

### Thepurpose ofthe 

### draRproposed actionis to implementthe federal Prevention of SiepiscantDeterioration 

### (PSD) and TitleV Greenhouse 

### Gas TailoringRule, 75 

### Fed. Reg. 3

### 1514 

### (June3,2010) (to be codified at 40 

### CFR

### Parts 52.21 

### and 70.2) (the 

### "Tailoring Rde"). 

### Copiesoftheseproposed regulations arebeing sentto you for formalreview, 

### comment, and prior concurrence. 

### Pleasenote 

### that 

### a separatePreIiminaryRegulatory 

### ImpactAssessment 

### has been prepared to evaluatethe impact of

### theproposed changesto the District's PSD (Regulation2.05) 

### andTitleV Operating 

### Permits(Regulations 1 .02,2.08 

### and2.16) 

### programs. 

### If adopted by 

### the 

### Board, ' 

### Regulations 1.102

### and205 will 

### besubmittedto U.S. 

### EPA for inclusionin 

### the-Keptuclq 

### State Implementation

### Plan. 

### The Districtwill 

### like1ybe requestingparallel SIP-processing 

### for Regulation2-05firom

### U-S.EPA pursuantto theproposed 

### federal Action 

### to 

### Ensure Authority

### to 

### IssuePermits Under the Prevention of SigniscantDeterioration

### Programto Sources of GreenhouseGas Emissions: 

### Findingsof Substantial 

### Inadequacyand SIP Call, 

### 75 Fed. Reg. 53892,53904 (September2,2010) (Ikoposed Rule) 

### in a separate 

### submittal. Similarly, 

### if adopted 

### .by the 

### Board, Regulations 2.08 and 

### 2.16 will.besubmitted

### to

### EPA for, inclusionin

### 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 ControlBoard ofJefferson 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 onNovember 17, at 10:OO 

### am.in 

### the Board Room, 

### 850 BanetAve., 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

### youhave any questions regarding

### thisproposedregulationamendment.
Sincerely,

dbael

### k Hamilton Regulatory SpecialistSteven L. Beshear Governor Energy and Environment Cabinet Leonard K. Peters Department for Environmental Protection Secretary Division for Air Quality 200 Fair Oaks Lane, 1st Floor Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1403 www.air.ky.gov

Ms. Gwen Keyes Fleming Regional-Administrator U.S. EPA, Region 4 SamNunn Atlanta Federal Center 6 1Forsyth 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 Regulation2.08 

### v24, Draft #1, 

### Fees Regulation 2.16 v6 Draft #I, Title V Operating Permits The written comment period began on September 18,2010. Written commentswill be accepted through 5:00 pm on October 18,2010. Oral comments will be accepted atthe 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 OpportunityEmployer WIDI Steven 

### L. Beshear Governor

CbrnmonwcaiCh ofKentucky Energy 

### and 

### Environment Cabinet Departmentfor Environmental PMtecti~n Division for Air Quality 200 Fair Oaks Lane, 1' Fbor

Frankfort, Kentucky40601 www.air.ky.gov 

### October5,201 0 

### Ms. 

### Bachael Hamiltan 

### Board Secretary-Treasurer 

### LouisviIle Metro Air 

### PollutionControl

### 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 

### thepackage ofproposed amendments: 

### Regulation 1.02,

### Deflm'riom; Regulation 2.05, 

### PrevenrionofSzgnifcatiun Doteriorati~n; 

### Regulation

### 2.08, Fees; 

### Regulation 2.16, 

### Title 

### V Opmatitzg 

### Permi& After 

### reviewing 

### the submittal, the 

### proposed regulationsdo 

### 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 action

### This 

### action is contingent

### upon 

### U.S.EPA, Region 4, 

### fillyapproving

### Regulations 1.a2.05,

### 2.m, 

### and 2.16

### as revisions 

### tothe 

### 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 liststhe 

### 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 

### ismre appropriate for the 

### Disaict to 

### reference40 

### C.F.R. 5

### 1.166

### and include the 

### necessarymodifications. 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 difficultthan 

### if Regulation 

### 2.05 had referenced 

### 40 

## C.F.R.51.166. 

### Without 

### U.S. EPA's cdtmia 

### list, 

### the Divisi~n 

### cannotdetermine 

### if U.S. 

### EPA, Regim 4, 

### will approve 

### the 

### regulationsinto 

### 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 

### DirectorUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION4 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 ProtectionAgency (EPA) received the Louisville Air Pollution Control District September 20,2010 prehearing submittalproposing revisions to the Louisville portion ofthe Kentucky State ImplementationPlan (SIP) )

### relating to Regulations 1.02

## - "Definitions"

### and 2.05 

### - "Preventionof SignificantDeterioration of Air Quality." 

### Specificallythe revision incorporatesby reference regulatory changes amended in 

### the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) TailoringRule (75 FR 

### 3 1514) 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. 'Regulation1.02

# - 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, 100tons 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 1514) 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 conditionsneed 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 amountsthat 

### equal or exceed 100tpy calculated as

### the sum ofthe 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;000tpy calculated as the sum ofthe six well-mixed GHGs on a C02e basis (GWPs applied)." We recommend removing the revised language exempting GHGs from the 100tpy threshold (i.e. "except greenhouse gases (GHGs) as defined in 

### 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) in order to 

### be consistent with the Tailoring Rule. 

### In addition, we recommend deleting

### the revised language in reference to the C02ethreshold pursuant to Regulation 

### 2.16 (i.e. "or, 100,000tpy 

### ofC02epursuant to Regulation 2.16") since a major source for GHGs is definedby both the 100tpy threshold and the 100,000 tpy C02ethreshold which is already addressed 

### in the definition of "Subjectto 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 SignificantDeterioration Greenhouse Gas Section2

# - Effect of Stay, Vacatur, or Withdrawal

# - Pursuant to KRS 77.180, any section or subsection of40 

### CFR 52.21 

### Prevention ofSignifcant 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 Section2 into the Louisville portion ofthe 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 PMlosurrogatepolicy. The proposal statesthat 

### "ZfEPAadopts aJinal rule to repeal the grandfathering provisions, any PSD permit applicationscovered by the grandfatheringprovisions thathave notyet been approved and issued apnaland 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 

### ofthis package for our consideration. 

### If you have any questions, please contactLynorae Benjamin at (404) 562-9040, or have your staff contact TwunjalaBradley ofthe EPA Region 4 staff at (404) 562-9352.

Chief Air 

### Planning Branch

Cc: Rachael Hamilton, 

### APCD Laura Lund, KDAQLouisville 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 tonper year major source threshold, the proposed revision to the definition of "majorsource" in section 1.40 should be deleted in order to be consistent with the TailoringRule.


### - US.EPA Response: The District agrees and will recommend that the proposed amendment to Regulation 1.02 section 1.40 be adoptedby the Board. Public Hearing The following comments were received during the public hearing held on November 17,2010. Comment:

Response:

Comment:

Response: The District should include the deJinitions of greenhouse gases and CO2 equivalents inRegulation 1.02. 

### - GreaterLouisville Inc. Air Toxics TaskForce (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. Theproposed deJnition of "majorsource" inRegulation 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 17,2010 1Louisville 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 17,2010

### LouisvilleMetro Air Pollution Control District Comment and Response Document Regulation 2.05 Prevention ofSignificantDeterioration 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, 2010, (75 FR 6827))EPA proposed to repeal the Grandfathering provisions regarding the PMlO surrogate policy. Theproposal states that ''If 

### EPA adopts a final rule to repeal the grandfathering provisions, any PSD applications covered by the grandfatheringprovisions that have not yet been approved and issued aJiplal and eflective PSDpermit 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 uncertaintysurrounding any potential judicial action on the Tailoring Rule, EPA will not take action on the incorporation of Section 2 into the Louisvilleportion ofthe 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 thisprovision 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 51.166, serves as 

### the basis of the District's PSD program. 

### Because EPA is conducting approvability reviews on a case-by-case basisfor 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 SignificantDeterioration 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 

### 17,2010. Comment: 

### GLIATTF strongly supports the District's inclusion ofterms to stay or nullzfi the provisions in its amended regulations 

### if the provisions of the federal GHG TailoringRule 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. SubstantiveChanges Resulting from Public Review Process: None

November 1 

### 7,20 1 0LouisvilleMetro 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 theproposed changes to Regulation 2.08 exclude all GHG emissions, not just those emittedover 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 17,201 0Louisville 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 commentswere received during the public comment period. Comment: The deJinition of "major source" in section 1.25.4 does not establish a tonper 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 tonper year major source threshold. As discussed in the preamble to the Tailoring Rule (Id.), "Bothofthe 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 ofthe six well-mixed GHGs on a mass basis (no GWPs 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 COsbasis (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 airpollutants that emits or has thepotential to

emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to regulation, including any source ofhgitive emissions ofapollutant



### .... 

### " This will help clarzfi that in order for Title Vto apply both the 100 tpy mass basis thresholdand the 100,000 tpy

COsbasis 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 17,2010. Comment: The Greater Louisville Inc. 'sAir 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 17,2010 6Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District Comment and Response Document stay, vacate or withdraw the proposed GHG amendments 

## if thefederal GHG TailoringRule is superseded by an act ofCongress.


### - 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 10Louisville Metro Air Pollution ControlBoard 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 17,2010, 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. Amendmentsto Regulations 1.02 -Definitions; 2.05 -Prevention ofSignzjkant Deterioration; 2.08 -Fees; and 2.16 - Title 

### VOperating 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 Orderwith Eckart America Corporation 

### B. Amendmentsto Regulations 1.02 

### -Definitions; 2.05 -Prevention ofSigniJicant 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 StatusReport 

### 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 1sa regularly scheduled agenda item to glve ~ndlv~duals and organmhons an opportunity to address the Board on aupollut~on Issues Presentations shallbe lunltedto two mmutes, exceptthat the Board Chau may, for cause, allow three minutes Personswshmgto address the Board shall no* the Secretary-Treasurer(5021574-5218) and subm~t a completed speaker's registration card to the SecretaryTreasurerbefore 1000 a m ofthe day of the Board meetmg Documents for this meeting that are available electronicallymay be found on the ~istrict's web page at the followingURL: % % http://www.louisvilleky.g~~/~~~~/~ale~.PublicHearing Minutes ofthe Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board November 17,2010

A public hearing ofthe Louisville Metro Air Pollution ControI Boardwas diedto 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 Hearingwhich 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 OperatingPermits. I. Agreed Board Orderwith EckartAmerica 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 coitsiructioziperinit 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 tojustify 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 operationof the ball miIls in 2005 and 2006 that were not controlled by a condenser. She saidthe required condenserrepresented 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 operatingthe ball milts withoutthe 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 commentswere made. Public Comments No comments were made.2. AmendmentstoRegulations 1.02 - Defiifions;2.05 

### -Prevenfionof Sign1@7cnnf Deterioration; 2.08 

### -Fees; and 2.16 - Title V OperatingPermits Ms. Hamilton said the purpose of the proposed action to the regulations was to implementportions of the federal Prevention of SignificantDeterioration 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 ofAir Qualitythat 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 subjectto regulation" be added; and the District's prior recommended proposal, line 259, be deleted. Ms. Hamilton said the Districtrecommended 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 ithisiiii~~. 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 10Minutes RegularMeeting ofthe huimilleMetro 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 EeltartAmerica Corporation

Ms. Phelps said the Districtrecommended adoption of the Agreed Board Order with Eckart America Corporation, asproposed. 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 1.02Definiriom, Version 12, External 

### - proposed September 15, 2010 Ms. Hamilton said the District recommended that the Board not take action on Regulation 1.02, Version 12based on a recommendation from the U.S. EPA. No action was taken.C. Amendment to Regulation 2.05Prevention of SignzjicnzztDeterioration,Version 10,External 

### - proposed September15,2010 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, Version24, Externat - proposed September 15,2010 Ms. ~amilton said the Districtrecommended that the Board adoptRegulation 2.08 Fees, Version24, as proposed. Motion: Ms. Beirner moved to adoptReguIation 2.08 Fees, Version24,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 Districtrecommended that the Board adopt Regulation 2.16 Title V OperatingPermits,Version 6,Draft 2, with changes at lines 220 and 259. She said this will incorporate U.S. EPA's dual definition for the appIicabi1ityof greenhouse gases. Motion: Mr. Thomas moved to adopt amended Regtation 2.16 Title roperatingPermits, Version 6, Draft 2, as proposed. The motion passed unanimously. F.

... Committee of the Whole to discuss STAR regu&ions Dr. Powell reported that atthe 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 ofthe Whole meeting sothat all Board members could participate in the discussion. Motion: Mr. Thomas moved to convene a Committee ofthe Whole meetingto discuss the draft amendmentstothe STAR regulations. The motion passed unanimously. Dr. Powell appointedNlr. Jacob to Chair the meeting ofthe Committeeof the Whole. Mr. Jacobs said the purpose ofthe Committee of the Whole meeting was to discuss the drafl STAR regulations. Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed amendmentsto 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 GeneralProvisions Version 7,External; 5.1 1 Standards of Perjhrnumcefor fikting Processes and Process Equipment Emitting Toxic

### Air PolIu~mts Version 4,External; 5.12 Standmrdr Performce for New orMudzj9edProcesses and Process Equipment Emitting Toxic az~ PoIIurants Version 4, EtemaI; 5.20 Methodologyfor Determining BenchmmkAmbient Concentration of a Toxic

### Air Contaminant Version 3, External; 5.21 Louisville Metro Air Pollution ControlBoard Board 

### Meeting November 17,2010Environmental Acceptabili@for ToxicAir Contaminants Version 6, External; and 5.22 Procedures for Determiningthe MaximmAmbient Concentrationofa-Toxic Air ContamminitVersion 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 ofthe remainder of the STAR regulations for a 60-day public comment period that ends on January 3 1,2011. Motion: Mr. Thomas moved that the Committee recommendto the Board that Regulation I .06 StationmySolace Monitoring,Recordkeeping andReportingRequirements 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 Committeemeetingwas adjourned. Mr. Jacob presented the Committee's recommendations to Dr. Powell. Dr. Powell asked the Board ifthere 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 recommendationswere adopted. SiaffReports A. Air QnaIityData . 

### . Ms. Cynthia Lee, Nianager ofEnvironme~?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 aboutthe smoke from theFt. 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 ofthe report is attached to the originalminutes.


### B. Enforcement StatusReport The enfokement report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the originaf minutes. C. ExcessEmission Report The October 2010 Excess Emission Report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the originalminutes. 

## 1 

# 1. Louisville 

### Metro 

# I Air Pollution Control 

### Board 

### Board Meeting 

### November 17,20 1 0D. Permitting BackIog Report The permitting backlog report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original minutes. E. Lawn Care for CleanerAir Awards The November 2010 Lawn Carefor CleanerAir An~ard recipient report was submitted for filing. A copy is attached to the original minutes. Next Meeting Thenext regular Board meeting is scheduled Wednesday, December 15,20 10,at 10:00 a.m. Adjournment The meetingwas adjourned at 1 O:37 a.m.

Chairman / Secretary-Treasmer



### LouisdleMetro AirPollution 

### Control Board 

### Board Meeting 

### November 17,2010

## Regulation Tracking 

## Form

Regulation: 

### 2.05 Title: Prevention ofSignificantDeterioration 

### Originator: Hamilton

I I Reviewby Policy Committee 

### u Acfivffy

I

Date Date Approved 

# J v'

J'

if 

# J Internal Preliminary Regulatory ImpactAssessment Reviewby Director Draft 1 -External Draft 2 - External 

## 4 

# iisllo 1151~ ~(IS~IO

14 i'