# 1 Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the June Revisions to the Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491



# Final June Revisions Rule Signif icant Contribution Assessment TSD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

June 2012

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

relationship between the final Febr uary revisions to the Transport Rule, the final June revisions

rule, and the original analysis conducted for the final Transport Rule informing the Rule’s

determination of emissions that significantly co ntribute to nonattainment or interfere with

maintenance of the National Ambient Air Qualit y Standards (NAAQS) in downwind states. As

conducted for the final Transport Rule, EPA re-ite rated 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 final February revisions rule and the final June

revisions rule into account. In this document , EPA also assesses the relationship between the

NO

x 

# emission inventories in each affected state a nd the finalized February revisions and final

June revisions to annual NO

x 

# and ozone-season NO

x 

# budgets under the Transport Rule programs.

This technical support document uses result s for the revisions described in the final

February revisions rule 1



# , 2 

# , as well as those revisions describe d in the final June revisions rule. 3



# The final February revisions ru le included increases to 2014 SO 2 

# budgets for Texas, New York,

and Wisconsin. For the final June revisions rule, EPA has assessed the collective impact of all of

the revisions being finalized. The final June revisions rule includes increases to 2014 SO 2 

# budgets for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and Sout h Carolina. EPA has

assessed the emission increases collectively, for th e remedy scenario, the $500/ton cost threshold

scenario, and the $2,300/ton co st threshold scenario.

For purposes of assessing the impact of state SO 2 

# budget increases under the final June

revisions rule in AQAT (including the budget increas es under the final February revisions rule),

EPA assumed that the state SO 2 

# budget increases would result in an equivalent, ton for ton,

increase in 2014 SO 2 

# emissions (beyond the level previous ly projected in the final Transport

Rule). Therefore, this TSD refers to the “fin al emission increases” assumed to result from the

final budget increases and analyzes the im pact of these emission increases.

This TSD is organized as follows:

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

Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintena nce for the Final June Revisions Rule.

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

# Emissions

from Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Using

AQAT for the Final June Revisions Rule.

C. Presentation of Annual and Ozone-Season NO

x 

# Emission Increases Relative to Annual and

Ozone-Season Total NO

x 

# Emissions for the Final June Revisions Rule.

1 

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

Matter and Ozone”, 77 FR 10324.

2 

# See the “Final Revisions Rule Significant Contributio n Assessment Technical Support Document (TSD)” (EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0491-4956).

3 

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

Matter and Ozone“, 77 FR 10350, where the June revisions were first proposed as well as the final preamble to the

“Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Tran sport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone” where those

revisions were finalized.

# 3 A. Summary of EPA’s Analysis to Quantify Emissions that Signifi cantly Contribute to

Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintena nce for the Final June Revisions Rule.

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

Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Part iculate 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 co ntribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with downwind

maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 fine particle (PM 2.5 

# ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This is fu rther 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, th e 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 upw ind states whose contributions to these receptors meet

or exceed specified threshold amounts. See sec tions 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 th ese air quality 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. First, EPA id entifies the power sector emissions projected to

remain at ascending cost thresholds of em issions reductions for each state. See section B in the

Significant Contribution and Stat e 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 downwi nd receptors with problems attaining and

maintaining the applicable NAAQS. See section C in the Significant Contribution and State

Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for discus sion of the development and use of AQAT.

The analysis in this TSD uses the annu al PM2.5 and 24-hour PM2.5 AQAT to estimate

the impacts of the final SO 2 

# emission increases on downwind ai r quality (including the emissions

from the final February revisions rule) in th e context of the air qua lity component of the

determination of significant cont ribution in 2014; it also provides an estimate of the effect of

these final SO 2 

# budget revisions on the “remedy” contro l scenario analyzed for the final

Transport Rule in 2014. For the final June re visions rule, the final budget increases were

investigated in a collective ma nner to show the estimated air quality impacts from all of the

state’s emissions following the finalization of th e June revisions rule on the downwind monitors

(inclusive of the final February revisions rule). Two assessments were performed:

 Significant Contribution Assessment: Fo llowing the methodology and using the

emissions for the air quality assessment of significant contribu tion and interference

with maintenance from the final TR and th e final February revi sions rule, we assess

whether the SO 2 

# emission increases have the pote ntial to change the patterns of

attainment, nonattainment, and maintenan ce projected at the $500/ton and $2,300/ton

cost threshold levels for annual PM2. 5 and for 24-hour PM2.5 in 2014 (compared

with the AQAT analysis from the final TR and the final February revisions rule).

Specifically, 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). For each cost threshold level anal yzed, on a receptor-by-receptor basis, the

# 4 emissions reductions for each upwind state are associated with one of two cost

threshold levels (either the 2014 base case em issions level or the particular threshold

cost level being analyzed) depending on whethe r the upwind state is “linked” to that

receptor or if the receptor is located within the state. States that are contributing

above the respective ai r quality threshold (i.e., greater than or equal to 1 percent

contribution of total sulfate and nitrat e for 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 le vel. The emissions fo r 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 a ttainment, nonattainment, and maintenance when the

emissions from all states are at the le vel from the 2014 remedy control scenario

(regardless of whether or not they are linke d 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 February revisi ons rule or the final June revisions rule,

where their emissions are increased by th e amount of the related revisions.

For the final June revisions rule, this anal ysis reaches the same conclusion as EPA’s

assessment of significant contribut ion to nonattainment and interf erence with maintenance from

the final TR and from the final February revisi ons rule. There are no estimated changes in the

patterns of attainment, nonattainme nt, and maintenance at the $500/ton cost threshold level for

any receptors linked to Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South

Carolina. Furthermore, there are no estimat ed changes in the pa tterns of attainment,

nonattainment, and maintenance at the $2,300/ton cost threshold level for any receptors linked to

Indiana, New York, and Ohio (relative to the anal ysis from the final TR and the final February

revisions rule).

EPA concludes that the SO 2 

# emission budget increases in the final June revisions rule

(added incrementally to the final February revi sions rule emissions) would not substantially

affect the air quality component of the multif actor test and, thus, would not affect EPA’s

conclusions in the final TR identifying $2,300/ton and $500/ton as the appropriate SO 2 

# cost

thresholds for “Group 1” and “G roup 2” states, respectively.

Therefore, for Georgia, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Carolina, si gnificant contribution

and interference with maintenan ce is the amount of emissions that can be removed at the

$500/ton cost threshold. For Indiana, New York, and Ohio, EPA concludes that for these states,

their significant contribution and interference with maintenance is the amount of emissions that

can be removed at the $2,300/ton cost threshold. In addition, th ere 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 Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska,

New York, Ohio, and South Carolina.

.

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

# Emissions

from Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Using

AQAT for the Final June Revisions Rule.

# 5 EPA assessed the impacts of the SO 2 

# budget changes in the final June revisions rule,

collectively. The total budget changes are presented in Tabl e 1 (see the preamble of the final

June revisions rule for details about the emissi on changes). The states that EPA investigated

were Georgia, Indiana, Kans as, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina. The budget

changes were assessed using the 2014 $500/t on and $2,300 cost threshold scenarios and the

“remedy” control emissions scen ario. All of these scenarios included the emission increases

from the final February 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 account for either

of the final revisions rules.

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 final June revisions rule,

EPA also presents the results of the AQAT assessm ent from the final February revisions rule and

from the final TR.

Collective Assessment: EPA used AQAT to estimate th e air quality impacts in the

significant contribution and remedy assessments wh en all states included in the final June

revisions rule simultaneously increased their emi ssions. The specific receptors to which each of

the states included in the fina l June revisions rule are “li nked”are listed in the following

paragraphs.

Georgia: Georgia was “linked” to the 24-hour PM2.5 receptors 10730023 and 10732003

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

receptor located in Georgia, identification number 131210039.

Indiana: Indiana contributed above the threshol d to all 24-hour PM2.5 receptors with

base case maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5  g/m 3 

# (except for receptor

420710007 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania). I ndiana also contributed at or above the

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

equal to 15.05  g/m 3



# . Kansas: Kansas was “linked” to the 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 a nnual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design

values greater than or equal to 15.05  g/m 3



# . Nebraska: Nebraska was “linked” to the 24-hour PM2.5 receptors 550790010 and

550790026 in Wisconsin. Nebraska did not contribut e to any of the annual PM2.5 receptors with

2012 base case design values greater than or equal to 15.05  g/m 3



# . New York: The 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.

Ohio: Ohio contributed above the threshold to all 24-hour PM2.5 receptors with base case

maximum design values great er than or equal to 35.5  g/m 3 

# . Ohio also contributed at or above

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

or equal to 15.05  g/m 3



# . South Carolina: South Carolina did not contribute a bove the threshold to any of the 24-

hour PM2.5 receptors identified in the TR (i.e., it was not “linked”). For annual PM2.5, South

Carolina was “linked” to receptor 131210039 in Fulton County, Georgia.

# 6 As seen in Tables 2 and 3 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for

Tables 4 and 5 for 24-hour PM2.5 average and maxi mum design values, the resulting change in

concentration at each of the TR receptors was no t sufficient to alter th e conclusions about its

status (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or n onattainment) at the $500/ton or

$2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA conc ludes that assessment of alternative cost

threshold levels were unnecessary. EPA also c oncludes that each state appropriately maintains

its classification as “Group 1” or “Group 2” from the final TR.

Similarly, As seen in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 under the remedy assessment, the estimated

patterns of attainment, maintena nce, and nonattainment were uncha nged relative to the final TR

assessment (including the final February revisions rule).

C. Presentation of Annual and Ozone-Season NO

x 

# Emission Increases Relative to Annual and

Ozone-Season Total NO

x 

# Emissions for the Final June Revisions Rule.

The final June revisions rule revises the state budgets 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 qu ality 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 (w hen the final February revisions rule is also

considered). See the excel workbook “Emissi onsSummaries_TR_remedyNOx_OS.xlsx” for the

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

workbook “TransportRuleFinal_EmissionsSumma ries”, 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), EP A-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4522, for additional details

about the emissions inventories.

Tables 6 and 7 illustrate the relationship of the final June revisions rule state budget

revisions to each state’s total emi ssions (from all sources) for annual NO

x 

# and ozone-season NO

x 

# respectively. The total emissions include the NO

x 

# from the final February revisions rule

(assuming that there is a one-to-one correlation be tween the budget increase and an increase in

emissions). The state budget revisions in th e final June revisions rule represent small

percentages of each state’s total emissions; ther efore, 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 quality analysis.

# 7 Table 1. SO 2 

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

# ) in

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

Additional Emission Incr eases in the Final Ju ne Revisions 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

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

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 6,243

New York** 42,887 26,708 17,931 18,687 5,444

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

Virginia 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 EP A, 2011. See Appendix A in the TR Significant

Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD (EPA -HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4456) for

list and description of the IPM $500/ton and $2,300/ton cost th reshold and control scenario IPM

runs. Emissions are shown for all fossil and biom ass 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 th reshold, $2,300/ton cost threshold, and “remedy”

control scenario include emissions from the Final February Revisions Rule.8Table 2. Average Annual PM2.5DVs (g/m3) in 2014 for SO2Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT **MonitorIdentificationNumber*State CountyCAMx2012 BaseCase(g/m3)AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values (g/m3).$500/tonFinalJuly TR$500/tonWithFeb.Revisions$500/tonWithFeb. andJuneRevisions$2,300/tonFinal JulyTR$2,300/tonWith Feb.Revisions$2300/tonWithFeb. andJuneRevisionsControlScenarioFinalJuly TRControlScenarioWithFeb.RevisionsControlScenarioWithFeb. andJuneRevisions420030064 PennsylvaniaAllegheny17.9415.7815.7815.7915.0315.0315.0414.8614.8714.88390350038 OhioCuyahoga15.9914.1014.1014.1213.6013.6013.6213.5113.5213.5310730023 AlabamaJefferson16.1514.3314.3314.3614.3114.3114.3413.8913.9013.93390618001 OhioHamilton16.0113.5413.5513.5613.0113.0113.0212.9612.9712.99261630033 MichiganWayne15.7314.3514.3614.3613.8713.8713.8813.7713.7813.79390350060 OhioCuyahoga15.6713.7513.7613.7713.2513.2513.2713.1613.1613.18390610014 OhioHamilton15.7613.2913.2913.3112.7512.7512.7612.7012.7112.74390610042 OhioHamilton15.4012.9712.9712.9912.4412.4412.4612.3612.3712.39171191007 IllinoisMadison15.4613.8313.8513.8513.5613.5713.5813.3913.4013.4110732003 AlabamaJefferson15.1613.5513.5513.5813.5213.5213.5513.1313.1313.16390350045 OhioCuyahoga15.1413.2313.2413.2512.7312.7312.7512.6412.6512.66180970081 IndianaMarion14.8612.6812.6912.7012.2612.2712.2812.2412.2512.27131210039 GeorgiaFulton15.0713.3513.3513.4313.2013.2013.2813.0713.0813.16390617001 OhioHamilton14.7412.3012.3012.3111.7611.7611.7711.7111.7211.74390350065 OhioCuyahoga14.6712.7912.7912.8012.2812.2812.3012.1912.2012.21180970083 IndianaMarion14.7112.5312.5412.5512.1112.1212.1312.0912.1012.12*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.**Including the Additional Texas, New York,and Wisconsin Emissions from the Final February Revisions Rule and the Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and SouthCarolina Emissions from the Final June Revisions Rule.9Table 3. Maximum Annual PM2.5DVs (g/m3) in 2014 for SO2Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**.MonitorIdentificationNumber*State CountyCAMx2012 BaseCase(g/m3)AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values (g/m3).$500/tonFinalJuly TR$500/tonWithFeb.Revisions$500/tonWith Feb.and JuneRevisions$2,300/tonFinal JulyTR$2,300/ton WithFeb.Revisions$2300/tonWithFeb. andJuneRevisionsControlScenarioFinalJuly TRControlScenarioWithFeb.RevisionsControlScenarioWithFeb. andJuneRevisions420030064 PennsylvaniaAllegheny18.3316.1716.1716.1815.4215.4215.4315.2515.2615.27390350038 OhioCuyahoga16.6614.7714.7714.7914.2714.2714.2914.1814.1914.2010730023 AlabamaJefferson16.4614.6414.6414.6714.6214.6214.6514.2014.2114.24390618001 OhioHamilton16.3313.8613.8713.8813.3313.3313.3413.2813.2913.31261630033 MichiganWayne16.3214.9414.9514.9514.4614.4614.4714.3614.3714.38390350060 OhioCuyahoga16.1814.2614.2714.2813.7613.7613.7813.6713.6713.69390610014 OhioHamilton15.9813.5113.5113.5312.9712.9712.9812.9212.9312.96390610042 OhioHamilton15.7713.3413.3413.3612.8112.8112.8312.7312.7412.76171191007 IllinoisMadison15.7314.1014.1214.1213.8313.8413.8513.6613.6713.6810732003 AlabamaJefferson15.6414.0314.0314.0614.0014.0014.0313.6113.6113.64390350045 OhioCuyahoga15.6113.7013.7113.7213.2013.2013.2213.1113.1213.13180970081 IndianaMarion15.1612.9812.9913.0012.5612.5712.5812.5412.5512.57131210039 GeorgiaFulton15.1013.3813.3813.4613.2313.2313.3113.1013.1113.19390617001 OhioHamilton15.1012.6612.6612.6712.1212.1212.1312.0712.0812.10390350065 OhioCuyahoga15.1013.2213.2213.2312.7112.7112.7312.6212.6312.64180970083 IndianaMarion15.0612.8812.8912.9012.4612.4712.4812.4412.4512.47*Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.**Including the Additional Texas, New York,and Wisconsin Emissions from the Final February Revisions Rule and the Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and SouthCarolina Emissions from the Final June Revisions Rule.10Table 4. Average 24-hour PM2.5DVs (g/m3) in 2014 for SO2Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT ***.MonitorIdentificationNumber*State CountyCAMx2012BaseCase(g/m3)AQAT 2014 Average 24-hour PM2.5 Design Values (g/m3).$500/tonFinalJuly TR$500/tonWith Feb.Revisions$500/tonWith Feb.and JuneRevisions$2,300/tonFinal JulyTR$2,300/tonWith Feb.Revisions$2300/tonWith Feb.and JuneRevisionsControlScenarioFinal JulyTRControlScenarioWith Feb.RevisionsControlScenarioWith Feb.and JuneRevisions420030064** PennsylvaniaAllegheny56.7147.5747.5747.5945.5445.5445.5645.4545.4645.49420030093** PennsylvaniaAllegheny39.1132.1932.1932.2130.2530.2530.2729.8829.8829.92390350038** OhioCuyahoga39.4634.1834.1834.1933.5133.5133.5333.4633.4733.49261630016** MichiganWayne38.9934.4234.4234.4233.9333.9333.9433.8833.8833.90390350060 OhioCuyahoga37.7831.5031.5031.5330.6030.6130.6430.5130.5130.53170311016** IllinoisCook37.5834.1334.1434.1633.1333.1433.1632.9532.9733.02261630033** MichiganWayne39.4836.3136.3236.3435.0035.0135.0334.7434.7634.80180890022** IndianaLake34.9432.7932.8032.8232.3832.3932.4032.3132.3132.34540090011 West VirginiaBrooke37.5730.6030.6030.6229.0729.0729.1028.8328.8428.87420710007** PennsylvaniaLancaster35.9835.1935.1935.1934.9534.9534.9534.8734.8734.87390350045 OhioCuyahoga34.8027.6927.6927.7326.3026.3026.3226.2326.2426.26390811001 OhioJefferson34.5627.6427.6427.6725.7925.7925.8225.5725.5725.61261630019** MichiganWayne37.3435.2735.2835.2934.9334.9334.9434.8734.8834.89390350065 OhioCuyahoga34.9127.6527.6627.6926.1126.1126.1525.9525.9626.01170313301 IllinoisCook34.9731.1131.1131.1330.5430.5430.5530.3530.3630.39420070014 PennsylvaniaBeaver36.2129.2829.2829.3027.5927.5927.6027.3927.4027.42420033007 PennsylvaniaAllegheny32.4026.2726.2726.2924.8824.8824.9024.7824.7824.80010730023 AlabamaJefferson36.9631.9331.9331.9931.6131.6131.6731.1031.1131.17550790026 WisconsinMilwaukee33.6230.4830.5130.5230.1530.1830.1930.0830.1130.12180970043 IndianaMarion35.7628.6428.6428.6927.1627.1627.2127.1327.1427.20261470005 MichiganSt Clair36.2333.3533.3533.3732.7832.7832.8032.6732.6832.71550790043 WisconsinMilwaukee36.2132.4932.5332.5431.8531.8931.9031.8031.8431.87180890026 IndianaLake34.0830.9130.9130.9230.5230.5230.5330.4930.4930.50180970081 IndianaMarion35.8528.4428.4428.4727.3527.3527.3927.3027.3027.35180970066 IndianaMarion35.7329.2229.2229.2628.1328.1328.1728.1028.1028.15171191007 IllinoisMadison36.5929.9229.9429.9529.3229.3429.3529.3229.3429.35550790010 WisconsinMilwaukee35.4731.5031.5431.5530.8230.8630.8730.8330.8630.87390170003 OhioButler34.4028.0728.0728.1126.4926.4926.5226.4726.4826.53170316005 IllinoisCook34.1232.7232.7232.7332.4132.4132.4232.0232.0432.06420031008 PennsylvaniaAllegheny35.0426.9526.9526.9824.6924.6924.7224.4724.4924.52261610008 MichiganWashtenaw35.0529.4029.4029.4428.5428.5528.5628.4728.4728.50170312001 IllinoisCook33.6229.8429.8529.8529.5829.5829.5929.5029.5129.53170310052 IllinoisCook34.9430.1130.1230.1229.7829.7929.7929.6929.7029.71421330008 PennsylvaniaYork33.3831.6031.6031.6131.0331.0331.0430.9230.9330.94261630015 MichiganWayne35.5532.2332.2332.2531.1031.1031.1131.0231.0231.05010732003 AlabamaJefferson35.3131.4231.4231.4731.1031.1031.1630.6230.6330.70390618001 OhioHamilton35.2927.6327.6327.6726.1126.1126.1425.9625.9726.03171190023 IllinoisMadison35.1129.2329.2329.2528.4928.4928.5028.4128.4328.44420031301 PennsylvaniaAllegheny33.9527.1627.1627.1925.2125.2125.2424.9624.9725.00391130032 OhioMontgomery33.6824.4024.4024.4423.1523.1523.1723.0923.1023.14420030116 PennsylvaniaAllegheny35.5927.9727.9728.0026.3426.3426.3626.1326.1426.1711*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g/m3at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR).***Including the Additional Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Emissions from theFinal February Revisions Rule and the AdditionalGeorgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and SouthCarolina Emissions from the Final June Revisions Rule.12Table 5. Maximum 24-hour PM2.5DVs (g/m3) in 2014 for SO2Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT ***.MonitorIdentificationNumber*State CountyCAMx2012 BaseCase(g/m3)AQAT 2014 Maximum 24-hour PM2.5 Design Values (g/m3).$500/tonFinalJuly TR$500/tonWith Feb.Revisions$500/tonWith Feb.and JuneRevisions$2,300/tonFinal JulyTR$2,300/tonWith Feb.Revisions$2300/tonWith Feb.and JuneRevisionsControlScenarioFinalJuly TRControlScenarioWithFeb.RevisionsControlScenarioWith Feb.and JuneRevisions420030064** PennsylvaniaAllegheny59.9350.7250.7250.7448.6348.6348.6548.5248.5348.56420030093** PennsylvaniaAllegheny44.4036.8536.8536.8834.8034.8034.8334.2834.2934.34390350038** OhioCuyahoga41.8435.9335.9335.9435.4135.4135.4235.3935.3935.42261630016** MichiganWayne41.2836.2036.2036.2035.6535.6635.6635.6135.6135.62390350060 OhioCuyahoga40.8533.6933.7033.7233.0433.0433.0732.9432.9532.97170311016** IllinoisCook40.4437.4037.4137.4336.5436.5536.5636.4036.4136.46261630033** MichiganWayne39.8136.5936.5936.6235.2335.2335.2634.9534.9735.01180890022** IndianaLake39.5837.0037.0137.0336.5136.5136.5436.3036.3136.35540090011 West VirginiaBrooke38.3932.2332.2332.2730.0230.0230.0629.6329.6429.69420710007** PennsylvaniaLancaster38.3737.4337.4337.4337.1837.1837.1837.0837.0837.08390350045 OhioCuyahoga38.1329.4829.4929.5327.6027.6027.6327.4327.4427.46390811001 OhioJefferson37.8830.2730.2730.3128.0328.0328.0627.7627.7627.81261630019** MichiganWayne37.8336.2036.2136.2235.8335.8335.8435.7435.7535.76390350065 OhioCuyahoga37.6728.7928.8028.8427.0027.0027.0426.8126.8226.88170313301 IllinoisCook37.6733.3633.3633.3732.8432.8532.8632.7032.7132.73420070014 PennsylvaniaBeaver37.4230.4630.4630.4928.7028.7028.7228.4928.5028.53420033007 PennsylvaniaAllegheny37.4030.7330.7330.7528.8128.8128.8328.6328.6428.67010730023 AlabamaJefferson37.3332.5032.5032.5832.1232.1232.1931.5731.5731.64550790026 WisconsinMilwaukee37.2433.5433.5733.5833.2133.2433.2533.1033.1433.15180970043 IndianaMarion37.2029.0029.0029.0527.8227.8227.8527.7627.7727.81261470005 MichiganSt Clair37.1434.1634.1634.1933.3833.3833.3933.2933.3033.32550790043 WisconsinMilwaukee37.1034.2234.2634.2733.9233.9633.9633.9233.9533.96180890026 IndianaLake37.0633.6733.6733.6833.3733.3733.3833.3933.3933.40180970081 IndianaMarion36.9628.8328.8328.8727.5927.5927.6327.5427.5527.61180970066 IndianaMarion36.9230.4030.4030.4529.1329.1329.1829.1129.1129.18171191007 IllinoisMadison36.8331.1931.2031.2130.6630.6830.7030.6430.6730.68550790010 WisconsinMilwaukee36.7133.4733.5033.5133.1333.1633.1733.1333.1733.18390170003 OhioButler36.5928.7128.7128.7327.3327.3327.3527.2927.3027.35170316005 IllinoisCook36.4235.0935.1035.1034.8234.8234.8334.4534.4734.49420031008 PennsylvaniaAllegheny36.3528.1528.1528.1925.6225.6225.6625.3825.4025.45261610008 MichiganWashtenaw36.3230.2030.2030.2329.3329.3329.3429.2629.2729.29170312001 IllinoisCook36.1232.7132.7132.7232.3332.3432.3532.2132.2232.24170310052 IllinoisCook36.0730.6230.6230.6330.3130.3230.3330.2030.2130.22421330008 PennsylvaniaYork36.0634.5534.5634.5633.9133.9233.9233.7933.8033.82261630015 MichiganWayne36.0033.0433.0433.0631.9931.9932.0031.9131.9231.94010732003 AlabamaJefferson35.9432.2332.2332.2831.9131.9131.9731.4631.4631.53390618001 OhioHamilton35.8528.2328.2328.2726.7326.7326.7526.6426.6526.68171190023 IllinoisMadison35.8130.2330.2330.2529.5029.5029.5129.4129.4329.45420031301 PennsylvaniaAllegheny35.6528.0528.0528.0826.1526.1526.1725.8525.8625.89391130032 OhioMontgomery35.6125.9925.9926.0224.6224.6224.6424.5424.5424.60420030116 PennsylvaniaAllegheny35.5927.9727.9728.0026.3426.3426.3626.1326.1426.1713*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g/m3at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR).***Including the Additional Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Emissions from theFinal February Revisions Rule and the AdditionalGeorgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and SouthCarolina Emissions from the Final June Revisions Rule.

# 14 Table 6. The Percentage of the Fi nal June Revisions Rule Annual NO

x 

# Emission Increase (tons)

as a Function of Total Annual NO

x 

# Emissions from all Source Sect ors (tons) (Including the Final

February Revisions Rule). 4

State 2014 “Remedy”

Control Scenario Total

Annual NO

x 

# Emissions Final June

Revisions

Rule Annual

NO

x 

# Budget

Increase Final June Revisions

Rule Annual NO

x 

# Budget 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 61,657

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 Hampshire 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

Virginia 333,985

West Virginia 155,245

Wisconsin 257,462

4 

# For additional details about emission budgets and unit-leve l allocations see the Final June Revisions Rule State

Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides TSD and the Final June Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the FIPs in

the docket to this rulemaking.

# 15 Table 7. The Percentage of the Fina l June Revisions Rule Ozone-Season NO

x 

# Emission Increase

(tons) as a Function of Total Ozone-Season NO

x 

# Emissions from all Source Sectors (tons)

(Including the Final February Revisions Rule). 5

State 2014 “Remedy” Control

Scenario Total OzoneSeason NO

x 

# Emissions Final June Revisions

Rule Ozone-Season

NO

x 

# Budget Increase Final June

Revisions Rule

Ozone-Season

NO

x 

# Budget

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 5,762 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

Massachusetts 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%

Vermont 8,796

Virginia 136,976

West Virginia 63,770

Wisconsin 104,890

5 

# For additional details about emission budgets and unit-leve l 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 Appendix A.

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

that were used listed with their relevant documen t identification number). In addition, a list of

abbreviations along with brief descriptions of the various AQAT simulations used in this

assessment is included at th e end of this appendix.

Annual and Quarterly Emissions for a ll AQAT Simulations. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4530

AQAT_emissions_final_June_revrule.xlsx

contains the emissions and fraction of emissions fo r each scenario in the final february revisions

rule and the final june revisions rule relative to the total emissions in the 2012 base case from the

final TR.

These files contain the 24-hour PM2.5 2012 ba se 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_scenario _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 ca libration factors can be found in the respective files in

the TR docket. The annual PM2.5 calibration factors are also included in the AnnualPM2.5

AQAT workbook.

Annual PM Calibration Factor s.xlsx EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4535

Daily PM Calibration Factor s.xlsx EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4464

These files contain the quarterl y contributions and calibrated Re lative Response Factors (RRFs)

for the 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 th e additional files that

have been created and used for this assessment. The file name identifies whether the file is a

cost threshold (CT) or a “rem edy” control scenario (rem).

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributio ns and RRF_2014_500CT.xlsx EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-

4492

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributio ns and RRF_2014_2300CT.xlsx EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0491-4488

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributio ns and RRF_2014_2300_remedy.xlsx EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-

0491-4487

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300rem_febrev. xlsx (recreating the

final February revisions rule rule)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contribut ions and RRF_2014_2300rem_Junerev. xlsx

# 17 dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions a nd RRF_2014_2300rem. xlsx (recr eating the final TR

file)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300CT_febrev. xlsx (recreating the

final February revisions rule rule)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contribut ions and RRF_2014_2300CT_Junerev. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions a nd RRF_2014_2300CT. xlsx (recr eating the final TR

file)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500CT_febrev. xlsx (recreating the final

February revisions rule rule)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contribut ions and RRF_2014_500CT_Junerev. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions a nd RRF_2014_500CT. xlsx (recr eating the final TR

file)

dailyPM_allyears_high_quarters_Junerev.xlsx. This file contains a summary of the estimated

98th percentile values and resu lting average and maximum desi gn 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 sort ed in order of decreasing maxi mum 2012 base case design value

(the same key as used in the tables in this TSD).

The following 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 th e estimated 24-hour PM2.5 concentration for that

day. The 98th percentile day is also iden tified in these files. They are in 2014.

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ba se_500CT.xlsx EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4540

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ba se_2300CT.xlsx EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4505

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_230 0_remedy.xlsx EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4569

The additional files in this assessment are:

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_230 0_rem_febrev. xlsx (recreating th e final February revisions

rule rule)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quar ters_2300_rem_junerev. xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quar ters_2300_rem. xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_230 0_CT_febrev. xlsx (recreating th e final February revisions

rule rule)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quar ters_2300_CT_junerev.xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quar ters_2300_CT. xlsx (recreat ing the final TR file)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 _CT_febrev. xlsx (recreating th e final February revisions

rule rule)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quar ters_500_CT_junerev.xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quar ters_500_CT. xlsx (recrea ting the final TR file)

The file annualPM25 AQAT.xlsx file EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4458

contains the base contributions, AQAT calib ration scenario contributions, calibrated

contributions, and estimated design values for all annual PM2.5 AQAT simulations for the final

TR.

# 18 A new file, containing the annual AQAT estimat es for this assessment (including the final

February revisions rule a nd final June revisions ru le) is called “annualPM25

AQAT_June_rev.xlsx”

A list of the abbreviations, used throughout th e excel workbooks, which identify specific AQAT

simulations used in this assessment:

2300 rem Feb rev . This is a simulation of the 2014 "rem edy" control scenario with the final

Febrauary emission revisions made fo r Texas, New York, and Wisconsin.

2300 rem June rev. This is a simulation of the 2014 "reme dy" control scenario with the emission

revisions in the final June revisions 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 February revisions rule.

2300 rem . This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with emissions from the

final Transport Rule.

2300 CT Feb rev. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/to n cost threshold scenario with the

final Febrauary emission revisions made for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin.

2300 CT June rev. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/to n cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the final J une revisions rule made for Geor gia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska,

New York, Ohio, and South Caroli na as well as the emission cha nges for Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin included in the final February revisions rule.

2300 CT . This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton co st threshold scenario with emissions

from the final Transport Rule.

500 CT Feb rev. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the final

emission Febrauary revisions made fo r Texas, New York, and Wisconsin.

500 CT June rev. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/t on cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions in the final J une revisions rule made for Geor gia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska,

New York, Ohio, and South Caroli na as well as the emission cha nges for Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin included in the final February revisions rule.

500 CT . This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with emissions from

the final Transport Rule.