## 1 Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Revisions to the F ederal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine

Part iculate Matter and Ozone Final Rule

Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491



# Final Revisions Rule Significant Contribution Assessment TSD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Febru ary 201 2

## 2 This Technical Support Document (TSD) presents quantitative assessments of the

relationship between final revisions to the Transport Rule and the original analysis conducted for

the final Transport Rule informing the Rule’s determination of emiss ions that significantly

contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) in downwind states

. As conducted for the final Transport Rule, EPA re

iterated its analysis of the downwind air quality impacts resulting from the rule’s projected SO 2 

## emission reductions using the Air Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT) and taking the finalized

revisions into account. In this document, EPA also assesses the relationship between the NO

x 

## emission inventories in each affected state and the finalized revisions to annual NO

x 

## and ozone

season NO

x 

## budgets under the Transport Rule programs.

T his technical support document presents results separately for the revisions described in

the final revisions rule 1 

## , as well as those revisions described in the direct final revisions rule. 2



## For purposes of assessing the impact of state SO 2 

## budget increases under the final

revisions rule and the direct final revisions rule in AQAT , EPA assumed that the state SO 2 

## budget increases would result in an equivalent, ton for ton, increa se in 2014 SO 2 

## emissions

(beyond the level previously projected in the final Transport Rule ). Therefore, this TSD refers to

the “final emission increases” assumed to result from the final budget increases and analyzes the

impact of these emission increase s. The final revisions rule includes increases to 2014 SO 2 

## budgets for Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin. In the proposed revisions rule, EPA assessed the emission increases on a state

- by

state as well as a collective basis. For the final revisions rule, EPA has assesse d the collective

impact of all of the revisions being finalized

. The direct final revisions rule includes increases to

2014 SO 2 

## budgets for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina.

For the direct final revisions rule , EPA has assessed the emission increases on a state

- by

- state

basis, as well as collectively

, for the remedy scenario, the $500/ton cost threshold scenario, and

the $2,300/ton cost thresho ld scenario

.

This TSD is organized as follows:

A. Summary of EPA’s Analysis to Quantify Emissions that Significantly Contribute to

Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintenance for the Final Revisions Rule and Direct Final

Revisions Rule

. B

. Analysis of Significant Contribution and Interference with Maintenance for SO 2 

## Emissions

from Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Using the Air Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT) for

the Final Revisions Rule.

C. Presentation of Annual and Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increases Relative to A nnual and

Ozone

- Season Total NO

x 

## Emissions for the Final Revisions Rule.

D. Analysis of Significant Contribution and Interference with Maintenance for SO 2 

## Emissions

from Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina (on a State

by

- State Basis as well as Collectively) Using AQAT for the Direct Final Rule.

E. Presentation of Annual and Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increases Relative to Annual and

Ozone

- Season Total NO

x 

## Emissions for the Direct Final Rule.

1 

### See preamble to the “ Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate

Matter and Ozone ”

2 

### See preamble to the “ Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate

Matter and Ozone : Part II ”

## 3 A

. Summary of EPA’s Analysis to Quantify Emissions that Significantly Contribute to

Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintenance for the Final Revisions Rule and Direct Final

Revisions Rule

.

S ections V and VI of the final Transport Rule (TR) preamble (Federal Implementation

Plans: I nterstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP

Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) ) describe EPA’s approach to identify upwind states’

emissions that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with d ownwind

maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 fine particle ( PM 2.5 

## ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

( NAAQS ) and the 1997 ozone NAAQS

. This is further described in the related Significant

Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD ( EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4456 )

. As described in the preamble for the final TR , the approach uses air quality modeling to identify

monitoring sites with projected nonattainment and maintenance problems (receptors) for the

PM 2.5 

## and ozone NAAQS as well as upwind states wh ose contributions to these receptors meet

or exceed specified threshold amounts. See sections V.C and V.D in the TR preamble and the

associated TR Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD ( EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4140 ) for a

detailed discussion of these air quali ty analyses.

As described in TR preamble section VI, after identifying upwind

- to

- downwind linkages,

EPA uses a multi

- step process to quantify each state’s significant contribution to nonattainment

and interference with maintenance. F irst , EPA identifies t he power sector emissions projected to

remain at ascending cost thresholds of emissions reductions for each state

. See section B in the

Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for discussion of this

analysis. Next, EPA uses an AQAT to estimate the air quality impact of the upwind emission

reductions at each cost threshold on downwind receptors with problems attaining and

maintaining the applicable NAAQS

. See section C in the Significant Contribution and State

Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for discussion of the development and use of AQAT

. The analysis in this TSD uses the annual PM2.5 and 24

- hour PM2.5 AQAT to estimate

the impacts of the final SO 2 

## emission increases on downwind air quality in the context of the air

quality c omponent of the determination of significant contribution in 2014 ; it also provides an

estimate of the effect of these final SO 2 

## budget revisions on the “remedy” control scenario

analyzed for the final Transport Rule in 2014

. For the final revisions rule, t he final budget

increases were investigat ed in a collective manner to show the estimated air quality impacts from

all of the state’s emission s following the finalization of the revisions rule on the downwind

monitors

. For the direct final rule, the emis sion increases for each state were examined

independently of the emission changes from other states, as well as collectively, where emissions

for all affected states are assumed to increase simultaneously

. F or each of the two rules , two

assessments were p erformed :

**•** Significant Contribution Assessment: Following the methodology and using the

emissions for the air quality assessment of significant contribution and interference

with maintenance from the final TR, we assess whether the SO 2 

## emission increases

h ave the potential to change the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and

maintenance projected at the $500/ton and $2

, 300/ton cost threshold level s for annual

PM2.5 and for 24

- hour PM2

. 5 in 2014 ( compared with the AQAT analysis from the

## 4 final TR). Speci fically, we investigate if each state’s significant contribution and

interference with maintenance is resolved at $500/ton and /or $2,300/ton to the

receptor(s) to which they are linked (as was concluded in the multi

- factor assessment

for the final TR)

. Fo r each cost threshold level analyzed, on a receptor

- by

- receptor

basis, the emissions reductions for each upwind state are associated with one of two

cost threshold levels (either the 2014 base case emissions level or the particular

threshold cost level bei ng analyzed) depending on whether the upwind state is

“linked” to that receptor or if the receptor is located within the state. States that are

contributing above the re spective air quality threshold (i.e., greater than or equal to 1

percent contribution of total sulfate and nitrate f or the annual and 24

- hour PM2.5 to

the monitor ) , as well as the state containing the monitor, make SO 2 

## emissions

reductions available at the particular cost threshold level. The emissions for all other

states are at the 2014 base case level.

**•** “Remedy” Control Scenario Assessment: In this case, we estimate the resulting air

quality and patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance when the

emissions from all states are at the level from the 2014 remedy control scenario

(regardless of whether or not they are linked to a particular receptor). Emissions are

at the level for the final TR remedy control scenario except for emissions from the

states affected by the final revisions rule or the direct final rule , where their emissions

are increased by the amount of the related revisions

.

For the final revisio n s rule, t his analysis reaches the same conclusion as EPA’s

assessment of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance from

the final TR. There are no estimated changes in the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and

maintenance a t the $500/ton cost threshold level for any receptors linked to Texas, New York , or

Wisconsin . Therefore, Texas’ significant contribution and interference with m aintenance is the

amount of emissions that can be removed at the $500/ton cost threshold . Furthermore, there are

no estimated changes in the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance at the

$2,300/ton cost threshold level for any receptors li nked to New York or Wisconsi n (relative to

the analysis from the final TR). Thus, EPA concludes that for these two states, their significant

contribution and interference with maintenance is the amount of emissions that can be removed

at the $2,300/ton co st threshold

. In addition, there are no estimated changes in the patterns of

attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance in the 2014 “remedy” control scenario for any of the

final individual emission changes for Texas, New York , or Wisconsin

. EPA conclu des that the SO 2 

## emission budget increases in the final revisions rule would

not substantially affect the air quality component of the multifactor test and

, thus

, would not

affect EPA’s conclusions in the final TR identifying $ 2,3 00 /ton and $ 5 00/ton as the appropriate

SO 2 

## cost thresholds for “Group 1” and “Group 2” states , respectively

. EPA also conducted AQAT significant contribution and remedy assessments of the SO 2 

## budget increases in 2014 for the direct final rule. EPA assessed emission changes fo r Geo rgia,

Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina. EPA examined the se

estimate d emission increases on a state

- by

- state basis , where the emission adjustment was

assessed for each state independently of the emission adjustments for the oth er states, as well as

collectively , where all states affected by the direct final simultaneously increased emissions. T he

emissions from the final revisions rule are included in the direct final assessment (i.e., the direct

final emissions are added incre mentally to the emissions assessed for the final revisions rule).

## 5 For the direct final rule, i n addition to the state

- by

- state and case

- by

- case analysis

presented in this TSD, EPA also assessed the cumulative air quality impact s in the $500/ton cost

thre shold and $2300/ton cost threshold as well as on the 2014 “remedy” control scenario . For

these scenarios, we assumed that all states ( Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York,

Ohio, and South Carolina )

, simultaneously, were to make the final emissi on increases outlined in

the direct final rule

. W hile there were small changes in concentrations at some receptors, t he re

were no changes in the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance for either of the

two cost threshold scenarios or for the 2014 “remedy” control scenario

. B ased on the results of the analyses presented in this TSD , EPA concludes that the final

SO 2 

## emission budget increases in the direct final rule (added incrementally to the final revisions

rule emissions) would not substanti ally a ffect the air quality component of the multifactor test

and thus would not affect EPA’s conclusions in the final TR identifying $ 2,3 00/ton and $ 5 00/ton

as the appropriate SO 2 

## cost thresholds for “ Group 1 ” and “ Group 2 ” states

, respectively, and

would not change each state ’ s designation as either “Group 1” or “Group 2” as was made in the

final TR

.

B

. Analysis of Significant Contribution and Interference with Maintenance for SO 2 

## Emissions

from Texas

, New York , and Wisconsin Using the Air Quality Assess ment Tool (AQAT) for the

Final Revisions Rule.

Using the calibrated annual PM2.5 and 24

- hour PM2.5 versions of AQAT (as described

in section C of the Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD), EPA

examined the air quality impact s to receptors in 2014 using the 2014 base case and 2014

$500/ton and $2,300/ton cost threshold emission estimates. This analysis directly follows the

methodology of the same analysis conducted for the final TR cost threshold analysis. Appendix

A of this document lists a number of the AQAT input and output workbooks from the TR that

were used in this assessment as well as a number of additional AQAT input, intermediate, and

output workbooks created specifically for this assessment

. Appendix A also lists s ome

abbreviations, used throughout the excel workbooks, which identify specific AQAT simulations

used in this assessment

The fossil and biomass SO 2 

## emissions for each state modeled in the 2012 base case

CAMx source

- apportionment air quality modeling are s hown in Table 1 for each of the cases for

the final revisions rule that were investigated using AQAT. Note that the emissions for each of

the states whose 2014 SO 2 

## budget is not affected by the final revisions rule are unchanged from

the respective emissi ons level from the July 2011 final TR analysis , while the emissions for

Texas , New York, and Wisconsin are assessed at th eir emissions level from the final TR (for

comparison) and at an increased level accounting for their budget increases contained in the final

revisions rule

. Consequently, for comparison with the final TR, for each assessment scenario,

we present the resulting estimates from the final TR analysis along with the resulting estimates

where the emissions from Texas, New York, and Wisconsin h ave been increased.

. Two cost threshold levels ($500/ton and $2,300/ton) were investigated in the Significant

Contribution A ssessment, the appropriate cost threshold for “Group 2” states and the cost

threshold for “Group 1” states , respectively, as determi ned in the final TR. Following the

analysis of these cost threshold levels with the adjustments in SO 2 

## emissions made for Texas,

New York, and Wisconsin, there were small changes in estimated average and maximum design

values, and no additional nonattainme nt/maintenance areas were present compared with those

## 6 areas identified at $500/ton and $2,300/ton in the final TR AQAT assessments for both annual

PM2.5 and 24

- hour PM2.5 (see the Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final

Rule TSD for disc ussion of this analysis). See Tables 2 and 3 for estimated average and

maximum design values for annual PM2.5 and Tables 4 and 5 for average and maximum design

values for 24

- hour PM2.5.

For the significant contribution assessment, m inor changes in estimat ed concentrations

were seen at the receptors to which Texas, New York, and Wisconsin were “linked”. The

monitor for annual PM2.5 to which Texas was linked in the TR was: 171191007

. The monitors

for 24

- hour PM2.5 to which New York was linked in the TR wer e: 261470005; 261610008;

261630016; 261630019; 261630033; 390350045; 390350060; 390350065; 420710007; and

421330008. The monitors for annual PM2.5 to which New York was linked in the TR were:

390350038; 390350045; 390350060; 390350065; and 420030064. The receptors for 24

- hour

PM2.5 to which Wisconsin was linked 3



## As described previously, using AQAT, EPA also assessed how the SO 2 

## emission levels in

the final revisions rule, collectively, for Texas , New York, and Wisconsin impact the patterns of

attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance areas for the 2014 TR “remedy” control scenario,

EPA found that, while the re were small changes in average and maximum design values, the

patterns were not likely to change . A reas were projected to retain the same attainment status as

estimated in the TR using AQAT. in the TR were: 170310052, 170311016

, 170312001

, 170313301

, 170316005

, 180890022

, 180890026

, 261630019

, 261630033

, 550790010

, 550790026

, 550790043 . The receptors for annual PM2.5 to which Wisconsin was linked in the

TR were: 171191007, 180970081, 180970083, 261630033, 390350038, 390350045, 390350060,

390350065, 3906 10014, 390617001, and 390618001. T he resulting change s in concentration at

these receptors were not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors at

the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. Thus, EPA concludes t hat assessment

of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary . Texas maintains its classification as a

“Group 2” state, and New York and Wisconsin maintain their classificatio ns as “Group 1” state s

.

C . Presentation of Annual and Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increa ses Relative to Annual and

Ozone

- Season Total NO

x 

## Emissions for the Final Revisions Rule

. T he final revisions to state budgets for annual and ozone

- season NO

x 

## represent very

limited shares of the total NO

x 

## emissions from all source

- sectors in each affected state, as

modeled in the air quality projections under the final T ransport R ule “remedy” control scenario

analysis in 2014. Tables 6 and 7 illustrate the relationship of t he final state budget revisions to

each state’s total emissions (from all sources) for annual NO

x 

## and ozone

- season NO X 

## , respectively. See the excel workbook “ EmissionsSummaries_TR_remedyNOx_OS.xlsx ” for the

ozone

- season emission summary for the 2014 remedy control scenario for NOx. See the excel

workbook “ TransportRuleFinal_EmissionsSu mmaries ”, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4206 , for the

2014 remedy control scenario for annual NOx. See the Emissions Inventory Final Rule

Technical Support Document (TSD)

, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4522, for additional details

about the emissions inventories

. The fin al state budget revisions represent small percentages of

each state’s total emissions ; therefore

, EPA believe s that the impact of these revisions would be

limited to comparatively small changes to the 2014 ozone design values projected in the final

Transpo rt Rule air quality analysis

.

3 

### We have included receptors located in Wisconsin in the following lists of receptors.

## 7 D. Analysis of Significant Contribution and Interference with Maintenance for SO 2 

## Emissions

from Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina (on a State

by

- State Basis as well as Collectively) Usi ng AQAT for the Direct Final Rule.

EPA assessed the impacts of the SO 2 

## budget changes in the direct final rule on a state

- by

state basis, as well as collectively. The total budget changes are presented in Table 8 (see the

preamble of the direct final rule for details about the emission changes). The states that EPA

investigated were Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina.

The budget changes were assessed using the 2014 $500/ton and $2,300 cost threshold scenarios

and the “ remedy” control emissions scenario. All of these scenarios included the emission

increases from the final revisions rule. Note that the 2014 base case emissions were also used

and that, for this case, EPA assumed no emission increases would be made to ac count for the

final revisions rule.

As described in section A, EPA performed two assessments , a Significant Contribution

Assessment and a “Remedy” Control Scenario Assessment

. For each scenario for the two

assessments, for comparison to see the affect of the emissions in the direct final revision rule,

EPA also presents the results of the AQAT assessment from the final revisions rule.

Georgia: Georgia was “linked” to the 24

- hour PM2.5 receptors 10730023 and 10732003

in Jefferson County, Alabama and to the same receptors for annual PM2.5. There is also a

receptor located in Georgia , identification number 131210039

. As seen in Tables 9 and 10 for

annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 11 and 12 for 24

- hour PM2.5

average and maximum d esign values , the resulting change in concentration at these receptors

was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be

in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost t hreshold levels

in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary,

and Georgia maintains its classification as a “Group 2” state. Similarly, under the remedy

assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, ma intenance, and nonattainment were

unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule).

Indiana : Indiana contributed above the threshold to all 24

- hour PM2.5 receptors with

base case maximum design values greater than or eq ual to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 

## ( except for receptor

420710007 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania )

. Indiana also contributed at or above the

threshold to all of the annual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design values greater than or

equal to 12.05 **μ** g/m 3



## . As seen in Tables 13 and 14 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum

design values and for Tables 15 and 16 for 24

- hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values

, the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions

about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or

nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that

assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and Indiana maintains i ts

classification as a “Group 1” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated

patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR

assessment (including the final revisions rule).

Kansas : Kansas 24

- hour PM2.5 receptors identification numbers 550790010

, 550790026

, 171191007

, 170316005 , and 170310052 in Wisconsin and Illinois. Kansas did not

contribute to any of the annual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design values greater than

or equal to 1 2.05 **μ** g/m 3



## . As seen in Tables 17 and 18 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum

design values and for Tables 19 and 20 for 24

- hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values

, the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter t he conclusions

## 8 about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or

nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that

assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were un necessary, and Kansas maintains its

classification as a “Group 2” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated

patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR

assessment (including the final revisions rule).

Nebraska : Nebraska 24

- hour PM2.5 receptors 550790010 and 550790026 in Wisconsin

. Nebraska did not contribute to any of the annual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design

values greater than or equal to 12.05 **μ** g/m 3



## . As seen in Tables 21 and 22 for annual PM2.5

average and maximum design values and for Tables 23 and 24 for 24

- hour PM2.5 average and

maximum design values , the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not

sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in

attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in

2014. EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and

Nebraska maintai ns its classification as a “Group 2” state. Similarly, under the remedy

assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were

unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule).

New York : T he monitors for 24

- hour PM2.5 to which New York was linked in the TR

were: 261470005; 261610008; 261630016; 261630019; 261630033; 390350045; 390350060;

390350065; 420710007; and 421330008. The monitors for annual PM2.5 to which New York

was linked in the TR were: 390350038; 390350045; 390350060; 390350065; and 420030064.

As seen in Tables 25 and 26 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for

Tables 27 and 28 for 24

- hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values , the resulting change

in concen tration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of

these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the

$500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of

alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and New York maintains its classification as a

“Group 1” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment,

maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including

the final revisions rule).

Ohio : Ohio contributed above the threshold to all 24

- hour PM2.5 receptors with base

case maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3



## . Ohio also contributed at or

above the threshold to all of the annual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design values

greater than or equal to 12.05 **μ** g/m 3



## . As seen in Tables 29 and 30 for annual PM2.5 average and

maximum design values and for Table s 31 and 32 for 24

- hour PM2.5 average and maximum

design values , the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter

the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment,

maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA

concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and Ohio

maintains its classification as a “Group 1” state. Similarly, under the remedy asse ssment, the

estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the

final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule).

South Carolina : South Carolina did not contribute above the threshold to any of the 24

-

ho ur PM2.5 receptors identified in the TR (i.e., it was not “linked” ) . Thus, its emissions were

assessed using 2014 base case emission levels for all receptors, and consequently, no changes in

concentration were observed in 24

- hour PM2.5 at any of the receptors at the $500/ton or

## 9 $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014 (relative to the TR including the final revisions rule).

For annual PM2.5, South Carolina was “linked” to receptor 131210039 in Fulton County,

Georgia. As seen in Tables 33 and 34 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and

for Tables 35 and 36 for 24

- hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values , the resulting

change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the

status of these receptors ( i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at

the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of

alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and South Carolina maintains its

classifi cation as a “Group 2” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated

patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR

assessment (including the final revisions rule).

Collective Assessment : As described above, EPA also used AQAT to estimate the air

quality impacts in the significant contribution and remedy assessments when all states included

in the direct final simultaneously increased their emissions. A s seen in Tables 3 7 and 3 8 for

annual P M2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 3 9 and 40 for 24

- hour PM2.5

average and maximum design values , the resulting change in concentration at each of the TR

receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about its status (i.e., estim ated to be in

attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in

2014. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment,

maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to t he final TR assessment (including

the final revisions rule).

E. Presentation of Annual and Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increases Relative to Annual and

Ozone

- Season Total NO

x 

## Emissions for the Direct Final Rule.

The direct final rule revises the state budg ets for annual and ozone

- season NO

x 

## . These

changes represent very limited shares of the total NO

x 

## emissions from all source

- sectors in each

affected state, as modeled in the air quality projections under the final Transport Rule “remedy”

control scenario analysis in 2014 , and very limited shares of the total NO

x 

## emissions from all

source

- sectors in each affected state (when the final revisions rule is also considered)

. See the

excel workbook “ EmissionsSummaries_TR_remedyNOx_OS.xlsx ” for the ozone

- season

e mission summary for the 2014 remedy control scenario for NOx. See the excel workbook

“ TransportRuleFinal_EmissionsSummaries ”, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4206 , for the 2014

remedy control scenario for annual NOx. See the Emissions Inventory Final Rule Technica l

Support Document (TSD)

, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4522, for additional details about the

emissions inventories.

Tables 41 and 42 illustrate the relationship of the direct final state budget revisions to

each state’s total emissions (from all sources) for annu al NO

x 

## and ozone

- season N O

x 

## respectively. The total emissions include the NO

x 

## from the final revisions rule (assuming that

there is a one

- to

- one correlation between the budget increase and an increase in emissions. The

state budget revisions in the direc t final rule represent small percentages of each state’s total

emissions; therefore, EPA believes that the impact of these revisions would be limited to

comparatively small changes to the 2014 ozone design values projected in the final Transport

Rule air q uality analysis

.

## 10 Table 1 . SO 2 

## EGU Emissions From Fossil and Biomass Units* Used in AQAT (tons of SO 2 

## ) in

2014 in the Final TR as well as the Additional Emission Increases Examined in the Revisions

Proposal.

2014 Base

Case $500/ton

Cost

Threshold $2,300/ ton

Cost

Threshold “Remedy”

Control

Scenario Emission

Increase

Examined

in AQAT

State

Alabama 417,340 200,905 213,593 173,566

Arkansas 99,411 103,431 103,431 106,685

Connecticut 3,774 3,883 3,883 3,883

Delaware 2,172 2,088 2,088 2,172

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Florida 143,601 137,705 136,825 148,069

Georgia 170,288 94,691 95,834 93,208

Illinois 141,606 138,815 128,997 132,647

Indiana 727,786 262,386 179,539 1 95,045

Iowa 133,083 117,830 81,137 83,827

Kansas 69,819 55,308 60,870 45,740

Kentucky 488,006 160,582 106,299 116,927

Louisiana 118,231 135,803 139,204 139,204

Maine 2,355 2,355 2,355 2,355

Maryland 42, 926 32,187 28,203 30,368

Massachusetts 13,365 13,364 13,363 13,363

Michigan 269,434 210,163 148,232 162,632

Minnesota 70,937 47,720 50,213 49,622

Mississippi 30,972 32,454 32,455 32,109

Missouri 390,287 2 21,689 175,480 186,898

Nebraska 73,073 69,466 71,475 71,340

New Hampshire 6,453 7,100 7,199 6,742

New Jersey 38,857 7,069 6,611 6,243

New York 42,887 23,181 14,404 15,160 3,527

North Carolina 126,048 109,612 63,577 69,377

North Dakota 103,633 102,816 103,633 103,624

Ohio 851,199 313,193 166,691 178,975

Oklahoma 137,981 137,981 138,072 138,072

Pennsylvania 509,650 296,596 114,431 125,545

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 213,281 96,504 107,114 100,787

South Dakota 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711

Tennessee 284,468 82,159 58,838 64,721

Texas 453,332 281,298 284,132 266,648 50,517

Vermont 263 263 263 263

Virg inia 77,256 71,505 47,639 51,144

West Virginia 498,507 158,445 76,778 84,344

Wisconsin 130,538 57,418 46,205 50,136 7,757 

## *Source: Integrated Planning Model run by EPA, 2011. See Appendix A in the TR Significant

Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for list and description of the IPM

$500/ton and $2,300/ton cost threshold and control scenario IPM runs. Emissions are shown for

all fossil and biomass units. These “final cost curve” runs have NO

x 

## and ozone se ason NO

x 

## cost

thresholds at $500/ton (all years), SO 2 

## Group 2 at $500/ton (all years), and SO 2 

## Group 1 (2012

- 2013) at $500/ton.

## 11 Table 2

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Tex as, New York , and Wisconsin Emissions from the

Final Revisions Rule

.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012 Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $ 500/to n

With

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With TX,

NY, and

WI Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With TX,

NY, and

WI

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 50,517 0 50,517 0 50,517

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 3,527 0 3,527 0 3,527

Additional Emissions Added to Wisconsin (tons) 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 1 5.03 15.03 14.86 14.87

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.51 13.52

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.89 13.90

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.54 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.96 12.97

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15. 73 14.35 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.77 13.78

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.75 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.16

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.70 12.71

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.36 12.37

171191007 Illin ois Madison 15.46 13.83 13.85 13.56 13.57 13.39 13.40

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.23 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.64 12.65

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.68 12.69 12.26 12.27 12.24 12. 25

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.07 13.08

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.71 11.72

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.19 12.20

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.53 12.54 12.11 1 2.12 12.09 12.10

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.



## Table 3

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Emissions from the

Fi nal Revisions Rule.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012 Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With TX,

NY, and

WI Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With TX,

NY, and

WI

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 50,517 0 50,51 7 0 50,517

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 3,527 0 3,527 0 3,527

Additional Emissions Added to Wisconsin (tons) 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.25 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 1 6.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.18 14.19

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.20 14.21

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.86 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.28 13.29

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.94 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.36 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.26 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.67

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.92 12.93

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.73 12.74

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.10 14.12 13.83 13.84 13.66 1 3.67

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.70 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.11 13.12

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.98 12.99 12.56 12.57 12.54 12.55

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13 .23 13.23 13.10 13.11

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.07 12.08

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.62 12.63

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.88 12.89 12.46 12.47 12.44 12.45

*Monitors are in order of decre asing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

## 12 Table 4 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Emissions from the

Final Revisions Rule.

Monitor

Identification

N umb er * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $ 2,300 /ton

With TX,

NY, and

WI Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With TX,

NY, and

WI

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 50,517 0 50,517 0 50,517

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 3,527 0 3,527 0 3,527

Additional Emissions Added to Wisconsin (tons) 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.45 45.46

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.25 29.8 8 29.88

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.46 33.47

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.88

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.60 30.61 30.51 30.51

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.13 34. 14 33.13 33.14 32.95 32.97

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.31 36.32 35.00 35.01 34.74 34.76

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.79 32.80 32.38 32.39 32.31 32.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.83 28.84

420710007** Penn sylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.23 26.24

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.57

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.27 35.28 34.93 34.93 34 .87 34.88

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.65 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.95 25.96

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.35 30.36

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.39 27.40

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.78

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.10 31.11

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.48 30.51 30.15 30.18 30.08 30.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.13 27.14

261470 005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.67 32.68

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.49 32.53 31.85 31.89 31.80 31.84

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27. 35 27.30 27.30

180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.92 29.94 29.32 29.34 29.32 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.50 31.54 30.82 30.86 30.83 30.86

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 2 8.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.47 26.48

170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.02 32.04

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.47 24.49

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.54 28.55 28.47 28.47

17031 2001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.84 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.50 29.51

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.11 30.12 29.78 29.79 29.69 29.70

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.92 30.93

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 31.10 3 1.02 31.02

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.62 30.63

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.97

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.41 28.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33. 95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.96 24.97

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.09 23.10

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.13 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Iden tify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

## 13 Table 5

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Emissions from the

Final R evisions Rule.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012 Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With TX,

NY, and

WI

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

With out

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With TX,

NY, and

WI Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

TX, NY,

and WI

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 50,517 0 50,517 0 50,517

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 3,527 0 3,527 0 3,527

Additional Emissions Added to Wisconsin (tons) 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.52 48.53

420030093** Pennsylvania Al legheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.28 34.29

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.39

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.65 35.66 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.69 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.94 32.95

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.40 37.41 36.54 36.55 36.40 36.41

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.95 34.97

180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.00 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.30 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.63 29.64

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.48 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.43 27.44

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.76

261630019** Michi gan Wayne 37.83 36.20 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.74 35.75

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.79 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.81 26.82

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.84 32.85 32.70 32.71

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.49 28. 50

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.63 28.64

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.57

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.54 33.57 33.21 33.24 33.10 33.14

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 2 9.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.76 27.77

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.29 33.30

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.22 34.26 33.92 33.96 33.92 33.95

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.54 27.55

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.19 31.20 30.66 30.68 30.64 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.47 33.50 33.13 33.16 33.13 33.17

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.29 27.30

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.09 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.45 34.47

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.38 25.40

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.26 29.27

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.33 32.34 32.21 32.22

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.31 30.32 30.20 30.21

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.55 34.56 33.91 33.92 33.79 33.80

261630015 Mich igan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.91 31.92

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.46

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.64 26.65

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.41 2 9.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.85 25.86

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.13 26.14

*Monitors are in order of dec reasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

.

## 14 Table 6. The Percentage of the Final Annual NO

x 

## Emission Increase (tons) in 2014 as a Function

of Total Annual NO

x 

## Emissions from all Source Sectors (tons). 4

State 2014 “Remedy”

Con trol Scenario Total

Annual NO

x Emissions Final Annual

NO

x Emission

Increase Final Annual NO

x Emission Increase as a

Percentage of 2014

“Remedy” Total

Emissions

Alabama 315,155

Arkansas 194,964

Connecticut 80,793

Delaware 31,744

District of Columbia 9,773

Florida 616,154

Georgia 395,764

Illinois 540,361

Indiana 424,250

Iowa 217,221

Kansas 240,384

K entucky 286,806

Louisiana 466,098

Maine 61,657

Maryland 181,533

Massachusetts 175,316

Michigan 442,544 5,228 1.2%

Minnesota 338,438

Mississippi 216,224

Missouri 352,631

Nebraska 169,571 3,599 2.1%

New Hampshire 47,482

New Jersey 209,841 679 0.3 %

New York 457,927 3,485 0.8%

North Carolina 317,2 30

North Dakota 127,127

Ohio 508,054

Oklahoma 305,859

Pennsylvania 514,563

Rhode Island 18,808

South Carolina 202,118

South Dakota 65,500

Tennessee 293,339

Texas 1,368,612 1,375 0.1%

Vermont 22,824

Virginia 333,985

West Virginia 155,245

Wisconsin 254,989 2,473 1.0%

4 

### For additional details about emission budgets and unit

- level allocations see the Final Revisions Rule State Budgets

and New Unit Set

- Asides TSD and the Final Revisions Rule Un it

- Level Allocations under the FIPs in the docket to

this rulemaking.

## 15 Table 7. The Percentage of the Final Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increase (tons) in 2014 as a

Function of Total Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emissions from all Source Sectors (tons). 5

State 2014 “Remedy” Control

Scenario Total Ozone

Season NO

x Emissions Final Ozone

- Season

NO

x Emission

Increase Final Ozone

Season NO

x Emission Increase

as a Percentage of

2014 “Remedy”

Total Emissions

Alabama 126,382

Arkansas 87,920

Connecticut 31,133

Delaware 13,693

District of

Columbia 3,805

Florida 261,497

Georgia 161,301

Illinois 221,011

Indiana 176,143

Iowa 97,478

Kansas 97,635

Kentucky 117,179

Louisiana 195,346 4, 594 2. 4 %

Maine 24,427

Maryland 74,401

Massachusetts 68,324

Michigan 180,549

Minnesota 144,960

Mississippi 89,326 2,1 54 2.4%

Missouri 149,213

Nebraska 74,095

New Hampshire 18,785

New Jersey 83,761 349 0. 4 %

New York 182,812 1,911 1.0%

North Carolina 130,132

North Dakota 59,336

Ohio 208,281

Oklahoma 125,457

Pennsylvania 208,800

Rhode Island 7,251

South Carolina 83,215

South Dakota 31,739

Tennessee 119,966

Texas 576,926 1,375 0.2%

Vermont 8,796

5 

### For additional details about emission budgets and unit

- level allocations see the Final Revisions Rule State Budgets

and New Unit Set

- Asides TSD and the Final Revisions Rule Unit

- Level Allocations under the FIPs in the docket to

this rulemaking.

## 16 Virginia 136,976

West Virginia 63,770

Wisconsin 104,890

## 17 Table 8. SO 2 

## EGU Emiss ions From Fossil and Biomass Units* Used in AQAT (tons of SO 2 

## ) in

2014 in the Final TR Including the Emissions in the Final Revisions Rule as well as the

Additional Emission Increases in the Direct Final Rule.

2014 Base

Case $500/ton

Cost

Threshold $2,300 /ton

Cost

Threshold “Remedy”

Control

Scenario Emission

Increase

Examined

in AQAT

State

Alabama 417,340 200,905 213,593 173,566

Arkansas 99,411 103,431 103,431 106,685

Connecticut 3,774 3,883 3,883 3,883

Delaware 2,172 2,088 2,088 2,172

Distr ict of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Florida 143,601 137,705 136,825 148,069

Georgia 170,288 94,691 95,834 93,208 40,334

Illinois 141,606 138,815 128,997 132,647

Indiana 727,786 262,386 179,539 195,045 5,338

Iowa 133,083 117,830 81,137 83,827

Kansas 69,819 55 ,308 60,870 45,740 452

Kentucky 488,006 160,582 106,299 116,927

Louisiana 118,231 135,803 139,204 139,204

Maine 2,355 2,355 2,355 2,355

Maryland 42,926 32,187 28,203 30,368

Massachusetts 13,365 13,364 13,363 13,363

Michigan 269,434 210,163 148,2 32 162,632

Minnesota 70,937 47,720 50,213 49,622

Mississippi 30,972 32,454 32,455 32,109

Missouri 390,287 221,689 175,480 186,898

Nebraska 73,073 69,466 71,475 71,340 3, 110

New Hampshire 6,453 7,100 7,199 6,742

New Jersey 38,857 7,069 6,611 6,24 3

New York** 42,887 26,708 17,931 18,687 5,44 4

North Carolina 126,048 109,612 63,577 69,377

North Dakota 103,633 102,816 103,633 103,624

Ohio 851,199 313,193 166,691 178,975 5,163

Oklahoma 137,981 137,981 138,072 138,072

Pennsylvania 509,650 296, 596 114,431 125,545

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 213,281 96,504 107,114 100,787 8,013

South Dakota 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711

Tennessee 284,468 82,159 58,838 64,721

Texas** 453,332 331,815 334,649 317,165

Vermont 263 263 263 263

Virgin ia 77,256 71,505 47,639 51,144

West Virginia 498,507 158,445 76,778 84,344

Wisconsin** 130,538 65,175 53,962 57,893 

## *Source: Integrated Planning Model run by EPA, 2011. See Appendix A in the TR Significant

Contribution and State Emissions Budgets F inal Rule TSD for list and description of the IPM

$500/ton and $2,300/ton cost threshold and control scenario IPM runs. Emissions are shown for

all fossil and biomass units. These “final cost curve” runs have NO

x 

## and ozone season NO

x 

## cost

thresholds at $ 500/ton (all years), SO 2 

## Group 2 at $500/ton (all years), and SO 2 

## Group 1 (2012

- 2013) at $500/ton.

** Emission estimates at the $500/ton cost threshold, $2,300/ton cost threshold, and “remedy”

control scenario include emissions from the Final Revisions R ule (assessed in the first section of

this TSD).

## 18 Table 9

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT **

– Considering Additional Georgia Emissions

.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

C ase

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With out

Georgia

Budget

Increase Control

Scenari

o With

Georgia

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Georgia (tons) 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14 .10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.35 14.31 14.33 13.90 13.92

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.98

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78

390350060 Ohio C uyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.17

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.72

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.38

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.41

1 0732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.58 13.52 13.54 13.13 13.16

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.65 12.65

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.42 13.20 13. 27 13.08 13.15

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.73

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.20 12.20

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2 012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 10

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT **

– Considering Additional Georgia Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase

Additional Em issions Added to Georgia (tons) 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.66 14.62 14 .64 14.21 14.23

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.30

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.68

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 1 3.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.94

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.75

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.68

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.06 14.00 14.02 13.61 13.64

390350045 Ohio Cuya hoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.12 13.12

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.45 13.23 13.30 13.11 13.18

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.09

39035 0065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.63 12.63

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the fi nal revisions rule.

## 19 Table 11 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT ***

– Considering Additional Georgia Emissions

.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Averag e 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Georgia (tons) 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.2 5 30.25 29.88 29.89

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.89

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51

170311016** Illinois Cook 37. 58 34.14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.98

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.77

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.84

4207 10007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.24 26.24

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.58

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34 .93 34.93 34.88 34.88

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.97

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.37

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40

420033007 Pennsylvania All egheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.79

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.99 31.61 31.67 31.11 31.16

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 2 7.15

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.68 32.69

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.85

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28. 44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.31

180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86

390170003 Ohio Bu tler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.49

170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.05

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.49

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.93 30.93

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 3 1.10 31.10 31.02 31.03

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.47 31.10 31.15 30.63 30.68

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.99

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43

420031301 Pennsylvania A llegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.97 24.97

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.12

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.15

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 20 Table 12

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT ***

– Considering Additional Georgia Emissions

.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Georgia

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Georgia

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Georgia (tons) 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.54

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.31

390350038 ** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.40

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.95 32.95

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36. 41 36.42

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.97 34.98

180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.65

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.44 27.44

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75

3903500 65 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.82 26.83

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.57 32.12 32.18 31.57 31.62

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77

261470005 Michigan St Cl air 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.30 33.31

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.56

18 0970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.12

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 2 7.33 27.30 27.31

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.48

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.41

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.27 29.28

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.23

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.81

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.93

010732 003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.27 31.91 31.96 31.46 31.51

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.44

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26. 15 26.15 25.86 25.86

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.57

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.15

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors tha t have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

. ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 21 Table 13

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/ m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Indiana Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Ind iana

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase

Additional Emiss ions Added to Indiana (tons) 0 5,338 0 5,338 0 5,338

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.11 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13 .90 13.90

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.02 12.97 12.97

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.26 13.16 13.17

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.30 1 2.75 12.76 12.71 12.72

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.98 12.44 12.45 12.37 12.38

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.58 13.40 13.40

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 1 5.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.74 12.65 12.65

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.70 12.27 12.28 12.25 12.26

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.31 11.76 11.77 11.72 11.73

390350065 O hio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.29 12.20 12.20

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.55 12.12 12.13 12.10 12.11

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final re visions rule.



## Table 14

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Indiana Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase Control

S cenario

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Indiana (tons) 0 5,338 0 5,338 0 5,338

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.78 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19

10730 023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.34 13.29 13.29

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.77 13 .67 13.68

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.52 12.97 12.98 12.93 12.94

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.35 12.81 12.82 12.74 12.75

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.85 13.67 13.67

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14 .03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.21 13.12 13.12

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 13.00 12.57 12.58 12.55 12.56

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.67 12.12 12.13 12.08 12.09

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.72 12.63 12.63

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.90 12.47 12.48 12.45 12.46

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 22 Table 15 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Indiana Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Withou t

Indiana

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Indiana (tons) 0 5,338 0 5,338 0 5,338

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.58 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.20 30.25 30.26 29.88 29.89

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34. 18 33.51 33.52 33.47 33.47

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.89

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.51 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.15 33.14 33.15 32.97 32.99

261630033** Michigan W ayne 39.48 36.32 36.33 35.01 35.02 34.76 34.77

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.82 32.39 32.40 32.31 32.33

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.08 28.84 28.85

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 3 4.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.70 26.30 26.31 26.24 26.24

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.65 25.79 25.80 25.57 25.58

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27. 66 26.11 26.12 25.96 25.97

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.12 30.54 30.55 30.36 30.37

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.28 24.88 24.89 24.78 24.79

010730023 Al abama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.94 31.61 31.62 31.11 31.11

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.68 27.16 27.20 27.14 27.17

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.36 32.78 32.7 9 32.68 32.69

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.54 31.89 31.90 31.84 31.85

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.92 30.52 30.53 30.49 30.50

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.46 27.35 27.38 27.30 27.33

180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29. 22 29.25 28.13 28.16 28.10 28.13

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.95 29.34 29.35 29.34 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.87

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.09 26.49 26.50 26.48 26.50

170316005 Illi nois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.73 32.41 32.42 32.04 32.04

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.96 24.69 24.70 24.49 24.49

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.42 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.48

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.59 2 9.51 29.52

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.04 30.93 30.93

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.24 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.03

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.4 2 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.65 26.11 26.12 25.97 25.98

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.24 28.49 28.50 28.43 28.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.17 25.21 25.22 24.97 24.97

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.41 23.15 23.16 23.10 23.10

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.98 26.34 26.35 26.14 26.15

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values gre ater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 23 Table 16

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQA T***

– Considering Additional Indiana Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Indiana

Budget

Incr ease $2,300/ton

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Indiana

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Indiana

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Indiana (tons) 0 5,338 0 5,338 0 5,338

4 20030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.64 48.53 48.54

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.86 34.80 34.81 34.29 34.30

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.40

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.05 32.95 32.95

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.42 36.55 36.56 36.41 36.43

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.60 35.23 35.24 34.97 34.98

180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.03 36.51 36.53 36.31 36.33

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.24 30.02 30.03 29.64 29.65

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.50 27.60 27.61 27.44 27.44

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.28 28.03 28.04 27.76 27.77

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.81 27.00 27.01 26.82 26.83

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33 .36 33.37 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.47 28.70 28.71 28.50 28.51

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.74 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.65

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.58

5 50790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.58 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.04 27.82 27.85 27.77 27.79

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.17 33.38 33.39 33.30 33.30

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34. 26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.68 33.37 33.38 33.39 33.40

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.86 27.59 27.62 27.55 27.58

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.44 29.13 29.17 29.11 29.15

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.21 30.68 30.69 30.67 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.51 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.72 27.33 27.34 27.30 27.31

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.83 34.47 34.47

4200310 08 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.17 25.62 25.63 25.40 25.41

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.21 29.33 29.34 29.27 29.27

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.72 32.34 32.35 32.22 32.23

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.63 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.05 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.92

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.46

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35. 85 28.23 28.25 26.73 26.74 26.65 26.66

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.24 29.50 29.51 29.43 29.44

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.06 26.15 26.16 25.86 25.86

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 26.01 24.62 24.63 24.54 24.55

4 20030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.98 26.34 26.35 26.14 26.15

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

. ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 24 Table 17

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Kansas Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Kansas

Budget

Inc rease $ 2,300/ton

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Kansas (tons) 0 452 0 452 0 452

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15 .03 15.03 14.87 14.87

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.97

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.7 3 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.16

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.71

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.37

171191007 Illino is Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.40

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.65 12.65

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.2 5

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.72

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.20 12.20

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12 .12 12.10 12.10

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 18

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Kansas Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

K ansas

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Kansas (tons) 0 452 0 452 0 452

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.67

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.93

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.74

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.67

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.12 13.12

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.08

390350065 Ohio Cuyahog a 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.63 12.63

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rul e.

## 25 Table 19 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Kansas Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average 24

- hour PM2.5 De sign Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Kansas (tons) 0 452 0 452 0 452

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.25 29.88 29.88

390350038** O hio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.88

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 3 2.97

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.84

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35. 98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.24 26.24

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.57

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88

390350065 O hio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.96

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.36

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24. 88 24.78 24.78

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.11

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 27.14

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.68 32.68

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.84

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.30

180970 066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.48

170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.04

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.47

170312001 Illinois Cook 33. 62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.93 30.93

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.02

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.97

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 2 5.21 24.97 24.97

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.10

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that ha ve maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 26 Table 20

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Kansas Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Kans as

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Kansas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Kansas

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Ad ded to Kansas (tons) 0 452 0 452 0 452

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.53

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.29

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.3 9 35.39

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.95 32.95

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.41

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36 .59 35.23 35.23 34.97 34.97

180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.64

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

3903500 45 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.44 27.44

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.76

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.8 2 26.83

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37. 33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.57

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.30 33.30

5507 90043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.95

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.55

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.1 3 29.11 29.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.30 27.30

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35. 10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.47

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.40

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.27 29.27

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22

1703100 52 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.92

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.46

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35. 61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

. ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 27 Table 21

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Nebraska Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increa se $2,300/ton

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Nebraska (tons) 0 3,110 0 3,110 0 3,110

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.97

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.17

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.71

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 0 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.37

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.40

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.65 12.65

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.72

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.20 12. 20

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 22

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Nebraska Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase

Additi onal Emissions Added to Nebraska (tons) 0 3,110 0 3,110 0 3,110

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14. 62 14.62 14.21 14.21

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.68

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13 .51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.93

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.74

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.67

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.12 13.12

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.08

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.63 12.63

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from t he final revisions rule.

## 28 Table 23 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Nebraska Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Nebraska

Budg et

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Nebraska (tons) 0 3,110 0 3,110 0 3,110

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.25 29.88 29.88

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.88

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51

170311016** Illinoi s Cook 37.58 34.14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.97

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 2 8.84

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.24 26.24

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.57

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.2 8 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.96

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.36

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40

420033007 Pennsy lvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.79

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.11

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.52 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27. 16 27.14 27.14

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.68 32.68

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.85

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.30

180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.87

3901700 03 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.48

170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.04

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.55 28 .55 28.47 28.47

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.93 30.93

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32. 23 32.23 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.02

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.97

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43

420031301 Penn sylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.97 24.97

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.10

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base ca se Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 29 Table 24

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Nebraska Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Des ign Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Nebraska

Budget

Increase Control

Scena rio

With

Nebraska

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Nebraska (tons) 0 3,110 0 3,110 0 3,110

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.53

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 3 4.29

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.40

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.95 32.95

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.42

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.97 34.97

180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.64

420710007** Pennsyl vania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.44 27.44

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.82 26.83

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30 .73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.57

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.58 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.15

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.30 33.30

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.55

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.51 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.7 1 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.30 27.30

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.47

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.40

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.27 29.27

17031200 1 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.9 2 31.92

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.46

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identif y receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

. ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 30 Table 25

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional New York Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ ton

Without

New York

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With New

York

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

New York

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With New

York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

New York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With New

York

Budget

Incre ase

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 5,444 0 5,444 0 5,444

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.79 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.11 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.3 3 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.97

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.26 13.16 13.17

390610014 Ohio Hamilt on 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.71

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.37

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.40

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13

390 350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.74 12.65 12.65

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11 .72 11.72

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.29 12.20 12.20

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget cha nges from the final revisions rule.



## Table 26

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional New York Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQ AT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

New York

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With New

York

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

New York

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With New

York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

New Yo rk

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With New

York

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 5,444 0 5,444 0 5,444

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.18 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.78 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16 .18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.77 13.67 13.68

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.93

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.74

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.67

10732003 Al abama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.21 13.12 13.12

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 1 3.11

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.08

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.72 12.63 12.63

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base c ase Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 31 Table 27 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional New York Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Witho ut

New York

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With New

York

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

New York

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With New

York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

New York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With New

York

Budget

Increase

Addi tional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 5,444 0 5,444 0 5,444

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.25 29.88 29.89

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 3 4.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.89

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.51 30.61 30.62 30.51 30.52

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.97

261630033** Mi chigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.84

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.31 26.24 26.24

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.58

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 2 7.66 27.66 26.11 26.12 25.96 25.97

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.36

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.79

0107 30023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.11

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 27.14

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.36 32 .78 32.79 32.68 32.69

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.84

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.31

180970066 Indiana Marion 3 5.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.49

170316 005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.04

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.41 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.48

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.61 31.03 31.04 30.93 30.93

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.03

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35 .31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.97

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.97 24.97

39 1130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.10

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design va lues greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 32 Table 28

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQA T***

– Considering Additional New York Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

New York

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With New

York

Budget

I ncrease $2,300/ton

Without

New York

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With New

York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

New York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With New

York

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 5,444 0 5,444 0 5,444

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.54

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.30

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.40

261630016** Michigan Way ne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.05 32.95 32.95

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.42

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.60 35.23 35.24 34.97 34.97

1808 90022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.65

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.4 9 27.60 27.61 27.44 27.44

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.81 27.00 27.01 26.82 26.83

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.58

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.17 33.38 33.39 33.30 33.30

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 3 4.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.55

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.12

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.30 27.30

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.47

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.40

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.21 29.33 29.34 29.27 29.27

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.6 2 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.81

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.92

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.46

390618001 Ohio Hami lton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost th reshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

. ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 33 Table 29

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Ohio Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With Ohio

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Ohio

Budget

Inc rease $ 2,300/ton

With Ohio

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With Ohio

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Ohio (tons) 0 5,163 0 5,163 0 5,163

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.79 15.0 3 15.03 14.87 14.87

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.11 13.60 13.61 13.52 13.52

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.56 13.01 13.02 12.97 12.98

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.77 13.25 13.26 13.16 13.17

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.30 12.75 12.76 12.71 12.72

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.98 12.44 12.45 12.37 12.38

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.58 13.40 13.40

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.25 12.73 12.74 12.65 12.65

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.31 11.76 11.77 11.72 11.73

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.80 12.28 12.29 12.20 12.20

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.1 2 12.10 12.10

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 30

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Ohio Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Ohi o

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With Ohio

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With Ohio

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With Ohio

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Ohio (tons) 0 5,163 0 5,163 0 5,163

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.18 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.78 14.27 14.28 14.19 14.19

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.88 13.33 13.34 13.29 13.30

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.28 13.76 13.77 13.67 13.68

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.52 12.97 12.98 12.93 12.9 4

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.35 12.81 12.82 12.74 12.75

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.85 13.67 13.67

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.72 13.2 0 13.21 13.12 13.12

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.67 12.12 12.13 12.08 12.09

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13 .22 13.23 12.71 12.72 12.63 12.63

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 34 Table 31 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Ohio Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With Ohio

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With Ohio

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With Ohio

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Ohio (tons) 0 5,163 0 5,163 0 5,163

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.59 45.54 45.55 45.46 45.47

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.20 30.25 30.27 29.88 29.90

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 3 4.18 34.19 33.51 33.53 33.47 33.48

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.89

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.52 30.61 30.63 30.51 30.52

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.15 33.14 33.15 32.97 32.98

261630033** Mi chigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.33 35.01 35.02 34.76 34.77

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.62 29.07 29.09 28.84 28.86

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.72 26.30 26.32 26.24 26.25

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.66 25.79 25.81 25.57 25.59

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 2 7.66 27.68 26.11 26.14 25.96 25.99

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.12 30.54 30.55 30.36 30.37

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.29 27.59 27.60 27.40 27.41

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.28 24.88 24.89 24.78 24.79

0107 30023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.94 31.61 31.62 31.11 31.12

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.65 27.16 27.17 27.14 27.15

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.36 32 .78 32.79 32.68 32.69

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.54 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.85

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.53 30.49 30.49

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27.36 27.30 27.31

180970066 Indiana Marion 3 5.73 29.22 29.23 28.13 28.14 28.10 28.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.35 29.34 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.09 26.49 26.51 26.48 26.50

170316 005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.73 32.41 32.42 32.04 32.04

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.97 24.69 24.71 24.49 24.50

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.42 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.48

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.61 31.03 31.04 30.93 30.93

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.24 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.03

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35 .31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.65 26.11 26.13 25.97 25.99

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.24 28.49 28.50 28.43 28.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.18 25.21 25.23 24.97 24.98

39 1130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.42 23.15 23.16 23.10 23.11

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.99 26.34 26.35 26.14 26.16

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design va lues greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 35 Table 32

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Em ission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Ohio Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase $ 500 /ton

With Ohio

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With Ohio

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Ohio

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With Ohio

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Ohio (tons) 0 5,163 0 5,163 0 5,163

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.73 48.63 48.65 48.53 48.55

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.87 34.80 34.82 34.29 34.31

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.94 35.41 35.42 35.39 35.41

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.71 33.04 33.06 32.95 32.96

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.42 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.42

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.61 35.23 35.25 34.97 34.98

1 80890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.52 36.31 36.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.26 30.02 30.05 29.64 29.67

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 2 9.52 27.60 27.62 27.44 27.45

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.30 28.03 28.05 27.76 27.79

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.83 27.00 27.03 26.82 26.85

170313301 Illinois Co ok 37.67 33.36 33.37 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.48 28.70 28.71 28.50 28.51

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.75 28.81 28.82 28.64 28.65

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.51 32.12 32.12 31. 57 31.58

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.01 27.82 27.83 27.77 27.78

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.17 33.38 33.39 33.30 33.30

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.1 0 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.84 27.59 27.60 27.55 27.56

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.41 29.13 29.14 29.11 29.12

171191007 Illin ois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.21 30.68 30.69 30.67 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.72 27.33 27.34 27.30 27.31

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34. 47

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.18 25.62 25.65 25.40 25.42

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.22 29.33 29.34 29.27 29.27

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 3 0.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.05 31.99 32.00 31.92 31.92

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.92 31.46 31.46

390618001 Ohio H amilton 35.85 28.23 28.26 26.73 26.74 26.65 26.66

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.24 29.50 29.51 29.43 29.44

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.07 26.15 26.16 25.86 25.87

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 26.01 24.62 24.63 24. 54 24.55

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.99 26.34 26.35 26.14 26.16

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

. ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 36 Table 33

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additio nal South Carolina Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012 Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina (ton s) 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.97

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.17

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.71

39 0610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.37

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.40

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12. 73 12.65 12.65

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.72

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 1 2.79 12.28 12.28 12.20 12.20

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 34

. M aximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional South Carolina Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012 Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

In crease Control

Scenario

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina (tons) 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16 .18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.68

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.93

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.74

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.67

10732003 Al abama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.12 13.12

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 1 3.11

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.08

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.63 12.63

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base c ase Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 37 Table 35 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional South Carolina Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina (tons) 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.2 5 29.88 29.89

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.88

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34. 14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.97

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.84

420710007* * Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.24 26.24

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.57

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34 .93 34.88 34.88

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.96

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.36

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.79

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.12

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 27.14

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.68 32.68

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.84

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27. 35 27.35 27.30 27.30

180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86

390170003 Ohio Butler 3 4.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.48

170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.04

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.48

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.93 30.93

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 3 1.10 31.02 31.02

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.97

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Alleghe ny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.97 24.97

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.10

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

* * Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 38 Table 36

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQA T***

– Considering Additional South Carolina Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

South

Carolina

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions A dded to South Carolina (tons) 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.53

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.30

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 3 5.41 35.41 35.39 35.39

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.95 32.95

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.42

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.97 34.97

180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.64

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.44 27.44

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 2 7.00 27.00 26.82 26.83

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64

010730023 Alabam a Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.58

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33 .30 33.30

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.95

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.55

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 3 0.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.30 27.30

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.47

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.40

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.27 29.27

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.92

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32 .23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.47

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.43

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

. ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 39 Table 37

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering the Cumulative Effects of Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases $ 500/ton

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases $2,300/ton

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases $ 2,300/ton

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases

Additional Emissions Added to Georgia (tons) 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334

Additional Emissions Added t o Indiana (tons) 0 5,338 0 5,338 0 5,338

Additional Emissions Added to Kansas (tons) 0 452 0 452 0 452

Additional Emissions Added to Nebraska (tons) 0 3,110 0 3,110 0 3,110

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 5,444 0 5,444 0 5,444

Additiona l Emissions Added to Ohio (tons) 0 5,163 0 5,163 0 5,163

Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina (tons) 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.79 15.03 15.04 14.87 14.88

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.12 13. 60 13.62 13.52 13.53

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.36 14.31 14.34 13.90 13.93

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.56 13.01 13.02 12.97 12.99

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.88 13.78 13.79

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.77 13.25 13.27 13.16 13.18

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.31 12.75 12.76 12.71 12.74

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.99 12.44 12.46 12.37 12.39

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.58 13.40 13.41

10732003 Alaba ma Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.58 13.52 13.55 13.13 13.16

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.25 12.73 12.75 12.65 12.66

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.70 12.27 12.28 12.25 12.27

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.43 13.20 13.28 13.08 13.1 6

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.31 11.76 11.77 11.72 11.74

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.80 12.28 12.30 12.20 12.21

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.55 12.12 12.13 12.10 12.12

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 40 Table 38

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT**

– Considering the Cumulative Effects of Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Bud get

Increases $ 500/ton

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases $2,300/ton

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases $ 2,300/ton

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases

Additional Emissions Added to Georgia (tons) 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334

Additional Emissions Added to Indiana (tons) 0 5,338 0 5,338 0 5,338

Additional Emissio ns Added to Kansas (tons) 0 452 0 452 0 452

Additional Emissions Added to Nebraska (tons) 0 3,110 0 3,110 0 3,110

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 5,444 0 5,444 0 5,444

Additional Emissions Added to Ohio (tons) 0 5,163 0 5,163 0 5,163

Ad ditional Emissions Added to South Carolina (tons) 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.18 15.42 15.43 15.26 15.27

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.79 14.27 14.29 14.19 14.20

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.67 14.62 14.65 14.21 14.24

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.88 13.33 13.34 13.29 13.31

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.47 14.37 14.38

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.28 13.76 13.78 13.67 13.69

390610014 Ohio Hamilto n 15.98 13.51 13.53 12.97 12.98 12.93 12.96

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.36 12.81 12.83 12.74 12.76

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.85 13.67 13.68

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.06 14.00 14.03 13.61 13.64

3903 50045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.72 13.20 13.22 13.12 13.13

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 13.00 12.57 12.58 12.55 12.57

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.46 13.23 13.31 13.11 13.19

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.67 12.12 12.13 12. 08 12.10

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.23 12.71 12.73 12.63 12.64

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.90 12.47 12.48 12.45 12.47

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

**Assessments consider the emission budget chan ges from the final revisions rule.

## 41 Table 39 . Average 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Considering the Cumulative Effects of Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Caro lina Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Average 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$500/ton

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases $ 500/ton

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

S C Budget

Increases $2,300/ton

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases $ 2,300/ton

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases

Additional Emissions Added to Georgia (tons) 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334

Additional Emissions Added to Indiana (tons) 0 5,338 0 5,338 0 5,338

Additional Emissions Added to Kansas (tons) 0 452 0 452 0 452

Additional E missions Added to Nebraska (tons) 0 3,110 0 3,110 0 3,110

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 5,444 0 5,444 0 5,444

Additional Emissions Added to Ohio (tons) 0 5,163 0 5,163 0 5,163

Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina (tons) 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.59 45.54 45.56 45.46 45.49

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.21 30.25 30.27 29.88 29.92

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.19 33.51 33.53 33.47 33.49

261630016** M ichigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.94 33.88 33.90

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.53 30.61 30.64 30.51 30.53

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.16 33.14 33.16 32.97 33.02

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.34 35.01 35.03 34.76 34.80

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.82 32.39 32.40 32.31 32.34

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.62 29.07 29.10 28.84 28.87

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.73 26.30 26.32 26.24 26.26

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.67 25.79 25.82 25.57 25.61

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.29 34.93 34.94 34.88 34.89

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.69 26.11 26.15 25.96 26.01

170313301 Ill inois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.13 30.54 30.55 30.36 30.39

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.30 27.59 27.60 27.40 27.42

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.29 24.88 24.90 24.78 24.80

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.99 31.61 3 1.67 31.11 31.17

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.52 30.18 30.19 30.11 30.12

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.69 27.16 27.21 27.14 27.20

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.37 32.78 32.80 32.68 32.71

550790043 Wisconsin Milwau kee 36.21 32.53 32.54 31.89 31.90 31.84 31.87

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.92 30.52 30.53 30.49 30.50

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.47 27.35 27.39 27.30 27.35

180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.26 28.13 28.17 28.10 28.15

1711910 07 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.95 29.34 29.35 29.34 29.35

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.55 30.86 30.87 30.86 30.87

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.11 26.49 26.52 26.48 26.53

170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.73 32.41 32.42 3 2.04 32.06

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.98 24.69 24.72 24.49 24.52

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.44 28.55 28.56 28.47 28.50

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.59 29.51 29.53

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.71

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.61 31.03 31.04 30.93 30.94

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.25 31.10 31.11 31.02 31.05

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.47 31.10 31.16 30.63 30.70

39061800 1 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.67 26.11 26.14 25.97 26.03

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.25 28.49 28.50 28.43 28.44

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.19 25.21 25.24 24.97 25.00

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.44 23.15 2 3.17 23.10 23.14

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 28.00 26.34 26.36 26.14 26.17

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $ 500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR).

***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 42 Table 40

. Maximum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT***

– Consideri ng the Cumulative Effects of Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas,

Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Emissions.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24

- hour PM2.5 Design Values ( **μ** g/m 3 ).

$5 00/ton

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases $ 500/ton

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases $2,300/ton

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases $ 2,300/ton

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

Without

GA, IN,

KS, NE,

NY, OH,

and SC

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

With GA,

IN, KS,

NE, NY,

OH, and

SC Budget

Increases

Additional Emissions Added to Georgia (tons) 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334

Additional Emissions Added to Indiana ( tons) 0 5,338 0 5,338 0 5,338

Additional Emissions Added to Kansas (tons) 0 452 0 452 0 452

Additional Emissions Added to Nebraska (tons) 0 3,110 0 3,110 0 3,110

Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons) 0 5,444 0 5,444 0 5,444

Additional Emissions Added to Ohio (tons) 0 5,163 0 5,163 0 5,163

Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina (tons) 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.74 48.63 48.65 48.53 48.56

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.88 3 4.80 34.83 34.29 34.34

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.94 35.41 35.42 35.39 35.42

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.62

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.72 33.04 33.07 32.95 32.97

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.43 36.55 36.56 36.41 36.46

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.62 35.23 35.26 34.97 35.01

180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.03 36.51 36.54 36.31 36.35

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.27 30.02 30.06 29.64 29.69

4 20710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.53 27.60 27.63 27.44 27.46

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.31 28.03 28.06 27.76 27.81

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.22 35.83 35.84 35.75 35.76

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.84 27.00 27.04 26.82 26.88

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.37 32.85 32.86 32.71 32.73

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.49 28.70 28.72 28.50 28.53

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.75 28.81 28.83 28.64 28.67

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.58 32.12 32.19 31.57 31.64

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.58 33.24 33.25 33.14 33.15

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.05 27.82 27.85 27.7 7 27.81

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.19 33.38 33.39 33.30 33.32

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.27 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.68 33.37 33.38 33.39 33.40

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.87 27.59 27.63 27.55 27.61

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.45 29.13 29.18 29.11 29.18

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.21 30.68 30.70 30.67 30.68

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.51 33.16 33.17 33.17 33.18

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.73 27.33 27.35 27.30 27.35

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.83 34.47 34.49

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.19 25.62 25.66 25.40 25.45

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.23 29.33 29.34 29. 27 29.29

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.72 32.34 32.35 32.22 32.24

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.63 30.32 30.33 30.21 30.22

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.82

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.0 6 31.99 32.00 31.92 31.94

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.28 31.91 31.97 31.46 31.53

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.27 26.73 26.75 26.65 26.68

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.25 29.50 29.51 29.43 29.45

420031301 Pennsylvani a Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.08 26.15 26.17 25.86 25.89

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 26.02 24.62 24.64 24.54 24.60

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 28.00 26.34 26.36 26.14 26.17

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maxi mum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 **μ** g/m 3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in

AQAT in the TR)

. ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

## 43 Table 41 . The Percentage of the Direct Final Annual NO

x 

## Emission Increase (tons) as a Function

of T otal Annual NO

x 

## Emissions from all Source Sectors (tons) Including the Final Revisions

Rule Emissions

. 6

State 2014 “ Remedy ”

Control Scenario Total

Annual NO

x Emissions Direct Final

Annual NO

x

Emission

Increase Direct Final Annual NO

x Emission Increase as a

Percentage of 2014

“ Remedy ” Total

Emissions

Alabama 315,155

Arkansas 194,964

Connecticut 80,793

Delaware 31,744

District of Columbia 9,773

Florida 616,154

Georgia 395,764 13,198 3.3%

Illinois 540,361

Indiana 424,250

Iowa 217,221

Kansas 240,384 5,794 2.4%

Kentucky 286,806

Louisiana 466,098

Maine 61,6 57

Maryland 181,533

Massachusetts 175,316

Michigan 447,772

Minnesota 338,438

Mississippi 216,224

Missouri 352,631 26 0.0%

Nebraska 173,170

New Ha mpshire 47,482

New Jersey 210,520

New York 461,412 694 0.2%

North Carolina 317,230

North Dakota 127,127

Ohio 508,054 2,765 0.5%

Oklahoma 305,859

Pennsylvania 514,563

Rhode Island 18,808

South Carolina 202,118

South Dakota 65,500

Tennessee 293,339

Texas 1,369,987 2,731 0.2%

Vermont 22,824

Virg inia 333,985

West Virginia 155,245

Wisconsin 257,462

6 

### For additional details about emission budgets and unit

- level allocations see the Final Revisions Rule State Budgets

and New Unit Set

- Asides TSD and the Final Revisions Rule Unit

- Level Allocations under the FIPs in the docket to

this rulemaking.

## 44 Table 42 . The Percentage of the Direct Final Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increase (tons) as a

Function of Total Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emissions from all Source Secto rs (tons) Including the

Final Revisions Rule Emissions

. 7

State 2014 “ R emedy” Control

Scenario T otal Ozone

Season NO

x Emissions Direct Final Ozone

Season NO

x Emission

Increase Direct Final

Ozone

- Season NO

x Emission Increase

as a Percentage of

2014 “ Remedy ”

Total Emissions

Alabama 126,382

Arkansas 87,920 73 0.1%

Connecticut 31,133

Delaware 13,693

District of

Columbia 3,805

Florida 261,497

Georgia 161,301 5,7 62 3.6%

Illinois 221,011

Indiana 176,143

Iowa 97,478

Kansas 97,635

Kentucky 117,179

Louisiana 199,940 89 0.0%

Maine 24,427

Maryland 74,401

Massachu setts 68,324

Michigan 180,549

Minnesota 144,960

Mississippi 91,480 115 0.1%

Missouri 149,213 26 0.0%

Nebraska 74,095

New Hampshire 18,785

New Jersey 84,110

New York 184,723 127 0.1%

North Carolina 130,132

North Dakota 59,336

Ohio 208,281 1,221 0.6%

Oklahoma 125,457 859 0.7%

Pennsylvania 208,800

Rhode Island 7,251

South Carolina 83,215

South Dakota 31,739

Tennessee 119,966

Texas 578,301 1,142 0.2%

7 

### For additional details about emission budgets and unit

- level allocations see the Final Revisions Rule State Budgets

and New Unit Set

- Asi des TSD and the Final Revisions Rule Unit

- Level Allocations under the FIPs in the docket to

this rulemaking.

## 45 Vermont 8,796

Virginia 136,976

West Virginia 63,770

Wisconsin 104,890

## 46 Appendix A.

Documents, worksheets, and workbooks from the final TR used in this analysis (with the

relevant document identification number) as well as a list of additional files created for this

assessment

. In addition, a list of abbreviations along with brief descriptions of the various

AQAT simulations used in this assessment is included at the end of this appendix.

Annual and Quarterly Emissions for all AQAT Simulations. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4530

AQAT_emissions_ fina l rev rule .xlsx

contains the emissions and fraction of emissions for each scenario in the revisions rule and direct

final rule relative to the total emissions in the 2012 base case from the final TR.

These files contain the 24

- hour PM2.5 2012 base case and 2014 AQAT Calibration Scenario

contributions.

QTR1_base_and_AQAT_calibration_scenario_contributions.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

-

4531

QTR2_base_and_AQAT_calibration_scenario_contributions.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

-

4532

QTR3_base_and_AQAT_calibration_scenari o_contributions.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

-

4533

QTR4_base_and_AQAT_calibration_scenario_contributions.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

-

4534

The annual PM2.5 and 24

- hour PM2.5 calibration factors can be found in the respective files in

the TR docket

. The annual PM 2.5 calibration factors are also included in the AnnualPM2.5

AQAT workbook.

Annual PM Calib ration Factors.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4535

Daily PM Calibration Factors.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4464

These files contain the quarterly contributions and calibr ated Relative Response Factors (RRFs)

for selected 24

- hour PM2.5 simulations (CT refers to cost threshold)

. The files from the final TR

are listed here (along with their docket identification numbers), as well as the additional files that

have been create d and used for this assessment. The file name identifies whether the file is a

cost threshold (CT) or a “remedy” control scenario (rem) and identifies which states, if any, are

being adjusted.

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

-

4492

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

-

0491

- 4488

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300_remedy.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

-

0491

- 4487

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and R RF_2014

_ 2300rem TXNY WI. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300 rem_ GA. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300 rem_ IN. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300 rem_ KS. xlsx

## 47 dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300 rem_ NE. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300 rem_ NY. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300rem_ OH. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300 rem_ SC. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300rem_ all. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300 rem. xlsx (recreating the final TR

file)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_TXNY WI. xlsx

dailyPM_a djusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_ GA. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_ IN. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_ KS. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_ NE. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_ NY. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_ OH. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_ SC. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT_ all. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 2300 CT. xlsx (recreating the final TR

file)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_TXNY WI. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_ GA. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_ IN. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_ KS. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_ NE. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_ NY. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_ OH. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_ SC. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT_ all. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate co ntributions and RRF_2014_ 500 CT. xlsx (recreating the final TR

file)

dailyPM_allyears_high_quarters_ finalrevdirfinal .xlsx

. This file contains a summary of the

estimated 98th percentile values and resulting average and maximum design values for all 24

-

hour PM2.5 AQAT cost threshold level and remedy simulations

. It also contains a summary

worksheet, where the design values are sorted in order of decreasing maximum 2012 base case

design value (the same key as used in the tables in this document).

The follow ing files apply the RRFs to each of the 32 days per year for each of the 5 years of

available receptor estimates. The result is the estimated 24

- hour PM2.5 concentration for that

day. The 98th percentile day is also identified in these files. They are i n 2014.

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_base_500CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4540

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_base_ 23 00CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4505

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300_remedy.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4569

The additional files in th is assessment are:

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters

_ 2300_rem_TXNY WI. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_rem_ GA. xlsx

## 48 dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_rem_ IN. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_rem_ KS. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 0 0_rem_ NE. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_rem_ NY. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_rem_ OH. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_rem_ SC. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_rem_ all. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 2300_ rem. xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_CT_TXNY WI. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_CT_ GA. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_CT_ IN. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_CT_ KS. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_q uarters_ 23 00_CT_ NE. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_CT_ NY. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_CT_ OH. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_CT_ SC. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00_CT_ all. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 2300_ CT. xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 5 00_CT_TXNY WI. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 5 00_CT_ GA. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 5 00_CT_ IN. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 5 00_CT_ KS. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quart ers_ 5 00_CT_ NE. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 5 00_CT_ NY. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 5 00_CT_ OH. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 5 00_CT_ SC. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 5 00_CT_ all. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 500_ CT. xlsx (rec reating the final TR file)

The file annualPM25 AQAT.xlsx file EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4458

c ontains the base contributions, AQAT calibration scenario contributions, calibrated

contributions, and estimated design values for all annual PM2.5 AQAT simulations for the final

TR

.

A new file, containing the annual AQAT estimates for this assessment (the final revisions rule

and direct final rule) is called “annualPM25 AQAT_rev _final .xlsx”

A list of the abbreviations, used throughout the excel workbooks, which i dentify specific AQAT

simulations used in t his assessment :

2300 rem TX NY WI

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the final

emission revisions made for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin.

2300 rem GA

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia as well as the emission changes for Texas,

New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

.

## 49 2300 rem IN

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "re medy" control scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Indiana as well as the emission changes for Texas, New

York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem KS

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" con trol scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Kansas as well as the emission changes for Texas, New

York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem NE

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scena rio with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Nebraska as well as the emission changes for Texas,

New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem NY

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for New York as well as the emission changes for Texas,

New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem OH

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emi ssion

revisions in the direct final rule made for Ohio as well as the emission changes for Texas, New

York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem SC

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission

revisi ons in the direct final rule made for South Carolina as well as the emission changes for

Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem all

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission

revisio ns in the direct final rule made for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,

and South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin

included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem . This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with emissions from the

final Transport Rule.

2300 CT TX NY WI. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with

the final emission revisions made for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin.

2300 CT GA

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia as well as the emission changes for

Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT IN

. This is a s imulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Indiana as well as the emission changes for

Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT KS

. This is a si mulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Kansas as well as the emission changes for

Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT NE

. This is a simu lation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Nebraska as well as the emission changes for

Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT NY

. This is a simu lation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the direct final rule made for New York as well as the emission changes for

Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT OH

. This is a simu lation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Ohio as well as the emission changes for

Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

.

## 50 2300 CT SC

. This is a simulati on of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the direct final rule made for South Carolina as well as the emission

changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT all

. This is a s imulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New

York, Ohio, and South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT . This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with emissions

from the final Transport Rule.

500 CT TX NY WI. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the

f inal emission revisions made for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin.

500 CT GA

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia as well as the emission changes for Texas,

N ew York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT IN

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Indiana as well as the emission changes for Texas, New

Y ork, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT KS

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Kansas as well as the emission changes for Texas, New

York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT NE

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Nebraska as well as the emission changes for Texas,

New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT NY

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for New York as well as the emission changes for Texas,

New York, and Wi sconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT OH

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Ohio as well as the emission changes for Texas, New

York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT SC

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for South Carolina as well as the emission changes for

Texas, New York, and Wiscon sin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT all

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission

revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,

and South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin

included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT . This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with emissions from

the final Transport Rule.