# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Revisions to the Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491



# Final Revisions Rule **Significant Contribution Assessment**  **TSD**

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation

January 201 2

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 This Technical Support Document (TSD) presents quantitative assessments of the relationship between final revisions to the Transport Rule and the original analysis conducted for the final Transport Rule informing the Rule’s determination of emissi ons that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in downwind states

. As conducted for the final Transport Rule, EPA re

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

## emission reductions using the Air Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT) and taking the finalized revisions into account. In this document, EPA also assesses the relationship between the NO x 

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

## and ozone

season NO x 

## budgets under the Transport Rule programs. This technical support document presents results separately for the revisions described in the final revisions rule 1 

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

## The final revisions rule includes increases to 2014 SO 2 

## budgets for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin. Inthe proposed revisions rule, EPA assessed the emission increases on a state

-by

state as well as a collective basis. For the final revisions rule, EPA has assesse d the collective impact of all of the revisions being finalized

. The direct final revisions rule includes increases to 2014 SO 2 

## budgets for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina. For the direct final revisions rule , EPA has assessed the emission increases on a state

-by

- state basis, as well as collectively
, for the remedy scenario, the $500/ton cost threshold scenario, and the $2,300/ton cost threshol d scenario

. For purposes of assessing the impact of state SO 2 

## budget increases under the final revisions rule and the direct final revisions rule in AQAT , EPA assumed that the state SO 2 

## budget increases would result in an equivalent, ton for ton, increas e in 2014 SO 2 

## emissions (beyond the level previously projected in the final Transport Rule). Therefore, this TSD refers to the “final emission increases” assumed to result from the final budget increases and analyz es the impact of these emission increases

. This TSD is organized as follows:

A. Summary

of EPA’s Analysis to Quantify Emissions that Significantly Contribute to Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintenance for the Final Revisions Rule and Direct Final Revisions Rule

. B

. Analys is of Significant Contribution and Interference with Maintenance for SO 2 

## Emissions from Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Using the Air Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT) for the Final Revisions Rule. C. Presentation of Annual and Ozone

- Season NO x 

## Emission Increases Relative to Annual and Ozone

- Season Total NO x 

## Emissions for the Final Revisions Rule. D. Analys is of Significant Contribution and Interference with Maintenance for SO 2 

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

by

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

1 

## See preamble to the “Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone ” 2 

## See preamble to the “Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone : Part II”

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 E. Presentation of Annual and Ozone

- Season NO x 

## Emission Increases Relative to Annual and Ozone

- Season Total NO x 

## Emissions for the Direct Final Rule.

A

. Summary

of EPA’s Analysis to Quantify Emissions that Significantly Contribute to Nonattainment or Interfere with Maintenance for the Final Revisions Rule and Direct Final Revisions Rule

.

S ections V and VI of the final Transport Rule (TR) preamble (Federal Implementation Plans: 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 contribute 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 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 who se contributions to these receptors meet

or exceed specified threshold amounts. See sections V.C and V.D in the TR preamble and the associated TR Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4140 ) for a detailed discussion of these air quality analys es. 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 power sector emissions projected to remain at ascending cost thresholds of emissions reductions for each state

. See section B in the Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for discussion of this analys is. Next, EPA uses an AQAT to estimate the air quality impact of the upwind emission reductions at each cost threshold on downwind receptors with problems attaining and maintaining the applicable NAAQS

. See section C in the Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for discussion of the development and use of AQAT

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

-hour PM2.5 AQAT to estimate the impacts of the final SO 2 

## emission increases on downwind air quality in the context of the air quality component of the determination of significant contribution in 2014 ; it also provides an estimate of the effect of these final SO 2 

## budget revisions on the “remedy” control scenario analyz ed for the final Transport Rule in 2014

. For the final revisions rule, the final budget increases were investigated in a collective manner to show the estimated air quality impacts from all of the state’s emission s following the finalization of the revisions rule on the downwind monitors

. For the direct final rule, the emiss ion increases for each state were examined independently of the emission changes from other states, as well as collectively, where emissions for all affected states are assumed to increase simultaneously

. F or each of the two rules , two assessments were performed :

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

4  Significant Contribution Assessment: Following the methodology and using the emissions for the air quality assessment of significant contribution and interference with maintenance from the final TR, we assess whether the SO 2 

## emission increases 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 PM2

. 5 in 2014 ( compared with the AQAT analysis from the final TR). Specif

ically, 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 analyzed, on a receptor

-by

- receptor basis, the emissions reductions for each upwind state are associated with one of two cost threshold levels (either the 2014 base case emissions level or the particular threshold cost level being analyz ed) depending on whether the upwind state is “linked” to that receptor or if the receptor is located within the state. States that are contributing above the re spective air quality threshold (i.e., greater than or equal to 1 percent contribution o f total sulfate and nitrate f or the annual and 24

-hour PM2.5 to the monitor) , as well as the state containing the monitor, make SO 2 

## emissions reductions available at the particular cost threshold level. The emissions for all other states are at the 2014 b ase case level.

 “Remedy” Control Scenario Assessment: Inthis case, we estimate the resulting air quality and patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance when the emissions from all states are at the level from the 2014 remedy control scenario (regardless of whether or not they are linked to a particular receptor). Emissions are at the level for the final TR remedy control scenario except for emissions from the states affected b y the final revisions rule or the direct final rule , where their emissions are increased by

the amount of the related revisions

.
For the final revision s rule, this analysis reaches the same conclusion as EPA’s assessment of significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance from the final TR. There are no estimated changes in the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance at the $500/ton cost threshold level for any receptors linked to 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 estimated changes in the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance at the $2,300/ton cost threshold level for any receptors linked to New York or Wisconsin (relative to the analys is from the final TR). Thus, EPA concludes that for these two states, their significant contribution and interference with maintenance is the amount of emissions that can be removed at the $2,300/ton cost threshold

. Inaddition, there are no estimated changes in the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance in the 2014 “remedy” control scenario for any of the final individual emission changes for Texas, New York, or Wisconsin

. EPA concludes that the SO 2 

## emission budget increases in the final revisions rule would not substantially

affect the air quality component of the multifactor test and
, thus
, would not affect EPA’s conclusions in the final TR identifying $ 2,3 00/ton and $ 5 00/ton as the appropriate SO 2 

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

.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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

## budget increases in 2014 for the direct final rule. EPA assessed emission changes for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina. EPA examined the se estimate d emission increases on a state

-by

- state basis , where the emission adjustment was assessed for each state independently of the emission adjustments for the other states, as well as collectively, where all states affected by the direct final simultaneously increased emissions. The emissions from the final revisions rule are included in the direct final assessment (i.e., the direct final emissions are added incrementally to the emissions assessed for the final revisions rule). For the direct final rule, 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 as well as on the 2014 “remedy”control scenario . For these scenarios, we assumed that all states ( Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina)
, simultaneously, were to make the final emissi on increases outlined in the direct final rule

. While there were small changes in concentrations at some receptors, t here were no changes in the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance for either of the two cost threshold scenarios or for the 2 014 “remedy” control scenario

. B ased on the results of the analys es presented in this TSD , EPA concludes that the final SO 2 

## emission budget increases in the direct final rule (added incrementally to the final revisions rule emissions) would not substantially affect the air quality component of the multifactor test and thus would not affect EPA’s conclusions in the final TR identifying $ 2,3 00/ton and $ 5 00/ton as the appropriate SO 2 

## cost thresholds for “ Group 1 ” and “ Group 2 ” states , respectively, and would not change each state ’ s designation as either “Group 1” or “Group 2” as was made in the final TR

.

B

. Analys is of Significant Contribution and Interference with Maintenance for SO 2 

## Emissions from Texas
, New York, and Wisconsin Using the Air Quality Assessment Tool (AQAT) for the Final Revisions Rule.

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. This analysis directly follows the methodology

of the same analys is conducted for the final TR cost threshold analys is. Appendix A of this document lists a number of the AQAT input and output workbooks from the TR that were used in this assessment as well as a number of additional AQAT input, intermediate, and output workbooks created specifically for this assessment

. The fossil and biomass S O 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 for the final revisions rule that were investigated using AQAT. Note that the emissions for each of the states whose 2014 SO 2 

## budget is not affected by the final revisions rule are unchanged from the respective emissions level from the July 2011 final TR analys is , while the emissions for Texas , New York, and Wisconsin are assessed at their emissions level from the final TR (for comparison) and at an increased level accounting for their budget increases contained in the final revisions rule

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6 we present the resulting estimates from the final TR analysis along with the resulting estimates where the emissions from Texas, New York, and Wisconsin have been increased.

. Two cost threshold levels ($500/ton and $2,300/ton) were investigated in the Significant Contribution A ssessment, the appropriate cost threshold for “Group 2” states and the cost threshold for “Group 1” states , respectively
, as determined in the final TR. Following the analys is of these cost threshold levels with the adjustments in SO 2 

## emissions made for Texas, New York, and Wi sconsin, there were small changes in estimated average and maxium design values, and no additional nonattainment/maintenance areas were present compared with 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 (see the Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for discussion of this analysis). See Tables 2 and 3 for estimated average and maximum design values for annual PM2.5 and Tables 4 and 5 for average and maximum design values for 24

-hour PM2.5. For the significant contribution assessment, minor changes in estimated concentrations were seen at the receptors to which Texas, New York, and Wisconsin were “linked”. The monitor for annual PM2.5 to which Texas was linked in the TR was: 171191007

. The monitors for 24

-hour PM2.5 to which New York was linked in the TR 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. The receptors for 24

-hour PM2.5 to which Wisconsin was linked3 

## in the TR were: 170311016, 180890022, 261630016, 261630033, 390350038, 390350045, 3903 50060, 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. The resulting change s in concentration at these receptors were not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. Thus, EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary . Texas maintains its classification as a “Group 2” state, and New York and Wisconsin maintain their classifications as “Group 1” state s

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

## emission levels in the final revisions rule, collectively
, for Texas , New York, and Wisconsin impact the patterns of attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance areas for the 2014 TR “remedy” control scenario, EPA found that, while there were small change s in average and maximum design values, the patterns were not likely

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

C . Presentation of Annual and Ozone

- Season NO x 

## Emission Increases Relative to Annual and Ozone

- Season Total NO x 

## Emissions for the Final Revisions Rule

. The final revisions to state budgets for annual and ozone

- season NO x 

## represent very limited shares of the total NO x 

## emissions from all source

- sectors in each affected state, as modeled in the air quality projections under the final Transport R ule “remedy” control scenario

3 

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

7 analys is in 2014. Tables 6 and 7 illustrate the relationship of the final state budget revisions to each state’s total emissions (from all sources) for annual NO x 

## and o zone

- season NO X 

## , respectively. The final state budget revisions represent small percentages of each state’s total emissions ; therefore
, EPA believe s that the impact of these revisions would be limited to comparatively small changes to the 2014 ozone design values projected in the final Transport Rule air quality

analys is

.

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

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

by

- S tate Basis as well as Collectively) Using AQAT for the Direct Final Rule. EPA assessed the impacts of the SO 2 

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

-by

state basis, as well as collectively. The total budget changes are presented in Table 8 (se e the preamble of the direct final rule for details about the emission changes). The states that EPA investigated were Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina. The budget changes were assessed using the 2014 $500/ton and $2 ,300 cost threshold scenarios and the “remedy” control emissions scenario. All of these scenarios included the emission increases from the final revisions rule. Note that the 2014 base case emissions were also used and that, for this case, EPA assumed no emission increases would be made to account for the final revisions rule. As described in section A, EPA performed two assessments , a Significant Contribution Assessment and a “Remedy” Control Scenario Assessment

. For each scenario for the two assessments, for comparison to see the affect of the emissions in the direct final revision rule, EPA also presents the results of the AQAT assessment from the final revisions rule. Georgia: Georgia was “linked” to the 24

-hour PM2.5 receptors 10730023 and 10732003 in Jefferson County, Alabama and to the same receptors for annual PM2.5. There is also a receptor located in Georgia , identification number 131210039

. As seen in Tables 9 and 10 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 11 and 12 for 24

-hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values , the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary
, and Georgia maintains its classification as a “Group 2” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule). Indiana : Indiana contributed above the threshold to all 24

-hour PM2.5 receptors with base case maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 

## ( except for receptor 420710007 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania)

. Indiana also contributed at or above the threshold to all of the annual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design values greater than or equal to 12.05 g/m3



## . As seen in Tables 13 and 14 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 15 and 16 for 24

-hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values
, the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not suff icient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost thresho ld levels were unnecessary, and Indiana maintains its

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

8 classification as a “Group 1” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule). Kansas : Kansas 24

-hour PM2.5 receptors identification numbers 550790010
, 550790026
, 171191007
, 170316005 , and 170310052 in Wisconsin and Illinois. Kansas did not contribute to any of the annual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design values greater than or equal to 12.05 g/m3



## . As seen in Tables 17 and 18 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 19 and 20 for 24

-hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values
, the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unneces sary, and Kansas maintains its classification as a “Group 2” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revis ions rule). Nebraska : Nebraska 24

- hour PM2.5 receptors 550790010 and 550790026 in Wisconsin

. Nebraska did not contribute to any of the annual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design values greater than or equal to 12.05 g/m3



## . As seen in Tables 21 and 22 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 23 and 24 for 24

-hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values , the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and Nebraska maintains its classification as a “Group 2” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule). 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. As seen in Tables 25 and 26 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 27 and 28 for 24

- hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values , the resulting change in concentrati on at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that asse ssment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and New York maintains its classification as a “Group 1” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule). Ohio : Ohio contributed above the threshold to all 24

-hour PM2.5 receptors with base case maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3



## . Ohio also contributed at or above the threshold to all of the annual PM2.5 receptors with 2012 base case design values greater than or equal to 12.05 g/m3



## . As seen in Tables 29 and 30 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for Table s 31 and 32 for 24

-hour PM2.5 average and maximum

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

9 design values , the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and Ohio maintains its classification as a “Group 1” state. Similarly, under the remedy asse ssment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule). South Carolina : South Carolina did not contribute above the threshold to any of the 24

- hour PM2.5 receptors identified in the TR (i.e., it was not “linked”. Thus, its emissions were assessed using 2014 base case emission levels for all receptors, and consequently, no changes in concentration were observed in 24

-hour PM2.5 at any of the recptors at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014 (relative to the TR including the final revisions rule). For annual PM2.5, South Carolina was “linked” to receptor 131210039 in Fulton County
, Georgia. As seen in Tables 33 and 34 for annual P M2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 35 and 36 for 24

-hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values , the resulting change in concentration at these receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about the status of these receptors (i .e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. EPA concludes that assessment of alternative cost threshold levels were unnecessary, and South Carolina maintains its classific ation as a “Group 2” state. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule). Collective Assessment : As described above, EPA also used AQAT to estimate the air quality impacts in the significant contribution and remedy assessments when all states included in the direct final simultaneously increased their emissions. A s seen in Tables 3 7 and 3 8 for annual PM2.5 average and maximum design values and for Tables 3 9 and 40 for 24

-hour PM2.5 average and maximum design values , the resulting change in concentration at each of the TR receptors was not sufficient to alter the conclusions about its status (i.e., estimated to be in attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment) at the $500/ton or $2,300/ton cost threshold levels in 2014. Similarly, under the remedy assessment, the estimated patterns of attainment, maintenance, and nonattainment were unchanged relative to the final TR assessment (including the final revisions rule).

E. Presentation of Annual and Ozone

- Season NO x 

## Emission Increases Relative to Annual and Ozone

- Season Total NO x 

## Emissions for the Direct Final Rule. The direct final rule revises the state 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 quality projections under the final Transport Rule “remedy” control scenario analys is in 2014 , and very limited shares of the total NO x 

## emissions from all

source

- sectors in each affected state (when the final revisions rule is also considered) . Tables 41 and 42 illustrate the relationship of the direct final state budget revisions to each state’s total emissions (from all sources) for annual NO x 

## and ozone

- season NO x 

## respectively . The total emissions include the NO x 

## from the final revisions rule (assuming that there is a one

-to

- one

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

10 correlation between the budget increase and an increase in emissions. The state budget revisions in the direct final rule represent small percentages of each state’s total emissions; therefore, EPA believes that the impact of these revisions would be limited to comparatively small changes to the 2014 ozone design values projected in the final Transport Rule air quality analys is

.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

11 Table 1 . SO 2 

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

## ) in 2014 in the Final TR as well as the Additional Emission Increases Examined in the Revision s Proposal.

**2014 Base**  **Case $500/ton** 

**Cost Threshold**  **$2,300/ton**

**Cost Threshold**  **“Remedy”**

**Control Scenario**  **Em ission** 

**Increase Examined**  **in AQAT State**  Alabama 417,340 200,905 213,593 173,566 Arkansas 99,411 103,431 103,431 106,685 Connecticut 3,774 3,883 3,883 3,883 Delaware 2,172 2,088 2,088 2,172 District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 Florida 143,601 137,705 136,825 148,069 Georgia 170,288 94,691 95,834 93,208 Illinois 141,606 138,815 12 8,997 132,647 Indiana 727,786 262,386 179,539 195,045 Iowa 133,083 117,830 81,137 83,827 Kansas 69,819 55,308 60,870 45,740 Kentucky 488,006 160,582 106,299 116,927 Louisiana 118,231 135,803 139,204 139,2 04 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 Hampshire 6,453 7,100 7,199 6,742 New Jersey 38,857 7,069 6,611 6,243 **New York 42,887**  **23,181 14,404**  **15,160 3,527**  North Carolina 126,048 109,612 63,577 69,377 North Dakota 103,633 102,816 103,633 103,624 Ohio 851,199 313,193 166,691 178,975 Oklahoma 137,981 137,981 138,072 138,072 Pennsylvania 509,650 296,596 114,431 125,545 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 South Carolina 213,281 96,504 107,114 100,787 South Dakota 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 Tennessee 284,468 82,159 58,838 64,721 **Texas 453,332**  **281,298 284,13**  **2 266,648**  **50,517** 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**  **57,418 46,205**  **50,136 7,757**  

## *Source: Integrated Planning Model run b y EPA , 2011. See Appendix A in the TR Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for list and description of the IP M $500/ton and $2,300/ton cost threshold and control scenario IPM runs. Emissions are shown for all fossil and biomass units. These “final cost curve” runs have NO x 

## and ozone season NO x 

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

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

## Group 1 (2012

- 2013) at $500/ton.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

12 Table 2

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT

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

.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With TX, NY,**  **and WI Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without TX, NY,**  **and WI Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With TX,**  **NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **Contr ol** 

**Scenario With**  **TX, NY, and**  **WI Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added to**  **Texas (tons)**  0 50,517 0 50,517 0 50,517 **Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons)**  0 3,527 0 3,527 0 3,527 **Additional Emissions Added to Wisconsin (tons)** 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.86 14.87 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.51 13.52 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.89 13.90 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.54 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.96 12.97 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.35 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.77 13.78 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.75 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.16 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.70 12.71 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.36 12.37 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.83 13.85 13.56 13.57 13.39 13.40 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.23 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.64 12.65 180970 081 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 12.12 12.09 12.10 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. 

## Table 3

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Emissions from the Final Revisions Rule.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With TX, NY,**  **and WI Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without TX, NY,**  **and WI Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With TX, NY, and**  **WI Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With TX,**  **NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **A dditional Emissions Added to**  **Texas (tons)**  0 50,517 0 50,517 0 50,517 **Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons)**  0 3,527 0 3,527 0 3,527 **Additional Emissions Added to Wisconsin (tons)** 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.1 7 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 13.67 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.92 12.93 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.73 12.74 171191 007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.10 14.12 13.83 13.84 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 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.10 13.11 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.07 12.08 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.62 12.63 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.88 12.89 1 2.46 12.47 12.44 12.45

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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



## Table 4 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Emissions from the Final Revisions Rule.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With TX, NY,**  **and WI Budget**  **Increase $2**  **,300/ton**

**Without TX, NY,**  **and WI Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With TX, NY, and**  **WI Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With TX,**  **NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to Texas**  **(tons)** 0 50,51 7 0 50,517 0 50,517 **Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons)**  0 3,527 0 3,527 0 3,527 **Additional Emissions Added to Wisconsin (tons)** 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.45 45.46 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.25 29.88 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 Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.60 30.61 30.51 30.51 170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.13 34.14 33.13 33.14 32.95 32.97 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.31 36.32 35.00 35.01 34.74 34.76 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.79 32.80 32.38 32.39 32.31 32.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.5 7 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 2616 30019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.27 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.87 34.88 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.65 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.95 25.96 170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.35 30.36 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27 .59 27.39 27.40 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.78 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.10 31.11 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.48 30.51 30.15 30.18 30.08 30.11 180970043 Indiana M arion 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 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.4 9 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.30 180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.92 29.94 29.32 29.34 29.32 29.34 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.50 31.54 30.82 30.86 30.83 30.86 390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 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 28.47 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 29.70 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.92 30.93 2 61630015 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 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR).

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

14

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

15 Table 5

. Maximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT

– Considering Additional Texas, New York, and Wisconsin Emissions from the Final Revisions Rule.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With TX, NY, and**  **WI Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**With out**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With TX, NY, and**  **WI Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **TX, NY, and WI**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to Texas**  **(tons)** 0 50,517 0 50,517 0 50,517 **Additional Emissions Added to New York (tons)**  0 3,527 0 3,527 0 3,527 **Additional Emissions Added to Wisconsin (tons)** 0 7,757 0 7,757 0 7,757 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.52 48.53 420030093** Pennsylvania 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 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.94 32.95 170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.40 37.41 36.54 36.55 36.40 36.41 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.95 34.97 180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.00 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.30 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.63 29.64

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.48 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.43 27.44 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.76 261630019** Michi gan Wayne 37.83 36.20 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.74 35.75 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.79 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.81 26.82 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.84 32.85 32.70 32.71 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.49 28. 50 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.63 28.64 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.57 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.54 33.57 33.21 33.24 33.10 33.14 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 2 9.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.76 27.77 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.29 33.30 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.22 34.26 33.92 33.96 33.92 33.95 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.54 27.55 180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.19 31.20 30.66 30.68 30.64 30.67 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.47 33.50 33.13 33.16 33.13 33.17 390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.29 27.30 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.09 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.45 34.47 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.38 25.40 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.26 29.27 170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.33 32.34 32.21 32.22 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.31 30.32 30.20 30.21 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.55 34.56 33.91 33.92 33.79 33.80 261630015 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 26.64 26.65 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.41 2 9.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.85 25.86 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.13 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

16 Table 6. The Percentage of the Final Annual NO x 

## Emission Increase (tons) in 2014 as a Function of Total Annual NO x 

## Emissions from all Source Sectors (tons).

State 2014 “Remedy”

Control Scenario Total Annual NO x Emissions Final Annual NO x Emission Increase Final Annual NO x

Emission I

ncrease as a Percentage of 2014 “Remedy” Total Emissions
Alabama 315,155
Arkansas 194,964
Connecticut 80,793
Delaware 31,744
District of Columbia 9,773
Florida 616,154 Georgia 395,764
Illinois 540,361
Indiana 424,250

Iowa 217,221

Kansas 240,384

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 Hampshire 47,482 New Jersey 209,841 679 0.3 %
New York 457,927 3,485 0.8%
North Carolina 317,2 30
North Dakota 127,127
Ohio 508,054
Oklahoma 305,859 Pennsylvania 514,563
Rhode Island 18,808
South Carolina 202,118
South Dakota 65,500

Tennessee 293,339

Texas 1,368,612 1,375 0.1%
Vermont 22,824 Virginia 333,985 West Virginia 155,245
Wisconsin 254,989 2,473 1.0%

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

17 Table 7. The Percentage of the Final Ozone

- Season NO x 

## Emission Increase (tons) in 2014 as a Function of Total Ozone

- Season NO x 

## Emissions from all Source Sectors (tons).

State 2014 “Remedy” Control

Scenario Total Ozone

Season NO x Emissions Final Ozone

- Season NO x Emission Increase Final Ozone

Season NO x Emission I

ncrease as a Percentage of 2014 “Remedy” Total Emissions
Alabama 126,382

Arkansas 87,920

Connecticut 31,133

Delaware 13,693 District of Columbia 3,805

Florida 261,497 Georgia 161,301

Illinois 221,011

Indiana 176,143

Iowa 97,478

Kansas 97,635 Kentucky 117,179

Louisiana 195,346 4, 594 2. 4 %

Maine 24,427 Maryland 74,401

Massachusetts 68,324 Michigan 180,549

Minnesota 144,960 Mississippi 89,326 2,1 54 2.4%

Missouri 149,213

Nebraska 74,095 New Hampshire 18,785 New Jersey 83,761 349 0. 4 %

New York 182,812 1,911 1.0%

North Carolina 130,132

North Dakota 59,336

Ohio 208,281

Oklahoma 125,457 Pennsylvania 208,800

Rhode Island 7,251

South Carolina 83,215

South Dakota 31,739

Tennessee 119,966

Texas 576,926 1,375 0.2%

Vermont 8,796 Virginia 136,976 West Virginia 63,770

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

18 Wisconsin 104,890

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

19 Table 8. SO 2 

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

## ) in 2014 in the Final TR Including the Emissions in the Final Revisions Rule as well as the Additional Emission Increases in the Direct Final Rule.

**2014 Base**  **Case $500/ton** 

**Cost Threshold**  **$2,300 /ton** 

**Cost Threshold**  **“Remedy”**

**Control Scenario**  **Em ission** 

**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 4,333**  Iowa 133,083 117,830 81,137 83,827 **Kansas 69,819**  **55 ,308**  **60,870 45,740**  **268** Kentucky 488,006 160,582 106,299 116,927 Louisiana 118,231 135,803 139,204 139,204 Maine 2,355 2,355 2,355 2,355 Maryland 42,926 32,187 28,203 30,368 Massachusetts 13,365 13,364 13,363 13,363 Michigan 269,434 210,163 148,2 32 162,632 Minnesota 70,937 47,720 50,213 49,622 Mississippi 30,972 32,454 32,455 32,109 Missouri 390,287 221,689 175,480 186,898 **Nebrask a**  **73,073 69,466**  **71,475 71,340**  **3,800** New Hampshire 6,453 7,100 7,199 6,742 New Jersey 38,857 7,069 6,611 6,24 3 **New York******** **42,887 26,708**  **17,931 18,687**  **5,448** 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 15,963**  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 b y EPA, 2011. See Appendix A in the TR Significant Contribution and State Emissions Budgets Final Rule TSD for list and description of the IP M $500/ton and $2,300/ton cost threshold and control scenario IPM runs. Emissions are shown for all fossil and biomass units. These “final cost curve” runs have NO x 

## and ozone season NO x 

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

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

## Group 1 (2012

- 2013) at $500/ton. ** Emission estimates at the $500/ton cost threshold, $2,300/ton cost threshold, and “remedy” control scenario include emissions from the Final Revisions Rule (assessed in the first section of this TSD).

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

20 Table 9

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT **

– Considering Additional Georgia Emissions

.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Wi** **thout Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added to**  **Georgia (tons)**  0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.35 14.31 14.33 13.90 13.92 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.98 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.17 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.72 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.38 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.41 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.58 13.52 13.54 13.13 13.16 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.65 12.65 180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.42 13.20 13 .27 13.08 13.15 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.73 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.20 12.20 180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 10

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT **

– Considering Additional Georgia Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase Additional Em** **issions Added to Georgia**  **(tons)** 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.66 14.62 14 .64 14.21 14.23 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.30 261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.68 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 1 3.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.94 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.75 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.68 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.06 14.00 14.02 13.61 13.64 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.12 13.12 180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.45 13.23 13.30 13.11 13.18 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.09 3903500 65 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.63 12.63 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

21 Table 11 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT ***

– Considering Additional Georgia Emissions

.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average 2**  **4**

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

**$500/ton Without**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase Co**  **ntrol**

**Scenario With**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added to**  **Georgia (tons)**  0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 3 0.25 29.88 29.89 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47 261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.89 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51 170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.98 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.77 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.84

4207100 07** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.24 26.24 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.58 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.97 170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.37 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.79 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.99 31.61 31.67 31.11 31.16 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11 180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 27.1 5 261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.68 32.69 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.85 180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.31 180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.11 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86 390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.49 170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.05 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.55 28.55 28.47 28. 49 170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51 170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.93 30.93 261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.1 0 31.10 31.02 31.03 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.47 31.10 31.15 30.63 30.68 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.99 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.97 24.97 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.12 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.15 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV

. ** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR). ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

22 Table 12

. M aximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT ***

– Considering Additional Georgia Emissions

.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Georgia**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Georgia Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Georgia Bu**  **dget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to Georgia**  **(tons)** 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.54 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.31 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.40 261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.95 32.95 170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.42 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.97 34.98 180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.65

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38 .37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.44 27.44 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.82 26.83 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28 .81 28.64 28.64 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.57 32.12 32.18 31.57 31.62 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.30 33.31 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.56 18097 0066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.12 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17 390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.3 3 27.30 27.31 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.48 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.41 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.27 29.28 170312001 Illinois Cook 36 .12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.23 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.81 261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.93 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.27 31.91 31.96 31.46 31.51 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.44 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.57 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.15 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

23 Table 13

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT* *

– Considering Additional Indiana Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added to**  **Indiana (tons)**  0 4,333 0 4,333 0 4,333 42003 0064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.97 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.26 13.16 13.17 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.30 12.75 12.76 12.71 12.72 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 12.98 12.44 12.45 12.37 12.37 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.58 13.40 13.40 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.74 12.65 12.65 180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.28 12.25 12.26 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.31 11.76 11.77 11.72 11.72 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.29 12.20 12.20 1809 70083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.55 12.12 12.13 12.10 12.11 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 14

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Indiana Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase Additional Em** **issions Added to Indiana**  **(tons)** 0 4,333 0 4,333 0 4,333 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29 261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.77 13.67 13.68 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.5 2 12.97 12.98 12.93 12.94 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.35 12.81 12.82 12.74 12.74 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.85 13.67 13.67 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.21 13.12 13.12 180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.58 12.55 12.56 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.67 12.12 12.13 12.08 12.08 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.72 12.63 12.63 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.90 12.47 12.48 12.45 12.46 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

24 Table 15 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Indiana Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average 24** 

**- h** **our PM2.5 Design Values (**  **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase Contr**  **ol**

**Scenario With**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added to**  **Indiana (tons)**  0 4,333 0 4,333 0 4,333 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.58 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.26 2 9.88 29.89 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47 261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.88 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.51 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51 170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.15 33.14 33.15 32.97 32.98 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.81 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.08 28.84 28.84

420710007** P ennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.31 26.24 26.24 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.80 25.57 25.58 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.12 25.96 25.97 170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.12 30.54 30.55 30.36 30.37 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32 .40 26.27 26.28 24.88 24.89 24.78 24.79 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.94 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.11 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11 180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.67 27.16 27.19 27.14 27.16 261 470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.36 32.78 32.79 32.68 32.68 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.54 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.85 180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.92 30.52 30.53 30.49 30.50 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.46 27.35 27.37 27.30 27.33 180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.25 28.13 28.16 28.10 28.13 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.35 29.34 29.34 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.87 390170003 Ohio Butler 34.4 0 28.07 28.08 26.49 26.50 26.48 26.49 170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.73 32.41 32.42 32.04 32.04 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.96 24.69 24.70 24.49 24.49 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.41 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.48 17 0312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.52 170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.04 30.93 30.93 261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 31.1 0 31.02 31.03 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.64 26.11 26.12 25.97 25.98 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.24 28.49 28.50 28.43 28.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.17 25.21 25.22 24.97 24.97 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.41 23.15 23.16 23.10 23.10 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.98 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.15 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR). ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

25 Table 16

. Maximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Indiana Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Indiana**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Indiana Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Indiana Budget**  **I ncrease**  **Additional Emissions Added to Indiana**  **(tons)** 0 4,333 0 4,333 0 4,333 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.64 48.53 48.54 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.86 34.80 34.81 34.29 34.30 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.40 261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.05 32.95 32.95 170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.42 36.55 36.56 36.41 36.43 26 1630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.60 35.23 35.24 34.97 34.97 180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.03 36.51 36.53 36.31 36.33

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.24 30.02 30.03 29.64 29.65

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.61 27.44 27.44 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.28 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 27.00 27.01 26.82 26.83 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.37 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.47 28.70 28.71 28.50 28.50 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.74 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.58 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.58 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.03 27.82 27.84 27.77 27.79 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34 .16 34.17 33.38 33.39 33.30 33.30 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.68 33.37 33.38 33.39 33.40 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.85 27.59 27.62 27.55 27.57 180970066 Indi ana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.43 29.13 29.16 29.11 29.14 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.21 30.68 30.69 30.67 30.67 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.51 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17 390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.34 27.30 2 7.31 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.83 34.47 34.47 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.16 25.62 25.63 25.40 25.41 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.21 29.33 29.34 29.27 29.27 170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.72 32.34 32.35 32.22 32.23 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.63 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80 261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.05 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.92 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.46 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.24 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.24 29.50 29.51 29.43 29.44 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.06 26.15 26.16 25. 86 25.86 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 26.01 24.62 24.63 24.54 24.55 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.98 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.15 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maxim um design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

26 Table 17

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Kansas Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$2, 300/ton** 

**Without Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added to**  **Kansas (tons)**  0 268 0 268 0 268 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12. 97 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.16 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.71 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 12.97 12.44 12. 44 12.37 12.37 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.40 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.65 12.65 180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12 .69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.72 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.20 12.20 180970083 Indiana M arion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 18

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Kansas Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **K ansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions**  **Added to Kansas**  **(tons)** 0 268 0 268 0 268 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29 261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.67 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.93 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.74 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.67 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.12 13.12 180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.08 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.63 12.63 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

27 Table 19 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Kansas Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average 24** 

**- hour PM2.5 Desig**  **n Values (**  **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Kan sas**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to Kansas**  **(tons)** 0 268 0 268 0 268 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.25 29.88 29.88 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47 261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.88 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51 170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.9 7 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.84

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.24 26.24 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.57 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.96 170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.36 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.78 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.11 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11 180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 27.14 261470005 Michigan St Clair 36. 23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.68 32.68 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.84 180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.30 180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86 390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26 .48 26.48 170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.04 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.47 170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51 170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.93 30.93 261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.02 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.97 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.2 1 24.97 24.97 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.10 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR). ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

28 Table 20

. Maximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Kansas Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Kansas**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **Kansas Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added**  **to Kansas**  **(tons)** 0 268 0 268 0 268 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.53 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.29 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 3 5.39 261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.95 32.95 170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.41 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.97 34.97 180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.64

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.44 27.44 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.76 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.82 2 6.82 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.57 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.30 33.30 5507900 43 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.95 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.55 180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 2 9.11 29.11 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17 390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.30 27.30 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.47 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.40 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.27 29.27 170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80 261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.92 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31 .46 31.46 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

29 Table 21

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Nebraska Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increa se**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to Nebrask** **a (tons)**  0 3,800 0 3,800 0 3,800 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.97 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.17 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.71 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.37 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.40 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.73 12.65 12.65 180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.72 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.20 12.2 0 180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 22

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Nebraska Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **Additi onal Emissions Added to**  **Nebrask a**  **(tons)** 0 3,800 0 3,800 0 3,800 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14. 62 14.62 14.21 14.21 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29 261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.68 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13 .51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.93 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.74 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.67 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.12 13.12 180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.08 39 0350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.63 12.63 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

30 Table 23 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Nebraska Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Ave**  **rage 24**

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

**$500/ton Without**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to Nebrask** **a (tons)**  0 3,800 0 3,800 0 3,800 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32. 19 30.25 30.25 29.88 29.88 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47 261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.88 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51 170311016** Illinois C ook 37.58 34.14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.97 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.8 4

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.24 26.24 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.57 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 3 5.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.96 170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.36 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.79 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.11 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.52 30.18 30.19 30.11 30.11 180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 27.14 261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.68 32.68 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.85 180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28 .44 28.44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.30 180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.87 390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.48 170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.04 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.47 170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51 170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.93 30.93 261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.02 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.97 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.97 24.97 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.10 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR). ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

31 T able 24

. Maximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Nebraska Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With Nebrask** **a Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **Nebrask a**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to Nebrask** **a (tons)**  0 3,800 0 3,800 0 3,800 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.53 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.2 9 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.40 261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.95 32.95 170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36. 55 36.55 36.41 36.42 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.97 34.97 180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.64

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.44 27.44 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35 .75 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 27.00 27.00 26.82 26.83 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.57 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.58 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.15 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33.30 33.30 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27. 55 27.55 180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.51 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17 390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 2 8.71 27.33 27.33 27.30 27.30 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.47 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.40 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.27 29.27 170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80 261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 3 1.92 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.46 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28. 05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

32 Table 25

. Average Annual PM 2 .5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional New York Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **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 Additional Emissions Added to**  **New York (tons)**  0 5,448 0 5,448 0 5,448 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.79 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.11 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 1 4.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.97 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.26 13.16 13.17 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12.71 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.37 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.40 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13 3903500 45 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.73 12.74 12.65 12.65 180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.72 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.79 12.28 12.29 12.20 12.20 180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 26

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional New York Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2**  **014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values (**  **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 B**  **udget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With New**  **York Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added to**  **New York (tons)**  0 5,448 0 5,448 0 5,448 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.18 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.78 14.2 7 14.27 14.19 14.19 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29 261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.77 13.67 13.68 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.93 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.74 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.67 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.21 13.12 13.12 180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.08 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.72 12.63 12.63 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

33 Table 27 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional New York Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average 24** 

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

**$500/ton Witho**  **ut New York**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With New York**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without New York**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With New York**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **New York Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With New**  **York Budget**  **Increase Addi** **tional Emissions Added to New York**  **(tons)** 0 5,448 0 5,448 0 5,448 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.25 29.88 29.89 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 3 4.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47 261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.89 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.51 30.61 30.62 30.51 30.52 170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.97 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.84

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.31 26.24 26.24 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.58 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34.93 34.88 34.88 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 2 7.66 27.66 26.11 26.12 25.96 25.97 170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.36 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.79 0107 30023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.11 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11 180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 27.14 261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.36 32 .78 32.79 32.68 32.69 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.84 180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27.35 27.35 27.30 27.31 180970066 Indiana Marion 3 5.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.11 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86 390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.49 170316 005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.04 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.41 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.48 170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51 170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.61 31.03 31.04 30.93 30.93 261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 31.10 31.02 31.03 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35 .31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.97 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.97 24.97 39 1130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.10 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR). ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

34 Table 28

. Maximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional New York Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **New York Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With New York**  **Budget I**  **ncrease $2,300/ton** 

**Without New York**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With New York**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **New York Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With New**  **York Budget**  **Increase Additional Emissions Added to**  **New York (tons)**  0 5,448 0 5,448 0 5,448 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.54 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.30 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 35.41 35.41 35.39 35.40 261630016** Michigan Way ne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.05 32.95 32.95 170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.42 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.60 35.23 35.24 34.97 34.97 1808 90022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.65

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.4 9 27.60 27.61 27.44 27.44 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.81 27.00 27.01 26.82 26.83 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.58 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.17 33.38 33.39 33.30 33.30 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 3 4.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.55 180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.12 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17 390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.30 27.30 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.47 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.40 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.21 29.33 29.34 29.27 29.27 170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.6 2 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.81 261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.92 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.46 390618001 Ohio Hami lton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

35 Table 29

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Ohio Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Ohio Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Ohio Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without Ohio**  **Budget Inc**  **rease $**  **2,300/ton**

**With Ohio Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **Ohio Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With Ohio**  **Budget Increase** 

**Additional Emissions Added to Ohio**  **(tons)** 0 15,963 0 15,963 0 15,963 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.80 1 5.03 15.04 14.87 14.88 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.13 13.60 13.63 13.52 13.54 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.57 13.01 13.03 12.97 12.99 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15. 73 14.36 14.37 13.87 13.88 13.78 13.79 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.78 13.25 13.28 13.16 13.19 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.32 12.75 12.77 12.71 12.73 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 13.00 12.44 12.47 12.37 12.39 171191007 Illino is Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.58 13.40 13.41 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.27 12.73 12.76 12.65 12.67 180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.70 12.27 12.28 12.25 12.2 6 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.32 11.76 11.78 11.72 11.74 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.82 12.28 12.31 12.20 12.22 180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.55 12.12 12 .13 12.10 12.11 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 30

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional Ohio Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **Ohi o**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With Ohio Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without Ohio**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Ohio Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **Ohio Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With Ohio**  **Budget Increase** 

**Additional Emissions Added to Ohio**  **(tons)** 0 15,963 0 15,963 0 15,963 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.19 15.42 15.43 15.26 15.27 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.80 14.27 14.30 14.19 14.21 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21 3906180 01 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.89 13.33 13.35 13.29 13.31 261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.96 14.46 14.47 14.37 14.38 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.29 13.76 13.79 13.67 13.70 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.54 12.97 12.99 12.93 1 2.95 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.37 12.81 12.84 12.74 12.76 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.85 13.67 13.68 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.74 1 3.20 13.23 13.12 13.14 180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 13.00 12.57 12.58 12.55 12.56 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13.11 13.11 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.68 12.12 12.14 12.08 12.10 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13 .22 13.25 12.71 12.74 12.63 12.65 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.90 12.47 12.48 12.45 12.46 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

36

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

37 Table 31 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Ohio Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **Ohio Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Ohio Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without Ohio**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Ohio Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **Ohio Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With Ohio**  **Budget Increase** 

**Additional Emissions Added to Ohio**  **(tons)** 0 15,963 0 15,963 0 15,963 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.62 45.54 45.58 45.46 45.50 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.23 30.25 30.30 29.88 29.93 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.4 6 34.18 34.21 33.51 33.55 33.47 33.51 261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.94 33.88 33.89 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.57 30.61 30.66 30.51 30.55 170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.17 33.14 33.16 32.97 33.01 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.35 35.01 35.04 34.76 34.79 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.81 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.65 29.07 29.13 28.84 28.90

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34 .95 34.95 34.87 34.87 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.78 26.30 26.34 26.24 26.27 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.70 25.79 25.86 25.57 25.64 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.29 34.93 34.94 34.88 34.89 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.9 1 27.66 27.74 26.11 26.19 25.96 26.04 170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.13 30.54 30.56 30.36 30.38 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.33 27.59 27.62 27.40 27.43 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.31 24.88 24.91 24.78 24.81 0 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.95 31.61 31.62 31.11 31.12 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.52 30.18 30.19 30.11 30.11 180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.67 27.16 27.19 27.14 27.17 261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.37 32.78 32.80 32.68 32.70 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.55 31.89 31.90 31.84 31.86 180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.92 30.52 30.53 30.49 30.50 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.46 27.35 27.38 27.30 27.33 180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.25 28.13 28.16 28.10 28.13 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.96 29.34 29.36 29.34 29.35 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.55 30.86 30.87 30.86 30.87 390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.13 26.49 26.54 26.48 26.54 170 316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.73 32.41 32.42 32.04 32.05 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 27.01 24.69 24.74 24.49 24.54 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.45 28.55 28.56 28.47 28.48 170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29 .58 29.58 29.51 29.52 170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.61 31.03 31.04 30.93 30.93 261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.26 31.10 31.11 31.02 31.04 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.43 31.10 31.11 30.63 30.64 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.71 26.11 26.16 25.97 26.04 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.26 28.49 28.51 28.43 28.44 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.22 25.21 25.26 24.97 25.02 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.46 23.15 23.18 23.10 23.12 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 28.02 26.34 26.38 26.14 26.19 *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/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR). ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

38 Table 32

. Maximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional Ohio Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **Ohio Budget**  **Increase $**  **500/ton**

**With Ohio Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without Ohio**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 2,300/ton** 

**With Ohio Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **Ohio Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With Ohio**  **Budget Increase** 

**Additional Emissions Added to Ohio**  **(tons)** 0 15,963 0 1 5,963 0 15,963 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.77 48.63 48.67 48.53 48.57 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.90 34.80 34.85 34.29 34.34 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.96 35.41 35.44 35.39 35.43 261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.62 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.75 33.04 33.09 32.95 32.98 170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.43 36.55 36.57 36.41 36.45 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.63 35.23 35.27 34.97 35 .00 180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.02 36.51 36.53 36.31 36.33

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.31 30.02 30.10 29.64 29.72

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 2 9.49 29.59 27.60 27.67 27.44 27.47 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.35 28.03 28.11 27.76 27.84 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.22 35.83 35.84 35.75 35.76 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.90 27.00 27.09 26.82 26.91 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.37 32.85 32.86 32.71 32.72 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.52 28.70 28.74 28.50 28.53 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.78 28.81 28.85 28.64 28.69 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.52 32.12 32. 13 31.57 31.59 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.58 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.15 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.03 27.82 27.84 27.77 27.79 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.20 33.38 33.39 33.30 33.31 550790043 Wisconsin Milwauke e 37.10 34.26 34.27 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.96 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.40 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.85 27.59 27.62 27.55 27.58 180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.43 29.13 29.16 29.11 29.15 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.21 30.68 30.70 30.67 30.68 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.51 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17 390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.76 27.33 27.38 27.30 27.35 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.83 34. 47 34.47 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.22 25.62 25.69 25.40 25.47 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.25 29.33 29.34 29.27 29.28 170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.72 32.34 32.35 32.22 32.23 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 3 0.62 30.63 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.81 261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.07 31.99 32.00 31.92 31.93 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.24 31.91 31.92 31.46 31.47 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.31 26.73 26.78 26.65 26.70 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.26 29.50 29.52 29.43 29.45 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.11 26.15 26.19 25.86 25.90 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 26.04 24.62 24. 66 24.54 24.58 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 28.02 26.34 26.38 26.14 26.19 *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/m3 at the $50 0 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

39 Table 33

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional South Carolina Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With South Carolina**  **Budget Incr**  **ease $2,300/ton** 

**Without South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to South Carolin**  **a (tons)**  0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.78 15.03 15.03 14.87 14.87 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.10 13.60 13.60 13.52 13.52 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.33 14.31 14.31 13.90 13.90 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.55 13.01 13.01 12.97 12.97 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.36 13.87 13.87 13.78 13.78 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.67 13.76 13.76 13.25 13.25 13.16 13.17 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.29 12.75 12.75 12.71 12. 71 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 12.97 12.44 12.44 12.37 12.37 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.57 13.40 13.40 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.55 13.52 13.52 13.13 13.13 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.24 12.7 3 12.73 12.65 12.65 180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.69 12.27 12.27 12.25 12.25 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.35 13.20 13.20 13.08 13.08 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.30 11.76 11.76 11.72 11.72 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12 .79 12.79 12.28 12.28 12.20 12.20 180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.54 12.12 12.12 12.10 12.10 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.



## Table 34

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering Additional South Carolina Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design V** **alues (**  **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **South Carolina**  **Budg et**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario With**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina**  **(tons)** 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.17 15.42 15.42 15.26 15.26 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 1 4.77 14.27 14.27 14.19 14.19 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.64 14.62 14.62 14.21 14.21 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.87 13.33 13.33 13.29 13.29 261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.95 14.46 14.46 14.37 14.37 390350060 Ohio Cuyaho ga 16.18 14.27 14.27 13.76 13.76 13.67 13.68 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.51 12.97 12.97 12.93 12.93 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.34 12.81 12.81 12.74 12.74 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.84 13.67 13.67 107320 03 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.03 14.00 14.00 13.61 13.61 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.71 13.20 13.20 13.12 13.12 180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 12.99 12.57 12.57 12.55 12.55 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.38 13.23 13.23 13. 11 13.11 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.66 12.12 12.12 12.08 12.08 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13.22 13.22 12.71 12.71 12.63 12.63 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.89 12.47 12.47 12.45 12.45 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

40

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

41 Table 35 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional South Carolina Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **$2,300/ton**

**Without South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina**  **(tons)** 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.57 45.54 45.54 45.46 45.46 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.19 30.25 30.2 5 29.88 29.89 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.18 33.51 33.51 33.47 33.47 261630016** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.42 33.93 33.93 33.88 33.88 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.50 30.61 30.61 30.51 30.51 170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34. 14 34.14 33.14 33.14 32.97 32.97 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.32 35.01 35.01 34.76 34.76 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.80 32.39 32.39 32.31 32.32

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.60 29.07 29.07 28.84 28.84

420710007* * Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.87 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.69 26.30 26.30 26.24 26.24 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.64 25.79 25.79 25.57 25.57 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.28 34.93 34 .93 34.88 34.88 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.66 26.11 26.11 25.96 25.96 170313301 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.11 30.54 30.54 30.36 30.36 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.28 27.59 27.59 27.40 27.40 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.27 24.88 24.88 24.78 24.79 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 31.93 31.61 31.61 31.11 31.12 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.51 30.18 30.18 30.11 30.11 180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.64 27.16 27.16 27.14 27.14 261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.35 32.78 32.78 32.68 32.68 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.53 31.89 31.89 31.84 31.84 180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.91 30.52 30.52 30.49 30.49 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.44 27. 35 27.35 27.30 27.30 180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.22 28.13 28.13 28.10 28.10 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.94 29.34 29.34 29.34 29.34 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.54 30.86 30.86 30.86 30.86 390170003 Ohio Butler 3 4.40 28.07 28.07 26.49 26.49 26.48 26.48 170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.72 32.41 32.41 32.04 32.04 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 26.95 24.69 24.69 24.49 24.49 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.40 28.55 28.55 28.47 28.48 170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.58 29.51 29.51 170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.70 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.60 31.03 31.03 30.93 30.93 261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.23 31.10 3 1.10 31.02 31.02 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.42 31.10 31.10 30.63 30.63 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.63 26.11 26.11 25.97 25.97 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.23 28.49 28.49 28.43 28.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.16 25.21 25.21 24.97 24.97 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.40 23.15 23.15 23.10 23.10 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

* * Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR). ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

42 Table 36

. Maximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering Additional South Carolina Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase $2,300/ton** 

**Without South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase $**  **2,300/ton**

**With South**  **Carolina Budget**  **Increase Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **South Carolina**  **Budget Increase**  **Additional Emissions A dded to**  **South Carolina (tons)**  0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.72 48.63 48.63 48.53 48.53 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.85 34.80 34.80 34.29 34.30 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.93 3 5.41 35.41 35.39 35.39 261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.20 35.66 35.66 35.61 35.61 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.70 33.04 33.04 32.95 32.95 170311016** Illinois Cook 40.44 37.41 37.41 36.55 36.55 36.41 36.42 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.59 35.23 35.23 34.97 34.97 180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.01 36.51 36.51 36.31 36.31

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.23 30.02 30.02 29.64 29.64

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.43 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.08 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.49 27.60 27.60 27.44 27.44 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.27 28.03 28.03 27.76 27.77 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36.21 36.21 35.83 35.83 35.75 35.75 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.80 2 7.00 27.00 26.82 26.83 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.36 32.85 32.85 32.71 32.71 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.46 28.70 28.70 28.50 28.50 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.73 28.81 28.81 28.64 28.64 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.50 32.12 32.12 31.57 31.58 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.57 33.24 33.24 33.14 33.14 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.00 27.82 27.82 27.77 27.77 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.16 33.38 33.38 33 .30 33.30 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.26 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.95 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.67 33.37 33.37 33.39 33.39 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.96 28.83 28.83 27.59 27.59 27.55 27.55 180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 3 0.40 29.13 29.13 29.11 29.11 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.20 30.68 30.68 30.67 30.67 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.50 33.16 33.16 33.17 33.17 390170003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.71 27.33 27.33 27.30 27.30 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.82 34.47 34.47 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.15 25.62 25.62 25.40 25.40 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.20 29.33 29.33 29.27 29.27 170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.71 32.34 32.34 32.22 32.22 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.62 30.32 30.32 30.21 30.21 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.92 33.80 33.80 261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33.04 33.04 31.99 31.99 31.92 31.92 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32 .23 31.91 31.91 31.46 31.47 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.23 26.73 26.73 26.65 26.65 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.23 29.50 29.50 29.43 29.43 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.05 26.15 26.15 25.86 25.86 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 25.99 24.62 24.62 24.54 24.54 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 27.97 26.34 26.34 26.14 26.14 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

43 Table 37

. Average Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering the Cumulative Effects of Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **GA, IN, KS, NE,**  **NY, OH, and SC**  **Budget Increases**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With GA,**  **IN, KS, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Increases $2,300/ton** 

**Without GA, IN,**  **KS, NE, NY, OH,**  **and SC Budget**  **Increases $**  **2,300/ton**

**With GA,**  **IN, KS, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Increases Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **GA, IN, KS, NE,**  **NY, OH, and SC**  **Budget Increases**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **GA, IN, KS,**  **NE, NY, OH, and**  **SC Budget Increases** 

**Additional Emissions Added to Georgia**  **(tons)** 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334 **Additional Emissions Added t o**  **Indiana (tons)**  0 4,333 0 4,333 0 4,333 **Additional Emissions Added to Kansas**  **(tons)** 0 268 0 268 0 268 **Additional Emissions Added to Nebrask** **a (tons)**  0 3,800 0 3,800 0 3,800 **Additional Emissions Added to New York**  **(tons)** 0 5,448 0 5,448 0 5,448 **Additiona l Emissions Added to**  **Ohio (tons)**  0 15,963 0 15,963 0 15,963 **Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina**  **(tons)** 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 17.94 15.78 15.80 15.03 15.05 14.87 14.89 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.99 14.10 14.13 13.60 13.63 13.52 13.55 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.15 14.33 14.36 14.31 14.34 13.90 13.93 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.01 13.55 13.57 13.01 13.04 12.97 13.01 261630033 Michigan Wayne 15.73 14.36 14.37 13.87 13.88 13.78 13.80 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 15 .67 13.76 13.79 13.25 13.28 13.16 13.20 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.76 13.29 13.32 12.75 12.78 12.71 12.75 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.4 12.97 13.00 12.44 12.47 12.37 12.41 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.46 13.85 13.85 13.57 13.58 13.40 13.42 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.16 13.55 13.58 13.52 13.55 13.13 13.16 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.14 13.24 13.27 12.73 12.76 12.65 12.68 180970081 Indiana Marion 14.86 12.69 12.70 12.27 12.29 12.25 12.27 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.07 13.35 13.43 13.20 13.28 13.08 13 .16 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 14.74 12.30 12.33 11.76 11.79 11.72 11.76 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 14.67 12.79 12.82 12.28 12.31 12.20 12.23 180970083 Indiana Marion 14.71 12.54 12.56 12.12 12.14 12.10 12.12 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base ca se Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

44 Table 38

. Maximum Annual PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT**

– Considering the Cumulative Effects of Additional Georgi a, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012 Base**  **Case (**  **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum Annual PM2.5 Design Values**  **(** **g/m 3** **).**

**$500/ton Without**  **GA, IN, KS, NE,**  **NY, OH, and SC**  **B udget**  **Increases $**  **500/ton**

**With GA,**  **IN, KS, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Increases $2,300/ton** 

**Without GA, IN,**  **KS, NE, NY, OH,**  **and SC Budget**  **Increases $**  **2,300/ton**

**With GA,**  **IN, KS, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Increases Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **GA, IN, KS, NE,**  **NY, OH ,**  **and SC Budget**  **Increases Control** 

**Scenario With**  **GA, IN, KS,**  **NE, NY, OH, and**  **SC Budget Increases** 

**Additional Emissions Added to Georgia**  **(tons)** 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334 **Additional Emissions Added to Indiana**  **(tons)** 0 4,333 0 4,333 0 4,333 **Additional Emiss ions Added to**  **Kansas (tons)**  0 268 0 268 0 268 **Additional Emissions Added to Nebrask** **a (tons)**  0 3,800 0 3,800 0 3,800 **Additional Emissions Added to New York**  **(tons)** 0 5,448 0 5,448 0 5,448 **Additional Emissions Added to Ohio**  **(tons)** 0 15,963 0 15,963 0 15,96 3 **Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina**  **(tons)** 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013 420030064 Pennsylvania Allegheny 18.33 16.17 16.19 15.42 15.44 15.26 15.28 390350038 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.66 14.77 14.80 14.27 14.30 14.19 14.22 10730023 Alabama Jefferson 16.46 14.64 14.67 14.62 14.65 14.21 14.24 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 16.33 13.87 13.89 13.33 13.36 13.29 13.33 261630033 Michigan Wayne 16.32 14.95 14.96 14.46 14.47 14.37 14.39 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 16.18 14.27 14.30 13.76 13.79 13.67 13.71 390610014 Ohio Hamilton 15.98 13.51 13.54 12.97 13.00 12.93 12.97 390610042 Ohio Hamilton 15.77 13.34 13.37 12.81 12.84 12.74 12.78 171191007 Illinois Madison 15.73 14.12 14.12 13.84 13.85 13.67 13.69 10732003 Alabama Jefferson 15.64 14.03 14.06 14.00 14.03 13.61 13.64 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.61 13.71 13.74 13.20 13.23 13.12 13.15 180970081 Indiana Marion 15.16 12.99 13.00 12.57 12.59 12.55 12.57 131210039 Georgia Fulton 15.1 13.38 13.46 13.23 13.31 13.11 13.19 390617001 Ohio Hamilton 15.1 12.66 12.69 12.12 12.15 12.08 12.12 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 15.1 13.22 13.25 12.71 12.74 12.63 12.66 180970083 Indiana Marion 15.06 12.89 12.91 12.47 12.49 12.45 12.47 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV. **Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

45 Table 39 . Average 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Considering the Cumulative Effects of Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Average 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **GA, IN, KS, NE,**  **NY, OH, and SC**  **Budget Increases**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With GA,**  **IN, KS, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Increases $2,300/ton** 

**Without GA, IN,**  **KS, NE, NY, OH,**  **and SC Budget**  **Increases $**  **2,300/ton**

**With GA,**  **IN, KS, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Increases Control** 

**Scenario Without**  **GA, IN, KS, NE,**  **NY, OH, and SC**  **Budget Increases**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **GA, IN, K** **S, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Increases**

**Additional Emissions Added to Georgia**  **(tons)** 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334 **Additional Emissions Added to Indiana**  **(tons)** 0 4,333 0 4,333 0 4,333 **Additional Emissions Added to Kansas**  **(tons)** 0 268 0 268 0 268 **Additional Em** **issions Added to Nebrask** **a (tons)**  0 3,800 0 3,800 0 3,800 **Additional Emissions Added to New York**  **(tons)** 0 5,448 0 5,448 0 5,448 **Additional Emissions Added to Ohio**  **(tons)** 0 15,963 0 15,963 0 15,963 **Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina**  **(tons)** 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 56.71 47.57 47.63 45.54 45.59 45.46 45.52 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 39.11 32.19 32.24 30.25 30.30 29.88 29.95 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 39.46 34.18 34.21 33.51 33.55 33.47 33.52 26163001 6** Michigan Wayne 38.99 34.42 34.43 33.93 33.94 33.88 33.90 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.78 31.50 31.58 30.61 30.67 30.51 30.56 170311016** Illinois Cook 37.58 34.14 34.17 33.14 33.17 32.97 33.04 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.48 36.32 36.36 35.01 35.05 3 4.76 34.82 180890022** Indiana Lake 34.94 32.80 32.83 32.39 32.40 32.31 32.34

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 37.57 30.60 30.66 29.07 29.13 28.84 28.91

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 35.98 35.19 35.19 34.95 34.95 34.87 34.88 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.80 27.69 27.79 26.30 26.35 26.24 26.28 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 34.56 27.64 27.71 25.79 25.86 25.57 25.65 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.34 35.28 35.29 34.93 34.94 34.88 34.90 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 34.91 27.66 27.75 26.11 26.20 25.96 26.05 17031330 1 Illinois Cook 34.97 31.11 31.13 30.54 30.56 30.36 30.40 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 36.21 29.28 29.34 27.59 27.62 27.40 27.44 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 32.40 26.27 26.31 24.88 24.92 24.78 24.82 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 36.96 31.93 32.00 31 .61 31.68 31.11 31.18 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 33.62 30.51 30.52 30.18 30.19 30.11 30.12 180970043 Indiana Marion 35.76 28.64 28.70 27.16 27.22 27.14 27.21 261470005 Michigan St Clair 36.23 33.35 33.38 32.78 32.81 32.68 32.72 550790043 Wisconsin M ilwaukee 36.21 32.53 32.56 31.89 31.91 31.84 31.87 180890026 Indiana Lake 34.08 30.91 30.92 30.52 30.54 30.49 30.51 180970081 Indiana Marion 35.85 28.44 28.48 27.35 27.40 27.30 27.36 180970066 Indiana Marion 35.73 29.22 29.27 28.13 28.19 28.10 28.16 17 1191007 Illinois Madison 36.59 29.94 29.97 29.34 29.36 29.34 29.36 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 35.47 31.54 31.56 30.86 30.88 30.86 30.88 390170003 Ohio Butler 34.40 28.07 28.15 26.49 26.55 26.48 26.57 170316005 Illinois Cook 34.12 32.72 32.73 32.41 32 .42 32.04 32.06 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.04 26.95 27.02 24.69 24.75 24.49 24.56 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 35.05 29.40 29.47 28.55 28.56 28.47 28.51 170312001 Illinois Cook 33.62 29.85 29.85 29.58 29.59 29.51 29.53 170310052 Illinois Cook 34.94 30.12 30.12 29.79 29.79 29.70 29.71 421330008 Pennsylvania York 33.38 31.60 31.61 31.03 31.04 30.93 30.94 261630015 Michigan Wayne 35.55 32.23 32.26 31.10 31.12 31.02 31.06 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.31 31.42 31.48 31.10 31.16 30.63 30.70 390 618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.29 27.63 27.72 26.11 26.17 25.97 26.07 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.11 29.23 29.27 28.49 28.51 28.43 28.45 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 33.95 27.16 27.22 25.21 25.27 24.97 25.04 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 33.68 24.40 24.47 23 .15 23.18 23.10 23.15 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 28.03 26.34 26.39 26.14 26.20 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base case Maximum DV.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

46 ** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR). ***Assessments consider the emission budget changes from the final revisions rule.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

47 Table 40

. Maximum 24

-hour PM 2.5 

## DVs ( g/m3 

## ) in 2014 for SO 2 

## Emission Scenarios Assessed Using AQAT***

– Cons idering the Cumulative Effects of Additional Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina Emissions.

**Monitor Identification**  **N um** **ber** ***** **State County**  **CAMx 2012**  **Base Case**  **(** **g/m 3** **) AQAT 2014 Maximum 24** 

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

**$500/ton Without**  **GA, IN, KS, NE,**  **NY, OH, and SC**  **Budget Increases**  **$ 500/ton** 

**With GA,**  **IN, KS, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Increases $2,300/ton** 

**Without GA, IN,**  **KS, NE, NY, OH,**  **and SC Budget**  **Increases $**  **2,300/ton**

**With GA,**  **IN, KS, NE, NY,**  **OH, and SC Budget**  **Incre ases**  **Control**

**Scenario Without**  **GA, IN, KS, NE,**  **NY, OH, and SC**  **Budget Increases**  **Control**

**Scenario With**  **GA, IN, KS,**  **NE, NY, OH, and**  **SC Budget Increases** 

**Additional Emissions Added to Georgia**  **(tons)** 0 40,334 0 40,334 0 40,334 **Additional Emissions Added to Indi** **ana (tons)**  0 4,333 0 4,333 0 4,333 **Additional Emissions Added to Kansas**  **(tons)** 0 268 0 268 0 268 **Additional Emissions Added to Nebrask** **a (tons)**  0 3,800 0 3,800 0 3,800 **Additional Emissions Added to New York**  **(tons)** 0 5,448 0 5,448 0 5,448 **Additional Emis sions Added to**  **Ohio (tons)**  0 15,963 0 15,963 0 15,963 **Additional Emissions Added to South Carolina**  **(tons)** 0 8,013 0 8,013 0 8,013 420030064** Pennsylvania Allegheny 59.93 50.72 50.78 48.63 48.68 48.53 48.59 420030093** Pennsylvania Allegheny 44.40 36.85 36.91 34.80 34.86 34.29 34.37 390350038** Ohio Cuyahoga 41.84 35.93 35.96 35.41 35.44 35.39 35.44 261630016** Michigan Wayne 41.28 36.20 36.21 35.66 35.67 35.61 35.63 390350060 Ohio Cuyahoga 40.85 33.70 33.76 33.04 33.11 32.95 33.00 170311016** Illino is Cook 40.44 37.41 37.44 36.55 36.58 36.41 36.48 261630033** Michigan Wayne 39.81 36.59 36.64 35.23 35.28 34.97 35.03 180890022** Indiana Lake 39.58 37.01 37.04 36.51 36.54 36.31 36.36

540090011 West

Virginia Brooke 38.39 32.23 32.32 30.02 30.11 29.64 29.75

420710007** Pennsylvania Lancaster 38.37 37.43 37.44 37.18 37.18 37.08 37.09 390350045 Ohio Cuyahoga 38.13 29.49 29.60 27.60 27.68 27.44 27.48 390811001 Ohio Jefferson 37.88 30.27 30.36 28.03 28.11 27.76 27.86 261630019** Michigan Wayne 37.83 36. 21 36.22 35.83 35.85 35.75 35.77 390350065 Ohio Cuyahoga 37.67 28.80 28.91 27.00 27.10 26.82 26.93 170313301 Illinois Cook 37.67 33.36 33.38 32.85 32.86 32.71 32.73 420070014 Pennsylvania Beaver 37.42 30.46 30.52 28.70 28.74 28.50 28.55 420033007 Pennsylvania Allegheny 37.40 30.73 30.78 28.81 28.86 28.64 28.70 010730023 Alabama Jefferson 37.33 32.50 32.59 32.12 32.20 31.57 31.64 550790026 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.24 33.57 33.58 33.24 33.25 33.14 33.16 180970043 Indiana Marion 37.20 29.00 29.06 27.82 27 .86 27.77 27.82 261470005 Michigan St Clair 37.14 34.16 34.21 33.38 33.40 33.30 33.32 550790043 Wisconsin Milwaukee 37.10 34.26 34.27 33.96 33.96 33.95 33.97 180890026 Indiana Lake 37.06 33.67 33.68 33.37 33.38 33.39 33.40 180970081 Indiana Marion 36.9 6 28.83 28.88 27.59 27.65 27.55 27.62 180970066 Indiana Marion 36.92 30.40 30.46 29.13 29.19 29.11 29.19 171191007 Illinois Madison 36.83 31.20 31.22 30.68 30.71 30.67 30.69 550790010 Wisconsin Milwaukee 36.71 33.50 33.51 33.16 33.17 33.17 33.18 390170 003 Ohio Butler 36.59 28.71 28.77 27.33 27.39 27.30 27.38 170316005 Illinois Cook 36.42 35.10 35.10 34.82 34.83 34.47 34.49 420031008 Pennsylvania Allegheny 36.35 28.15 28.23 25.62 25.70 25.40 25.49 261610008 Michigan Washtenaw 36.32 30.20 30.27 29.33 2 9.35 29.27 29.30 170312001 Illinois Cook 36.12 32.71 32.72 32.34 32.36 32.22 32.25 170310052 Illinois Cook 36.07 30.62 30.63 30.32 30.33 30.21 30.22 421330008 Pennsylvania York 36.06 34.56 34.56 33.92 33.93 33.80 33.82 261630015 Michigan Wayne 36.00 33 .04 33.08 31.99 32.01 31.92 31.94 010732003 Alabama Jefferson 35.94 32.23 32.29 31.91 31.98 31.46 31.53 390618001 Ohio Hamilton 35.85 28.23 28.32 26.73 26.79 26.65 26.72 171190023 Illinois Madison 35.81 30.23 30.27 29.50 29.52 29.43 29.46 420031301 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.65 28.05 28.12 26.15 26.20 25.86 25.91 391130032 Ohio Montgomery 35.61 25.99 26.05 24.62 24.67 24.54 24.63 420030116 Pennsylvania Allegheny 35.59 27.97 28.03 26.34 26.39 26.14 26.20 *Monitors are in order of decreasing 2012 base c ase Maximum DV.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

48 ** Identify receptors that have maximum design values greater than or equal to 35.5 g/m3 at the $500 cost threshold in 2014 (as modeled in AQAT in the TR)

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

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

49 Table 41 . The Percentage of the Direct Final Annual NO x 

## Emission Increase (tons) as a Function of T otal Annual NO x 

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

.

State 2014 “Remedy”

Control Scenario Total Annual NO x Emissions Direct Final Annual NO x Emission Increase Direct Final Annual NO x

Emission I

ncrease 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 5,533 2.3% Kentucky 286,806
Louisiana 466,098
Maine 61,6 57 Maryland 181,533
Massachusetts 175,316 Michigan 447,772
Minnesota 338,438 Mississippi 216,224
Missouri 352,631 26 0.0%
Nebraska 173,170
New Hampshire 47,482 New Jersey 210,520
New York 461,412 727 0.2%
North Carolina 317,230
North Dakota 127,127
Ohio 508,054 1,644 0.3%
Oklahoma 305,859 Pennsylvania 514,563
Rhode Island 18,808
South Carolina 202,118
South Dakota 65,500
Tennessee 293,339
Texas 1,369,987 991 0.1%
Vermont 22,824 Virginia 333,985 West Virginia 155,245
Wisconsin 257,462

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

50 Table 42 . The Percentage of the Direct Final Ozone

- Season NO x 

## Emission Increase (tons) as a Function of Total Ozone

- Season NO x 

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

.

State 2014 “Remedy” Control

Scenario Total Ozone

Season NO x Emissions Direct Final Ozone

Season NO x Emission Increase Direct Final

Ozone

- Season NO x Emission I

ncrease
as a Percentage of 2014 “Remedy” Total Emissions Alabama 126,382
Arkansas 87,920 73 0.1%
Connecticut 31,133
Delaware 13,693 District of Columbia 3,805

Florida 261,497 Georgia 161,301 5,7 62 3.6%
Illinois 221,011
Indiana 176,143

Iowa 97,478

Kansas 97,635 Kentucky 117,179
Louisiana 199,940 110 0.1%
Maine 24,427 Maryland 74,401
Massachus etts 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 184,723 350 0.2%
North Carolina 130,132
North Dakota 59,336
Ohio 208,281 1,807 0.9%
Oklahoma 125,457 3,066 2.4% Pennsylvania 208,800
Rhode Is land 7,251
South Carolina 83,215
South Dakota 31,739

Tennessee 119,966

Texas 578,301 2,438 0.4%

Vermont 8,796 Virginia 136,976 West Virginia 63,770

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

51 Wisconsin 104,890

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

52 Appendix A.

Documents, worksheets, and workbooks from the final TR used in this analysis (with the relevant document identification number) as well as a list of additional files created for this assessment

. In addition, a list of abbreviations along with brief descriptions of the various AQAT simulations used in this assessment is included at the end of this appendix.

Annual and Quarterly Emissions for all AQAT Simulations. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4530 AQAT_emissions_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 files 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

- 4531 QTR2_base_and_AQAT_calibration_scenario_contributions.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4532 QTR3_base_and_A QAT_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 calibration factors can be found in the respective files. Additional copies of these files have been created and used for this assessment. Annual PM Calibration Factors.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4535 Daily PM Calibration Factors.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4464

These files contain the quarterly contributions and 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 which states, if any, are being adjusted. dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4492 dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_23 00CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4488 dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300_remedy.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4487 dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem TX NY WI

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem GA

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem IN

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem KS

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem NE

. xlsx

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

53 dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem NY

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem OH

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem SC

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem all

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 rem

. xlsx (recreating the final TR file) dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT TX NY WI

. xl sx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT GA

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT IN

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT KS

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT NE

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT NY

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT OH

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT SC

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT all

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_2300 CT

. xlsx (recreating the final TR file) dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT TX NY WI

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT GA

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT IN

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT KS

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT NE

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT NY

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT OH

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT SC

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT all

. xlsx dailyPM_adjusted sulfate contributions and RRF_2014_500 CT

. xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

dailyPM_allyears_high_quarters_finalrevdirfinal .xlsx

. This file contains a summary of the estimated 98th percentile values and resulting average and maximum design values for all 24

- hour PM2.5 AQAT cost threshold level and remedy simulations

. These files apply the RRFs to each of the 32 days per year for each of the 5 years of available receptor estimates. The result is the estimated 24

-hour PM2.5 concentration for that day . The 98th percentile day

is also identified in these files. They are in 2014.

dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_base_500CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4540 dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_base_23 00CT.xlsx EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4505 dai lyPM_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_2300 rem TX NY WI

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem GA

. xlsx

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

54 dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem IN

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem KS

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem NE

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem NY

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem OH

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem S C

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem all

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 rem

. xlsx (recreating the final TR file) dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT TX NY WI

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT GA

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT IN

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT KS

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT NE

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT NY

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT OH

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT SC

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT all

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_2300 CT

. xlsx (recreating the final TR file) dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT TX NY WI

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT GA

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT IN

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT KS

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT NE

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT NY

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT OH

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT SC

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT all

. xlsx dailyPM_all_years_all_quarters_500 CT

. xlsx (recreating the final TR file)

The file annualPM25 AQAT.xlsx file EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491

- 4458

c ontains the base contributions, AQAT calibrati on scenario contributions, calibrated contributions, and estimated design values for all annual PM2.5 AQAT simulations for the final TR

. A new file, containing the annual AQAT estimates for this assessment (the final revisions rule and direct final rule) is called “annualPM25 AQAT_rev_final .xlsx”

A list of the abbreviations, used throughout the excel workbooks, which identify specific AQAT simulations used in this assessment :

2300 rem TX NY WI

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenari o with the final emission revisions made for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin. 2300 rem GA

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia as well as the emission changes for T exas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

55 2300 rem IN

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Indiana as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem KS

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Kansas as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem NE

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Nebraska as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wiscons in included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem NY

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for New York as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem OH

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Ohio as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the f inal revisions rule

. 2300 rem SC

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem all

. This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 rem . This is a simulation of the 2014 "remedy" control scenario with emissions from the final Transport Rule. 2300 CT TX NY WI

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the final emission revisions made for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin. 2300 CT GA

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT IN

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Indiana as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT KS

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Kansas as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT NE

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Nebraska as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT NY

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for New York as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT OH

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Ohio as well as the emi ssion changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

.

# Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Dr aft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

56 2300 CT SC

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT all

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 2300 CT . This is a simulation of the 2014 $2,300/ton cost threshold scenario with emissions from the final Transport Rule. 500 CT TX NY WI

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the final emission revisions made for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin. 500 CT GA

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT IN

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Indiana as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT KS

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Kansas as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT NE

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Nebraska as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT NY

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emis sion revisions in the direct final rule made for New York as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT OH

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revisions in the direct final rule made for Ohio as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT SC

. This is a simulation of the 2014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with the emission revis ions in the direct final rule made for South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT all

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

revisions in the direct final rule made for Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, and South Carolina as well as the emission changes for Texas, New York, and Wisconsin included in the final revisions rule

. 500 CT . This is a simulation of the 2 014 $500/ton cost threshold scenario with emissions from the final Transport Rule.