## 1 Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Revisions to the Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491



# Significant Contribution Assessment TSD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

October 201 1

## 2 This Technic al Support Document (TSD) demonstrates EPA’s analysis to quantify the

SO 2 

## emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in downwind states for the Revisions to t he

Transport Rul e. The proposed increases in state SO 2 

## budgets for 2014 and thereafter, which

could result in increased emissions in 2014

, were investigated for Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin. New Jersey was not investigated in this assessment because it s proposed SO 2 

## budget

would increase for 2012 through 2013 and not for 2014 and thereafter

. For purposes of

investigating the impact of the state budget increases, EPA assumed that the emissions in each

state involved would equal the proposed amount of th e increased state budget. Therefore, this

TSD refers to the “proposed emission increases” assumed to result from the proposed budget

increases and analyzes the impact of these emission increases. This TSD is organized as follows:

A. Background on EPA’s Analysis to Quantify Emissions that Significantly Contribute to

Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintenance

B . Analysis of Significant Contribution for SO 2 

## Emissions from Texas U sing the Air Quality

Assessment Tool (AQAT)

C. Analysis of Significant Contrib ution for SO 2 

## Emissions from New York Using the Air Quality

Assessment Tool (AQAT)

D. Analysis of Significant Contribution for SO 2 

## Emissions from Wisconsin Using the Air

Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT)

E. Presentation of Proposed Annual and Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increases Relative to

Annual and Ozone

- Season Total NO

x 

## Emissions

A . Background on EPA’s Analysis to Quantify Emissions that Significantly Contribute to

Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintenance

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

Plans: Interstate 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 contri bute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with downwind

maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 

## 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

whose co ntributions 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 quality ana lyses.

## 3 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 the pow er 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 air q uality assessment tool (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 on a case

- by

case and state

- by

- state basis to estimate the impacts of the proposed SO 2 

## emission increases on

downwind air quality in the context of the air quality portions of the determination of significant

contribution in 2014 followed by an estimate of the net effect on the “remedy” control scenario

in 2014

. The proposed emission increases were investigat ed in a state

- specific manner to show

the estimated air quality impacts from that state’s proposed emission in crease on the downwind

monitors to facilitate public comment on each emission increase. For example, this means that

we examined the e ffects of the proposed emission increase for Texas, without simultaneously

applying the proposed emission increases for New York and Wisconsin (and visa

- versa). F or

each state, there were two assessments:

**•** Significant Contribution Assessment: Following th e 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 proposed SO 2 

## emission

increases in Texas , New York, or Wisconsin have 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 PM.25 ( compared

with the AQAT analysis from the final TR). Specifically, we investigate if their

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)? In this assessment, only states that are

“linked” to a particular receptor make emission reductions, all other states are held at

base case emission levels.

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

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

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

the final TR (except for

, on a case

- by

- case basis, emissions from Texas, New York,

or Wisconsin , where their emissions are increased)

.

T his analys is 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/t on cost threshold level for either Texas, New York , or Wisconsin . Therefore, Texas’

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

removed at the $500/ton cost threshold . Furthermore, there are no estima ted changes in the

patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance at the $2,300/ton cost threshold level for

## 4 either New York, or Wisconsi n (relative to the analysis from the final TR). Thus, EPA

concludes that for these three states, their signifi cant contribution and interference with

maintenance is the amount of emissions that can be removed at the $2,300/ton cost threshold

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

and maintenance in the 2014 “r emedy” control scenario for any of the proposed individual

emission changes for Texas, New York , or Wisconsin

. In 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 threshold and $2300/ton

cost threshold scenarios used in the significant contributio n/interference with maintenance

assessment as well as on the 2014 “remedy” control scenario . For these scenarios, we assumed

that all three states (Texas, Ne w York, and Wisconsin)

, simultaneously, were to make the

proposed emissi on increases. As seen in the tables in Appendix B (Tables B

- 1 through B

- 4 ),

while there were small changes in concentrations at some receptors, t he re were no changes in the

patterns o f 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 ( which showed small changes

in concentrations at downwind rec eptors

, no changes in the patterns of attainment,

nonattainment, and maintenance at the two cost threshold levels

, and no changes in the “remedy”

control scenario ) under any of the combinations assessed ( either emission increases for each of

the states ind ividually or simultaneous emission increases for all three states) , EPA concludes

that the proposed SO 2 

## emission increases for each state , as well as collectively for all three states

, would not substantially a ffect the air quality portion of the multifact or test and thus would not

affect EPA’s conclusions in the final TR identifying $500/ton and $2,300/ton as the appropriate

SO 2 

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

.

## 5 B

. Analysis of Significant Contribution for SO 2 

## Emissions from Texas Using the Air Quality

Assessment Tool (AQAT)

Using the calibrated AQAT (as described in section C of the Significant Contribution and

State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD), EPA examined the annual PM2.5 and 24

- hour PM2.5

air quality impacts to receptors in 2 014 using the 2014 base case and 2014 $500/ton cost

threshold emission estimates . This analysis directly follows the analysis from the final TR cost

threshold analysis. Appendix A of this document lists a number of the AQAT input and output

workbooks fro m 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

. To assess the impacts of emission increases under this revisions proposal to the $500/ton

cost threshold, s tates whose contributions were greater than or equal to the 1% contribution

threshold in the 2012 base case modeling had emissions at the $500/ton cost threshold level

, while states whose contributions were below the threshold had emission s at the 2014 base case

values. F or Texas, emissions were assessed using the adjusted 2014 $500/ton cost threshold

emissions level (with an additional 70,067 tons of additional SO 2 

## ) or the 2014 base case emission

level , depending whether the contribution from Texas exceeded the 1% contribution threshold , or

not, respectively

. This was compared to the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold analysis from the final

TR (where the additional tons were not added to Texas emissions).

To assess the impact of emissions inc reases under this revisions proposal to the final TR

remedy, EPA estimated the air quality impacts of the additional SO 2 

## emission s for Texas

( 70,067 tons ) in the 2014 “ remedy ” control scenario and compared this with the 2014 control

scenario from the fina l TR . In these case s , all states, regardless of whether they were “linked”

, or included in the TR, were assumed to make the SO 2 

## emission reductions or were assumed to

experience the SO 2 

## emission increases as modeled in the final TR control scenario (excep t , of

course, for Texas).

The all fossil and biomass SO 2 

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

CAMx source

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

involving Texas that were investigated using AQAT. N ote that the emissions for each of the

states is constant for the two general scenarios $500/ton and control scenario (with the exception

of Texas) which had emissions of 0 tons or 70,067 tons added to the values used in the final TR

assessment. Note that the “0 ton” case for Texas is identical to the values used in the final TR

assessment. For the $500/ton cost threshold assessment, the 2014 base case emissions were used

for states that were “not linked” (Table 1).

Only a single cost threshold level ($50 0/ton) was investigated in this assessment, t he

appropriate cost threshold for “Group 2” states

, as determined in the final TR . Following the

analysis of this cost threshold level with the adjustment in SO 2 

## emissions made for Texas, no

additional nonattai nment/maintenance areas were present beyond those areas identified at

$500/ton in the final TR AQAT assessment (see the Significant Contribution and State

Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for discussion of this analysis) . Since Texas is not “linked”

to an y of the receptors with residual nonattainment or maintenance problems at the 2014

$500/ton level in the TR AQAT assessment, Texas’s emissions were assessed at the 2014 base

case level for these receptors, and, thus, no changes in estimated air quality wer e present at these

receptors in this assessment relative to the TR assessment

. Changes in estimated concentrations

were seen at the Madison County receptor (ID # 171191007 ) to which Texas was “linked”.

However, the resulting change in concentration was n ot sufficient to alter the conclusion that this

## 6 receptor would likely be in attainment and would not be a maintenance receptor at the $500/ton

cost threshold level in 2014. Thus, EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold

levels (for exam ple, the Group 1 cost threshold level of $2

, 300/ton) were unnecessary. The

estimates of average and maximum design values (DV) for the $500/ton assessment for the two

scenarios (incremental emissions of 0 tons or 70,067 tons to Texas) for annual and 24

- ho ur

PM2.5 can be found in Tables 2,3,4, and 5.

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

## emission levels

for Texas impact the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance areas for the 2014

TR “remedy” control scenario, EPA found that, while there were small changes in average and

maximum design values, the patterns were not likely to change . A reas were projected to retain

the same status as estimated in the TR using AQAT.

C. Analysis of Significant Contribution for SO 2 

## Emissions from New York Using the Air Quality

Assessment Tool (AQAT)

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 impacts to receptors in 2014 using the 2014 base case and 2014

$500/ton and $2,300/ton cost threshold emission estimates. As was the case for the assessment

of Texas emissions, this analysis directly follows the analysis from the final TR cost threshold

analysis. As stated in section B of this TSD, Appendix A of this document lists a number of the

AQAT input and output workbooks from the TR that were used in this assessment.

To assess the impacts of emission increases under this revisions proposal to the $500/ton

and $ 2,300 /ton cost threshold s , states whose contributions were greater than or equal to the 1%

contribution threshold in the 2012 base case modeling were assessed at the $500/ton or

$ 2,300 /ton cost threshold level s (depending on t he assessment) , while states whose contributions

were below the threshold had emissions at the 2014 base case values. For New York , emissions

were assessed at the adjusted 2014 $500/ton or $ 2,300 /ton cost threshold emissions level s to

account for the inc rease in SO 2 

## emissions from this corrections proposal (with either 0 tons or

3,527 tons of additional SO 2 

## ) or the 2014 base case level, depending whether the contribution

from New York exceeded the 1% contribution threshold, or not, respectively.

To assess the impact of emissions increases under this corrections proposal to the final

TR remedy control scenario , EPA estimated the air quality impacts of the additional SO 2



## emission levels for New York (0 tons or 3,527 tons) in the 2014 control scenario. In t hese cases,

all states, regardless of whether they were “linked”, or included in the TR, were assumed to

make the SO 2 

## emission reductions or were assumed to experience the SO 2 

## emission increases as

modeled in the final TR control scenario (except for New Y ork ).

The 2014 all fossil and biomass SO 2 

## emissions for each state modeled in the 2012 base

case CAMx source

- apportionment air quality modeling are shown in Table 6 for each of the

cases involving New York investigated using AQAT. Note that the emissions for each of the

states is constant for the three general scenarios $500/ton , $2,300/ton, and control scenario (with

the exception of New York ) which had emissions of 0 tons or 3,527 tons added to the values

used in the final TR assessment. Notably, for t he New York assessment, emissions from Texas,

and Wisconsin were not simultaneously adjusted (i.e., the proposed adjustment was not added to

the relevant emissions for these states). For the $500/ton and $2,300/ton cost threshold

assessment s , the 2014 bas e case emissions were used for states that were “not linked” (Table 6 ).

## 7 Two cost threshold level s ($500/ton and $2,300/ton ) were investigated in this assessment,

the appropriate cost threshold for “Group 2” states and the cost threshold for “Group 1” state s as

determined in the final TR. Following the analysis of this cost threshold level with the

adjustment in SO 2 

## emissions made for New York , no additional nonattainment/maintenance

areas were present beyond those areas identified at $500/ton and $2,300/to n in the final TR

AQAT assessment s (see the Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule

TSD for discussion of this analysis). Since New York is “linked” to at least one of the 24

- hour

PM2.5 receptors with residual nonattainment or main tenance problems at the 2014 $500/ton

level in the TR AQAT assessment that remains in nonattainment and/or maintenance at

$2,300/ton, New York is classified as a “Group 1” state. Minor c hanges in estimated

concentrations were seen at the receptors to whi ch New York was “linked” (see the preamble for

the final TR)

. 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. Th e monitors for annual PM2.5 to which New York

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

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

alter the conclusion s about the stat us of these receptors at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost

threshold level s in 2014. Thus, EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold

levels were unnecessary. The estimates of average and maximum design values for the $500/ton

and $2,300/t on assessment s for the three scenarios (incremental emissions of 0 tons or 3,527 tons

to New York ) for annual and 24

- hour PM2.5 can be found in Tables 7

, 8

, 9 , and 10

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

## emission levels

for New York impact the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance areas for the

2014 TR “remedy” control scenario, EPA found that, while there were modest changes in

average and maximum design values, the patterns were not likely to change. Areas we re

projected to retain the same status as estimated in the TR using AQAT.

D. Analysis of Significant Contribution for SO 2 

## Emissions from Wisconsin Using the Air Quality

Assessment Tool (AQAT)

For the assessment of the SO2 emissions from Wisconsin, EPA, EP A followed the same

methodology as for New York (in section C of this TSD), examining the impacts of emission

increases under this revisions proposal to the $500/ton and $ 2,300 /ton cost thresholds. Wisconsin

emissions were assessed at the adjusted 2014 $5 00/ton or $ 2,300 /ton cost threshold emissions

levels ( 7,757 tons of additional SO 2 

## ) when the state was contributing to a receptor at or above the

1% contribution threshold. The results are compared with the estimates from the TR cost

threshold analysis. EPA also estimated the air quality impacts of the additional SO 2 

## emission

level for Wisconsin ( 7,757 tons) in the 2014 control scenario.

In particular, EPA examine d the average and maximum DV estimates in the adjusted

scenarios for Milwaukee, Wisconsin, s ince these would likely see the largest changes in value

. The 2014 all fossil and biomass SO 2 

## emissions for each state for the two cost thresholds

($500/ton and $2,300/ton) as well as the “remedy” control scenario from the TR analysis are

shown in Table 6 along with the proposed upward revision of 7,757 tons for Wisconsin. Note

that in the assessment of the effects of the proposed revision for Wisconsin, none of the proposed

emission revisions for other states were simultaneously investigated.

## 8 For both co st threshold levels where Wisconsin emissions were adjusted, no additional

nonattainment/maintenance areas were present beyond those 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

( inclu ding the Milwaukee receptors ). Minor changes in estimated concentrations were seen at

the receptors to which Wisconsin was “linked” (see the preamble for the final TR). We have

included receptors located in Wisconsin in the following lists. The receptor s for 24

- hour PM2.5

to which Wisconsin was linked in the TR were: 170311016, 180890022, 261630016, 261630033,

390350038, 390350045, 390350060, 390811001, 420030064, 420030093, 420710007, and

540090011 . The receptors for annual PM2.5 to which Wisconsin was linked in the TR were:

171191007, 180970081, 180970083, 261630033, 390350038, 390350045, 390350060,

390350065, 390610014, 390617001, and 390618001.

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

alter the conclusio ns about the status of these receptors at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost

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

levels were unnecessary, and Wisconsin maintains its classification as a “Group 1” state. The

estimates of average and maximum design values for the $500/ton and $2,300/ton assessments

for the scenarios (incremental emissions of 0 tons or 7,757 tons) for annual and 24

- hour PM2.5

can be found in Tables 11

, 12

, 13 , and 14

. As described previously for New York

, and Texas, using AQAT, EPA also assessed how

the adjusted SO 2 

## emission levels for Wisconsin impact the patterns of attainment, nonattainment,

and maintenance areas for the 2014 TR “remedy” control scenario, EPA found that, while there

were modest changes in average and maximum design values, the patterns were not likely to

change. Areas were projected to retain the same status as estimated in the TR.

E. Presentation of Proposed Annual and Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increases Relative to

Ann ual and Ozone

- Season Total NO

x 

## Emissions .

T he proposed 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 projec tions under the final T ransport R ule “remedy” control scenario

analysis in 2014. Tables 15 and 16 illustrate the relationship of t he proposed state budget

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

x 

## and ozone

- season

NO X 

## , re spectively. The proposed 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 project ed in the final

Transport Rule air quality analysis

.

## 9 Table 1. SO 2 

## EGU Emissions From Fossil and Biomass Units U sed in AQAT (tons of SO 2 

## ) in

2014

– Considering Additional Texas Emissions

.

Base

Case $500/ton

Cost

Threshold $500/ton Cost

Threshold

(With

Additional

Emissions

from Texas) “Remedy”

C ontrol

S cenario “Remedy”

C ontrol

S cenario (With

Additional

Emissions

from Texas)

Additional Emissions

Added to Texas (tons) 0 0 70,067 0 70,067

State

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

Arkans as 99,411 103,431 103,431 106,685 106,685

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

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

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Illi nois 141,606 138,815 138,815 132,647 132,647

Indiana 727,786 262,386 262,386 195,045 195,045

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

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

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

Louisiana 118,231 135,80 3 135,803 139,204 139,204

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

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

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

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

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

M ississippi 30,972 32,454 32,454 32,109 32,109

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

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

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

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

New York 42,887 23,181 23, 181 15,160 15,160

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

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

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

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

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

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

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

Texas 453,332 281,298 3 51,365 266,648 3 36,715

Vermont 263 26 3 263 263 263

Virginia 77,256 71,505 71,505 51,144 51,144

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

Wisconsin 130,538 57,418 57,418 50,136 50,136 

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

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

$500/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 N O

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.

## 10 Table 2

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## Design Values ( DV ) ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission

Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Texas Emissions

.

Monitor

Identification

Number * 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

Texa s

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Texas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Texas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Texas

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 70,067 0 70,067

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15 .78 14.86 14.86

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.51 13.51

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 13.89 13.90

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.54 13.54 12.96 12.97

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.35 14.35 13.77 13.78

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.75 13.75 13.16 13.16

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.70 12.71

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.97 12.36 12.37

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.83 13.85 13.39 13.40

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13. 13 13.13

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.23 13.23 12.64 12.64

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.68 12.68 12.24 12.24

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.07 13.08

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.71 11.72

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.19 12.19

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.53 12.53 12.09 12.09

*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

– Consi dering Additional Texas 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

Texas

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Texas

Budget

Increase Control

Scena rio

Without

Texas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Texas

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 70,067 0 70,067

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.25 15.25

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.18 14. 18

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.20 14.21

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.86 13.86 13.28 13.29

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.94 14.94 14.36 14.37

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.26 14.26 13.67 13.67

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.9 8 13.51 13.51 12.92 12.93

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.73 12.74

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.10 14.12 13.66 13.67

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.70 13.70 13.11 13.11

180 970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.98 12.98 12.54 12.54

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.10 13.11

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.07 12.08

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.62 12.62

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.88 12.88 12.44 12.44

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

## 11 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 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

Texas

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Texas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Texas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Texas

Bud get

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 70,067 0 70,067

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.45 45.45

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 29.88 29.88

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.4 6 33.46

261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.88 33.88

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.51 30.51

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.13 34.13 32.95 32.96

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.31 36.31 34.74 34.75

180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.79 32.79 32.31 32.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 28.83 28.83

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.87 34.87

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.23 26.23

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.57 25.57

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.27 35.27 34.87 34.88

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.65 27.65 25.95 25.96

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.35 30.36

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.39 27.39

4200330 07 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.78 24.78

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.10 31.11

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.48 30.48 30.08 30.08

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.13 27.13

261470005 Michigan St C lair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.67 32.68

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.49 32.49 31.80 31.81

180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.49 30.49

180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.30 27.30

180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.10 28.10

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.92 29.94 29.32 29.34

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.50 31.50 30.83 30.83

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.47 26.48

170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.02 32.04

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.47 24.48

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.47 28.47

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.84 29.84 29.50 29.51

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.11 30.11 29.69 29.69

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.6 0 30.92 30.92

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.02 31.02

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 30.62 30.63

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 25.96 25.96

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.41 28.43

420031301 Pen nsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 24.96 24.96

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.09 23.09

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.13 26.14

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

** Identify receptor s 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)

.

## 12 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 Addi tional Texas 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

Texas

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Texas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Texas

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Texas

Budget

Increase

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 70,067 0 70,067

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.52 48.53

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.28 3 4.29

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.39 35.39

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.69 33.69 32.94 32.94

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.40 37.40 36.40 36.41

261630033** Michigan Wa yne 39.81 36.59 36.59 34.95 34.96

180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.00 37.00 36.30 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 29.63 29.64

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.08 37.08

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.48 2 9.48 27.43 27.43

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 27.76 27.76

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.20 36.20 35.74 35.75

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.79 28.79 26.81 26.82

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.70 32.70

420070014 Penn sylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.49 28.50

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.63 28.64

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 31.57 31.58

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.54 33.54 33.10 33.11

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.76 27.77

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.29 33.30

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.22 34.22 33.92 33.92

180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.54 27 .54

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.11 29.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.19 31.21 30.64 30.67

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.47 33.47 33.13 33.14

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.29 27.29

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.09 35.09 34.45 34.46

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.38 25.39

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.26 29.27

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.21 32.22

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30. 20 30.20

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.55 34.55 33.79 33.80

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.91 31.91

010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.46 31.46

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.64 26.64

171190023 Illinoi s Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.41 29.44

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 25.85 25.85

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.54 24.54

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.13 26.14

*Monitors are in order of decr easing 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)

.

## 13 Table 6 . 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

S tate

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 143,6 01 137,705 136,825 148,069

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

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

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

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

Kansas 69,819 55,308 6 0,870 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 390,287 221,689 175,480 186,898

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

New H ampshire 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 29,7 11 29,711 29,711 29,711

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

Texas 453,332 281,298 284,132 266,648 70,067

Vermont 263 263 263 263

Virginia 77,256 71,505 47,639 51,144

West Virginia 498,507 158,445 76,7 78 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

$50 0/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 yea rs), and SO 2 

## Group 1 (2012

- 2013) at $500/ton.

## 14 Table 7

. 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

Witho ut

New

York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

New

York

Budget

Increase

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

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.86 14.86

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14. 10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.51 13.51

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.89 13.89

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.54 13.54 13.01 13.01 12.96 12.96

261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.35 14.35 13.87 13.87 13.77 13.77

390350060 Ohio Cu yahoga 15.67 13.75 13.75 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.16

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.70 12.70

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.40 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.36 12.36

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.83 13.83 13.56 13.56 13.39 13.39

10 732003 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 12.64

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.68 12.68 12.26 12.26 12.24 12.24

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.2 0 13.07 13.07

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.71 11.71

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.19 12.19

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.53 12.53 12.11 12.11 12.09 12.09

*Monitors are in order of decreasing 20 12 base case Maximum DV.



## Table 8

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

$500/ton

Without

N ew

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

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

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.25 15.25

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.18 14.18

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.20 14.20

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.86 13.86 13.33 13.33 13.28 13.28

261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.94 14.94 14.46 14.46 14.36 14.36

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.26 14.26 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.67

390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.5 1 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.92 12.92

390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.73 12.73

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.10 14.10 13.83 13.83 13.66 13.66

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio C uyahoga 15.61 13.70 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.11 13.11

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.98 12.98 12.56 12.56 12.54 12.54

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.10 13.10

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.07 12.07

39 0350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.62 12.62

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.88 12.88 12.46 12.46 12.44 12.44

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

## 15 Table 9 . 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

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

Increase

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

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

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

390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.1 8 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.46 33.46

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 34.13 33.13 33.13 32.95 32.95

261630033** Michi gan Wayne 39.48 36.31 36.31 35.00 35.00 34.74 34.75

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

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.83 28.83

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 26.23 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 27.6 5 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 30.35

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.39 27.39

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.78

0107300 23 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.10 31.10

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.48 30.48 30.15 30.15 30.08 30.08

180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.13 27.13

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.67 32.67

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.49 32.49 31.85 31.85 31.80 31.80

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 35.7 3 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.92 29.92 29.32 29.32 29.32 29.32

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.50 31.50 30.82 30.82 30.83 30.83

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 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 32.02

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.47 24.48

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.54 28.55 28.47 28.47

170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.84 29.84 29.58 29 .58 29.50 29.50

170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.11 30.11 29.78 29.78 29.69 29.69

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.92 30.92

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 30.62 30.62

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.96

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.41 28.41

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.96 24.96

39113 0032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.09 23.09

420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.13 26.13

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

** Identify receptors that have maximum design value s 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).

## 16 Table 10

. 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 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

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

New York

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With New

York

Budget

I ncrease Control

Scenario

Without

New

York

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

New

York

Budget

Increase

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

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

4 20030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 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 33.7 0 33.04 33.04 32.94 32.94

170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.40 37.40 36.54 36.54 36.40 36.40

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.95 34.96

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

540090011 West

Virgini a Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.63 29.63

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 27.43

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.7 6 27.76

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.20 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.74 35.74

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 32.84 32.70 32.70

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 3 0.46 28.70 28.70 28.49 28.49

420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.63 28.63

010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.57

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.54 33.54 33.21 33.21 33.10 33.11

180970 043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.76 27.76

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.29 33.29

550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.22 34.22 33.92 33.92 33.92 33.92

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 27.54

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.19 31.19 30.66 30.66 30.64 30.64

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.7 1 33.47 33.47 33.13 33.13 33.13 33.13

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.29 27.29

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.09 35.09 34.82 34.82 34.45 34.45

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.38 25.39

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.26 29.26

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.33 32.33 32.21 32.21

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.31 30.31 30.20 30.20

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.55 34.56 33.91 33.92 3 3.79 33.80

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.91 31.91

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 26.64

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.41 29.41

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.85 25.85

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 26.13

*Mo nitors 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)

.

## 17 Table 11

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Wisconsin 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

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase

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

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.86 14.86

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.51 13.51

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14 .33 14.31 14.31 13.89 13.89

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.54 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.96 12.96

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 1 5.76 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 12.36

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.83 13.84 13.56 13.57 13.39 13.39

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13

3903500 45 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.23 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.64 12.64

180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.68 12.69 12.26 12.27 12.24 12.24

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.07 13.07

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 12.19

180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.53 12.54 12.11 12.12 12.09 12.09

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



## Table 12

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Wisconsin 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

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase

A dditional 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 15.25

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.18 14.18

10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14. 64 14.62 14.62 14.20 14.20

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.86 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.28 13.28

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 12.73

171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.10 14.11 13.83 13.84 13.66 13.66

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

39035004 5 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.70 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.11 13.11

180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.98 12.99 12.56 12.57 12.54 12.54

131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.10 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.10 13.10

390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.10 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.07 1 2.08

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.10 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.62 12.62

180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.88 12.89 12.46 12.47 12.44 12.44

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

## 18 Table 13 . 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 Wisconsin 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

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase

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 45.45

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 33.46 33.46

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 30.60 30.51 30.51

170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.13 34.14 33.13 33.14 32.95 32.96

261630033 ** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.31 36.31 35.00 35.00 34.74 34.75

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 28.83

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 26.23 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 27.65 26.11 26.11 25.95 25.96

170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.35 30.35

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.39 27.39

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 31.10

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 27.13

261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33. 35 32.78 32.78 32.67 32.67

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 Mar ion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.92 29.92 29.32 29.32 29.32 29.32

550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.50 31.54 30.82 30.86 30.83 30.86

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.47 26.48

1 70316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.02 32.03

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.47 24.48

261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.54 28.54 28.47 28.47

170312001 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 29.69

421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.92 30.92

261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.02

010732003 Alabama Jeffers on 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.62 30.62

390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.96

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.41 28.41

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.96 24.9 6

391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.09 23.09

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.

** Identify receptors that have maximum desi gn 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).

## 19 Table 14

. 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 Wisconsin Emissions

.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * Stat e 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

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $ 500/ton

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $2,300/ton

Without

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase $ 2,300/ton

With

Wisconsin

Bud get

Increase Control

Scenario

Without

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase Control

Scenario

With

Wisconsin

Budget

Increase

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 Allegheny 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 35.65 35.61 35.61

390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33 .69 33.69 33.04 33.04 32.94 32.94

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

261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.95 34.96

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

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 29.48 27.60 27.60 27.43 27.43

390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28 .03 27.76 27.76

261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.20 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.74 35.74

390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.79 28.79 27.00 27.00 26.81 26.82

170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.84 32.85 32.70 32.70

420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.49 28.49

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 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.76 27.76

261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.29 33.29

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 3 3.37 33.37 33.39 33.39

180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.54 27.54

180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11

171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.19 31.19 30.66 30.66 30.64 30.65

550790010 Wisconsin Milwau kee 36.71 33.47 33.50 33.13 33.16 33.13 33.16

390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.29 27.29

170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.09 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.45 34.45

420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.38 25.39

2 61610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.26 29.26

170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.33 32.34 32.21 32.21

170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.31 30.32 30.20 30.20

421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.55 34.55 33.91 33.91 33.79 33.80

261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.91 31.91

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 26.64

171190023 Illinois Madison 35. 81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.41 29.42

420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.85 25.85

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 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)

.

## 20 Table 15. The Percentage of the Proposed Annual NO

x 

## Emission Increase (tons) as a Function of

Total Annual NO

x 

## Emissions from all Source Sectors (tons).

State 2014 “ Remedy ”

Control Scenario Total

Annual NO

x Emissions Proposed

Annual NO

x

Emission

Increase Proposed 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 616,15 4

Georgia 395,764

Illinois 540,361

Indiana 424,250

Iowa 217,221

Kansas 240,384

Kentucky 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 Hamps hire 47,482

New Jersey 209,841 112 0.1%

New York 457,927 3,485 0.8%

North Carolina 317,230

North Dakota 127,127

Ohio 508,054

Oklahoma 305,859

Pe nnsylvania 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

Virgini a 333,985

West Virginia 155,245

Wisconsin 254,989 2,473 1.0%

## 21 Table 16. The Percentage of the Proposed Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emission Increase (tons) as a

Function of Total Ozone

- Season NO

x 

## Emissions from all Sou rce Sectors (tons).

State 2014 “ R emedy” Control

Scenario T otal Ozone

Season NO

x Emissions Proposed Ozone

Season NO

x Emission

Increase Proposed 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 4,231 2.2%

Maine 24,427

Maryland 74,401

Massachusetts 68,324

Michigan 180,549

Minnesota 144,960

Missis sippi 89,326 2,136 2.4%

Missouri 149,213

Nebraska 74,095

New Hampshire 18,785

New Jersey 83,761 195 0.2%

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

Virginia 136,976

West Virginia 63,770

Wisconsin 104,890

## 22 Appendix A.

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

relevant document ide ntification 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.

An nual and Quarterly Emissions for all AQAT Simulations. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4530

AQAT_emissions_rev.xlsx contains the emissions and fraction of emissions for the scenario

relative to the total emissions in the 2012 base case from the final TR.

These file s contain the 24

- hour PM2.5 2012 base case and 2014 AQAT Calibration Scenario

contributions. Additional copies of these files have been created and used for this assessment.

QTR1_base_and_AQAT_calibration_scenario_contributions.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

-

4 531

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

-

45 34

The annual PM2.5 and 24

- hour PM2.5 calibration factors can be found in the respective files.

Additional copies of these files have been created and used for this assessment.

Annual PM Calib ration Factors.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4535

Daily PM Calibrat ion Factors.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4464

These files contain the quarterly contributions and calibrated 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 created 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 wh ich 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 contribution s and RRF_2014_2300_remedy.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

-

0491

- 4487

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00 CT. xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00 CT. xlsx (recreating the final TR

file)

dailyPM_a djusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00 rem. xlsx (recreating the final TR

file)

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00CT _TXNYWI .xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00CT _TXNYWI .xlsx

## 23 dailyPM_adjusted sulfate con tributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00 rem_TXNYWI .xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00 rem_WI .xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00 CT_WI .xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00 CT_WI .xlsx

dailyPM_adj usted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00 rem_NY. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00 CT_NY. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00 CT_NY. xlsx

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 23 00 rem_TX. xls x

dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_ 5 00 CT_TX. xlsx

dailyPM_allyears_high_quarters_rev.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, variability analyses, and remedy simulations. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

-

0491

- 4502. In the TR, this file was referred to as “ dailyPM_allyears_high_quarters.xlsx ”

These files apply the RRFs to each of the 32 days per year for each of the 5 yea rs 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 in 2014.

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_base_500CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4 540

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 this assessment are:

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500

_ CT.xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00

_ CT.xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 2300_remedy .xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00

_ CT _TX .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 2300_reme dy_TX .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500

_ CT _NY .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00

_ CT _NY .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500

_ CT _WI .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00

_ CT _WI .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 2300_remedy_NY .xlsx

dail yPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 2300_remedy_WI .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500

_ CT _TX_NY_WI .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 23 00

_ CT _TX_NY_WI .xlsx

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_ 2300_remedy_TX_NY_WI .xlsx

The file annualPM25 AQAT.xlsx file EPA

- HQ

- O AR

- 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. A new file,

containing the annual AQAT estimates for this assessment i s called “annualPM25

AQAT_rev.xlsx”

## 24 A list of the abbreviations, used throughout the excel workbooks, which identify 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

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

2300 rem WI. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission

revisions made for Wisconsin.

2300 rem NY. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission

revisions made for New York.

2300 rem TX. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission

revisions made for Texas

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

2300 CT WI. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenari o with the

emission revisions made for Wisconsin.

2300 CT NY. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the

emission revisions made for New York.

2300 CT . This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario wi th 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

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

500 CT WI. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost t hreshold scenario with the emission

revisions made for Wisconsin.

500 CT NY

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

revisions made for New York.

500 CT TX

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshol d scenario with the emission

revisions made for Texas

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

the final Transport Rule.

## 25 Appendix B.

In addition to the state

- by

- state and case

- by

- case analysis present ed in this TSD, EPA also

assessed the cumulative air quality impact in the $500/ton cost threshold and $2300/ton cost

threshold scenarios used in the significant contribution /interference with maintenances

assessment as well as the 2014 “remedy” control sc enario assuming that all three states (Texas,

New York, and Wisconsin) made the emission increases proposed in 2014 . As shown in Tables

B

- 1 through B

- 4 for the average and maximum design values for annual PM2.5 and 24

- hour

PM2.5, changes in concentration are small, and the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and

maintenance do not change (relative to the AQAT estimates of the final TR $500/ton cost

threshold, $2300/ton cost threshold, and the “remedy” control scenario s ).

## 26 Table B

- 1

. Average Annual PM 2 .5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Emissions Concurrently in Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin.

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

Budget

Increases $ 500/ton

With

Budget

Increases $2,300/ton

Without

Budget

Increases $ 2,300/ton

With

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

Without

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

With

Budget

Increases

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

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

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 70,067 0 70,067 0 70,067

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 13.17

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 13.58 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 B

- 2

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Emissions Concurrently in Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012 Base

Case

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

$500/ton

Without

Budget

Increases $ 500/ton

With

Budget

Increases $2,300/ton

Without

Budget

Increases $ 2,300/ton

With

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

Without

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

With

Budget

Increases

Additional Emissio ns Added to Wisconsin (tons) 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757

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

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 70,067 0 70,067 0 70,067

420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15. 42 15.25 15.26

390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 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 13.68

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 Madi son 15.73 14.10 14.12 13.83 13.85 13.66 13.67

10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61

390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.70 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

1312 10039 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 decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

## 27 Table B

- 3 . 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 Emissions Concurrently in Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin.

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

Budget

Increases $ 500/ton

With

Budget

Increases $2,300/ton

Without

Budget

Increases $ 2,300/ton

With

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

Without

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

With

Budget

Increases

Additional Emissi ons Added to Wisconsin (tons) 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757

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

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 70,067 0 70,067 0 70,067

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 29.88 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 Cuyah oga 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 32.32

54 0090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.83 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 26.23 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 30.37

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 24.79

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

261470005 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 3 0.91 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 29.35 29.32 29.35

550790010 Wisc onsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.50 31.54 30.82 30.86 30.83 30.86

390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 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 28.48

170312001 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 31.02 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.

** 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).

## 28 Table B

- 4

. Maxi mum 24

- h ou r PM 2.5 

## DVs ( **μ** g/m 3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed

Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Emissions Concurrently in Texas, New York, and

Wisconsin.

Monitor

Identification

N umber * State County CAMx

2012

Base

Case

( **μ** g/m 3 ) AQAT 2014 Maximu m 24

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

$500/ton

Without

Budget

Increases $ 500/ton

With

Budget

Increases $2,300/ton

Without

Budget

Increases $ 2,300/ton

With

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

Without

Budget

Increases Control

Scenario

With

Budget

Incre ases

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

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

Additional Emissions Added to Texas (tons) 0 70,067 0 70,067 0 70,067

420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 5 9.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.52 48.53

420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 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 35.40

261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.65 35.66 35.61 35.6 1

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 36.42

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 36.5 1 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 J efferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77

261630019** Michigan 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 26.83

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 31.58

550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.54 33.57 33.21 33.24 33.10 33.14

180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 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 33.96

1808900 26 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 31.21 30.66 30.68 30.6 4 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 Pe nnsylvania York 36.06 34.55 34.56 33.91 33.92 33.79 33.80

261630015 Michigan 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 26.6 4 26.65

171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.41 29.44

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 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)

.