1-1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Overview

The EPA Administrator is proposing to revise the level of the ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to within a range of 65 to 70 ppb and is soliciting comment on 

alternative standard levels below 65 ppb, as low as 60 ppb. This chapter summarizes the purpose 

and background of this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). In the RIA we estimate the human 

health and welfare benefits and costs of alternative standards of 65 ppb and 70 ppb, which 

represent the lower and upper bounds of the range of proposed levels, as well as a more stringent 

alternative level of 60 ppb. According to the Clean Air Act (“the Act”), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) must use health-based criteria in setting the NAAQS and cannot 

consider estimates of compliance cost. The EPA is producing this RIA both to provide the public 

a sense of the benefits and costs of meeting a revised ozone NAAQS and to meet the 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

1.1 Background

1.1.1 NAAQS

Two sections of the Act govern the establishment and revision of NAAQS. Section 108 

(42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to identify pollutants that “may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” and to issue air quality criteria for them. These 

air quality criteria are intended to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in 

indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be 

expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air.” Ozone is one of six pollutants for 

which the EPA has developed air quality criteria. 

Section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs the Administrator to propose and promulgate 

“primary” and “secondary” NAAQS for pollutants identified under section 108. Section 

109(b)(1) defines a primary standard as an ambient air quality standard “the attainment and 

maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on [the] criteria and allowing 

an adequate margin of safety, [is] requisite to protect the public health.” A secondary standard, as 

defined in section 109(b)(2), must “specify a level of air quality the attainment and maintenance 

of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on [the] criteria, is requisite to protect the 
1-2

public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of 

[the] pollutant in the ambient air.” Welfare effects as defined in section 302(h) [42 U.S.C. 

7602(h)] include but are not limited to “effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade 

materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of 

property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal 

comfort and well-being.” 

Section 109(d) of the Act directs the Administrator to review existing criteria and 

standards at 5-year intervals. When warranted by such review, the Administrator is to retain or 

revise the NAAQS. After promulgation or revision of the NAAQS, the standards are 

implemented by the states.

1.1.2 Ozone NAAQS

The EPA initiated the current ozone NAAQS review in September 2008. Between 2008 

and 2014, the EPA prepared draft and final versions of the Integrated Science Assessment, the 

Health and Welfare Risk and Exposure Assessments, and the Policy Assessment. Multiple drafts 

of these documents were available for public review and comment, and as required by the Clean 

Air Act, were peer-reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the 

Administrator’s independent advisory committee established by the CAA. The final documents 

reflect the EPA staff’s consideration of the comments and recommendations made by CASAC 

and the public on draft versions of these documents.

1.2 Role of this RIA in the Process of Setting the NAAQS

1.2.1 Legislative Roles

The EPA Administrator is proposing to revise the level of the ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to within a range of 65 to 70 ppb and is soliciting comment on 

alternative standard levels below 65 ppb, as low as 60 ppb. The EPA Administrator is also 

proposing to revise the level of the current secondary standard to within the range proposed for 

the primary ozone standard of 65 ppb to 70 ppb. As such, the RIA analyzes a range of potential 

alternative primary standard levels. In setting primary ambient air quality standards, the EPA’s 

responsibility under the law is to establish standards that protect public health, regardless of the 

costs of implementing those standards. The Act requires the EPA, for each criteria pollutant, to 
1-3

set standards that protect public health with “an adequate margin of safety.” As interpreted by the 

Agency and the courts, the Act requires the EPA to create standards based on health 

considerations only. 

The prohibition against the consideration of cost in the setting of the primary air quality 

standards, however, does not mean that costs or other economic considerations are unimportant 

or should be ignored. The Agency believes that consideration of costs and benefits is essential to 

making efficient, cost-effective decisions for implementing these standards. The impact of cost 

and efficiency is considered by states during this process, as they decide what timelines, 

strategies, and policies make the most sense. This RIA is intended to inform the public about the 

potential costs and benefits that may result when new standards are implemented, but it is not 

relevant to establishing the standards themselves.

1.2.2 Role of Statutory and Executive Orders

This RIA is separate from the NAAQS decision-making process, but several statutes and 

executive orders still apply to any public documentation. The analysis required by these statutes 

and executive orders is presented in Chapter 9. 

The EPA presents this RIA pursuant to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the 

guidelines of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 (U.S. OMB, 2003). In 

accordance with these guidelines, the RIA analyzes the benefits and costs associated with 

emissions controls to attain the upper and lower bounds of the proposed 8-hour ozone standard 

of 65 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb in ambient air, incremental to a baseline of attaining the 

existing standard (8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb). OMB Circular A-4 requires analysis of one 

potential alternative standard level more stringent than the proposed range and one less stringent 

than the proposed range. In this RIA, we analyze a more stringent alternative standard level of 

60 ppb. The existing standard of 75 ppb represents the less stringent alternative standard and the 

costs and benefits of this standard were presented in the 2008 ozone NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 

2008a). The available scientific evidence and quantitative exposure and risk information 

indicate that reducing ambient ozone concentrations will reduce the occurrence of harmful health 

effects. As discussed in the Notice, this evidence and information provide strong support for 

considering alternative standard levels from 65 to 70 ppb, but do not identify a bright line within 
1-4

this range that indicates exactly where to set a standard. Similarly, the available scientific 

information does not provide a basis for identifying any specific standard level between 70 and 

75 ppb for analysis in the RIA. 

The control strategies presented in this RIA are illustrative and represent one set of control 

strategies states might choose to implement in order to meet the final standards. As a result, 

benefit and cost estimates provided in the RIA are not additive to benefits and costs from other 

regulations, and, further, the costs and benefits identified in this RIA will not be realized until 

specific controls are mandated by State Implementation Plans (SIPs) or other federal regulations.

1.2.3 The Need for National Ambient Air Quality Standards

OMB Circular A-4 indicates that one of the reasons a regulation such as the NAAQS may 

be issued is to address existing “externalities.” A market failure or externality occurs when one 

party’s actions impose uncompensated costs on another party. Environmental problems are a 

classic case of an externality. The setting and implementing primary and secondary air quality 

standards is one way the government can address an externality and thereby increase air quality 

and improve overall public health and welfare. 

1.2.4 Illustrative Nature of the Analysis

This NAAQS RIA is an illustrative analysis that provides useful insights into a limited 

number of emissions control scenarios that states might implement to achieve revised NAAQS. 

Because states are ultimately responsible for implementing strategies to meet any revised 

standard, the control scenarios in this RIA are necessarily hypothetical in nature. Important 

uncertainties and limitations are documented in the relevant portions of the analysis.

The illustrative goals of this RIA are somewhat different from other EPA analyses of 

national rules, or the implementation plans states develop, and the distinctions are worth brief 

mention. This RIA does not assess the regulatory impact of an EPA-prescribed national rule, nor 

does it attempt to model the specific actions that any state would take to implement a revised 

standard. This analysis attempts to estimate the costs and human and welfare benefits of costeffective implementation strategies that might be undertaken to achieve national attainment of 

new standards. These hypothetical strategies represent a scenario where states use one set of 
1-5

cost-effective controls to attain a revised NAAQS. Because states—not the EPA—will 

implement any revised NAAQS, they will ultimately determine appropriate emissions control 

scenarios. SIPs would likely vary from the EPA’s estimates due to differences in the data and 

assumptions that states use to develop these plans. The illustrative attainment scenarios 

presented in this RIA were constructed with the understanding that there are inherent 

uncertainties in projecting emissions and controls. 

1.3 Overview and Design of the RIA

The RIA evaluates the costs and benefits of hypothetical national control strategies to 

attain three alternative ozone standard levels of 60, 65 and 70 ppb.

1.3.1 Existing and Revised Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The EPA is proposing to retain the indicator, averaging time and form of the existing 

primary ozone standard and is proposing to revise the level of that standard to within the range of 

65 ppb to 70 ppb. The EPA is proposing this revision to increase public health protection, 

including for “at-risk” populations such as children, older adults, and people with asthma or 

other lung diseases, against an array of ozone-related adverse health effects. For short-term 

ozone exposures, these effects include decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms 

and pulmonary inflammation, effects that result in serious indicators of respiratory morbidity, 

such as emergency department visits and hospital admissions, and all-cause (total nonaccidental) mortality. For long-term ozone exposures, these health effects include a variety of 

respiratory morbidity effects and respiratory mortality. In recognition that levels as low as 60 

ppb could potentially be supported, but would place very little weight on the uncertainties in the 

health effects evidence and exposure/risk information, the EPA is also soliciting comment on 

alternative standard levels below 65 ppb, as low as 60 ppb. In addition, the EPA is taking 

comment on the option of retaining the current 8-hour primary ozone standard of 75 ppb.

The EPA is proposing to revise the level of the secondary standard to within the range 

proposed for the primary standard of 65 ppb to 70 ppb to provide increased protection against 

vegetation-related effects on public welfare. As an initial matter, the EPA is proposing that 

ambient ozone concentrations in terms of a three-year average W126 index value within the 

range from 13 parts per million-hours (ppm-hours) to 17 ppm-hours would provide the requisite 
1-6

protection against known or anticipated adverse effects to the public welfare, which data 

analyses indicate would provide air quality in terms of three-year average W126 index values of 

a range at or below 13 ppm-hours to 17 ppm-hours. Data analyses also indicate that actions 

taken to attain a standard in the range of 65 ppb to 70 ppb would also improve air quality as 

measured by the W126 metric. The quantitative analysis assesses the welfare benefits of 

strategies to attain the proposed secondary standard levels of 65 to 70 ppb. 

1.3.2 Establishing Attainment with the Current Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

The RIA is intended to evaluate the costs and benefits of reaching attainment with 

alternative ozone standard levels. To develop and evaluate control strategies for attaining a more 

stringent primary standard, it is important to first estimate ozone levels in the future after 

attaining the current NAAQS (75 ppb) and taking into account projections of future air quality 

reflecting on-the-books Federal regulations, enforcement actions, state regulations, and 

population and economic growth. This allows us to then estimate the incremental costs and 

benefits of attaining alternative primary standard levels.

Attaining 75 ppb reflects emissions reductions already achieved as a result of national 

regulations, emissions reductions expected prior to 2025 from recently promulgated national 

regulations (i.e., reductions that were not realized before promulgation of the previous standard,

but are expected prior to attainment of the existing ozone standard), and reductions from 

additional controls that the EPA estimates need to be included to attain the existing standard (75 

ppb). Emissions reductions achieved as a result of state and local agency regulations and 

voluntary programs are reflected to the extent that they are represented in emissions inventory 

information submitted to the EPA by state and local agencies. We took two steps to develop the

baseline reflecting attainment of 75 ppb. First, national ozone concentrations were projected 

based on population and economic growth and the application of emissions controls resulting 

from national rules promulgated prior to this analysis, as well as state programs and enforcement 

actions. Second, we apply an illustrative control strategy to estimate emissions reductions for the 

current standard of 75 ppb, also referred to as the baseline. 
1-7

Below is a list of some of the national rules reflected in the baseline. For a more complete 

list, please see the Technical Support Document: Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 

Version 6.1, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform (US EPA, 2014a).

 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units (U.S. EPA, 2014b)

 Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (U.S. EPA, 2014c)

 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (U.S. EPA, 2011)

 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAPs (U.S. EPA, 2010)

 Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators: New Source Performance Standards and 

Emission Guidelines: Final Rule Amendments (U.S. EPA, 2009)

 C3 Oceangoing Vessels (U.S. EPA, 2010)

 Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines (U.S. 

EPA, 2008b)

 Control of Emissions for Nonroad Spark Ignition Engines and Equipment (U.S. EPA, 

2008c)

 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Determinations (U.S. EPA, 2005b)

 NOx Emission Standard for New Commercial Aircraft Engines (U.S. EPA, 2005)

 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004)

 Heavy Duty Diesel Rule (U.S. EPA, 2000)

 Light-Duty Vehicle Tier 2 Rule (U.S. EPA, 1999)

The baseline for this analysis does not assume emissions controls that might be 

implemented to meet the other NAAQS for PM2.5, NO2, or SO2. We did not conduct this analysis 

incremental to controls applied as part of previous NAAQS analyses because the data and 

modeling on which these previous analyses were based are now considered outdated and are not 

compatible with the current ozone NAAQS analysis.

1

In addition, all control strategies analyzed 

 

1 There were no additional NOx controls applied in the PM2.5 NAAQS RIA and therefore there would be little to no 

impact on the controls selected as part of this analysis. In addition, the only geographic areas that exceed the 

alternative ozone standard levels analyzed in this RIA and in the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA are in California. The 

attainment dates for a new PM2.5 NAAQS would likely precede attainment dates for a revised ozone NAAQS. While 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA concluded that controls on directly emitted PM2.5 were the most cost-effective on 

a$/ug basis, states may choose to adopt different control options. These options could include NOx controls. It is 

difficult to determine the impact on costs and benefits for this RIA, it is highly dependent upon the control measures 

that would be chosen and the costs of these measures.
1-8

in NAAQS RIAs are hypothetical. This analysis presents one scenario that states may employ 

but does not prescribe how attainment must be achieved.

1.3.3 Establishing the Baseline for Evaluation of Alternative Standards

The RIA evaluates, to the extent possible, the costs and benefits of attaining the proposed 

and alternative ozone standards incremental to attaining the existing ozone standard and 

implementing existing and expected regulations. We assume that potential nonattainment areas 

everywhere in the U.S., excluding California, will be designated such that they are required to 

reach attainment by 2025, and we developed our projected baselines for emissions, air quality, 

and populations for 2025. 

The EPA will likely finalize designations for a revised ozone NAAQS in late 

2017. Depending on the precise timing of the effective date of those designations, nonattainment

areas classified as Marginal will likely have to attain in either late 2020 or early 

2021. Nonattainment areas classified as Moderate will likely have to attain in either late 2023 or 

early 2024. If a Moderate nonattainment area qualifies for two 1-year extensions, the area may 

have as late as early 2026 to attain. Lastly, Serious nonattainment areas will likely have to attain 

in late 2026 or early 2027. We selected 2025 as the primary year of analysis because it provided 

a good representation of the remaining air quality concerns that moderate nonattainment areas 

would face and because most areas of the U.S. will likely be required to meet a revised ozone 

standard by 2025. States with areas classified as Moderate and higher are required to develop 

attainment demonstration plans for those nonattainment areas. In this RIA we present the 

primary costs and benefits estimates for 2025.

In estimating the incremental costs and benefits of potential alternative standards, we 

recognize that there are several areas that are not required to meet the existing ozone standard by 

2025. The Clean Air Act allows areas with more significant air quality problems to take 

additional time to reach the existing standard. Several areas in California are not required to 

meet the existing standard by 2025 and may not be required to meet a revised standard until
1-9

sometime between 2032 and 2038.2 We were not able to project emissions and air quality 

beyond 2025 for California, however, we adjusted baseline air quality to reflect mobile source 

emissions reductions for California that would occur between 2025 and 2030; these emissions 

reductions were the result of mobile source regulations expected to be fully implemented by 

2030. While there is uncertainty about the precise timing of emissions reductions and related 

costs for California, we assume costs occur through 2038. In addition, we model benefits for 

California using projected population demographics for 2038. 

Because of the different timing for incurring costs and accruing benefits and for ease of 

discussion throughout the analyses, we refer to the different time periods for potential attainment 

as 2025 and post-2025 to reflect that (1) we did not project emissions and air quality for any year 

other than 2025; (2) for California, emissions controls and associated costs are assumed to occur 

through 2038; and (3) for California benefits are modeled using population demographics in 

2038. It is not straightforward to discount the post-2025 results for California to compare with 

or add to the 2025 results for the rest of the U.S. While we estimate benefits using 2038 

information, we do not have good information on precisely when the costs of controls will be 

incurred. Because of these differences in timing related to California attaining a revised 

standard, the supplementalseparate costs and benefits estimates for post-2025 should not be 

added to the primary estimates for 2025.

1.4 Health and Welfare Benefits Analysis Approach

1.4.1 Health Benefits

The EPA estimated human health (e.g., mortality and morbidity effects) under both 

partial and full attainment of the three alternative ozone standards. We considered an array of 

health impacts attributable to changes in ozone and PM 2.5 exposure and estimated these benefits 

using the BenMAP tool (US EPA, 2014), which has been used in many recent RIAs (e.g., U.S. 

EPA, 2006, 2011a, 2011b), and The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2020 (U.S. 

EPA, 2011c). The EPA has incorporated an array of policy and technical updates to the benefits 

 

2 The EPA will likely finalize designations for a revised ozone NAAQS in late 2017. Depending on the precise 

timing of the effective date of those designations, nonattainment areas classified as Severe 15 will likely have to 

attain sometime between late 2032 and early 2033 and nonattainment areas classified as Extreme will likely have to 

attain sometime between late 2037 and early 2038. 
1-10

analysis approach applied in this RIA, including incorporation of the most recent epidemiology 

studies evaluating mortality and morbidity associated with ozone and PM2.5 exposure, and an 

expanded uncertainty assessment. Each of these updates is fully described in the health benefits 

chapter (Chapter 5). In addition, unquantified health benefits are also discussed in Chapter 5.

1.4.2 Welfare Co-Benefits

Even though the primary standards are designed to protect against adverse effects to 

human health, the emissions reductions would have welfare co-benefits in addition to the direct 

human health benefits. The term welfare co-benefits covers both environmental and societal 

benefits of reducing pollution. Welfare co-benefits of the primary ozone standard include 

reduced vegetation effects resulting from ozone exposure, reduced ecological effects from 

particulate matter deposition and from nitrogen emissions, reduced climate effects, and changes 

in visibility. Both welfare co-benefits are discussed further in Chapter 6.

1.5 Cost Analysis Approach

The EPA estimated total costs under partial and full attainment of the three alternative 

ozone standards. These cost estimates reflect only engineering costs, which generally include the 

costs of purchasing, installing, and operating the referenced control technologies. The 

technologies and control strategies selected for analysis are illustrative of one way in which 

nonattainment areas could meet a revised standard. There are numerous ways to construct and 

evaluate potential control programs that would bring areas into attainment with alternative 

standards, and the EPA anticipates that state and local governments will consider programs that 

are best suited for local conditions.

The partial-attainment cost analysis reflects the engineering costs associated with 

applying end-of-pipe controls, or known controls. Costs for full attainment include estimates for 

the costs associated with the additional emissions reductions that are needed beyond known

controls, referred to as unknown controls. The EPA recognizes that the portion of the cost 

estimates from unknown controls reflects substantial uncertainty about which sectors and which 

technologies might become available for cost-effective application in the future.
1-11

1.6 Organization of this Regulatory Impact Analysis

This RIA includes the following ten chapters:

 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background. This chapter introduces the purpose of the 

RIA.

 Chapter 2: Defining the Ozone Air Quality Problem. This chapter characterizes the 

nature, scope, and magnitude of the current-year ozone problem.

 Chapter 3: Air Quality Modeling and Analysis. The data, tools, and methodology used for 

the air quality modeling are described in this chapter, as well as the post-processing 

techniques used to produce a number of air quality metrics for input into the analysis of 

costs and benefits.

 Chapter 4: Control Strategies. This chapter presents the hypothetical control strategies, 

the geographic areas where controls were applied, and the results of the modeling that 

predicted ozone concentrations in 2025 after applying the control strategies.

 Chapter 5: Human Health Benefits Analysis. This chapter quantifies the health-related 

benefits of the ozone-related air quality improvements associated with several alternative 

standards.

 Chapter 6: Welfare Co-Benefits of the Primary Standard. This chapter quantifies and 

monetizes selected other welfare effects, including vegetation effects from ozone 

exposure, ecological effects from nitrogen and sulfur emissions, changes in visibility, 

materials damage, ecological effects from PM deposition, ecological effects from 

mercury deposition, and climate effects.

 Chapter 7: Engineering Cost Analysis. This chapter summarizes the data sources and 

methodology used to estimate the engineering costs of partial and full attainment of 

several alternative standards.

 Chapter 8: Comparison of Benefits and Costs. This chapter compares estimates of the 

total benefits with total costs and summarizes the net benefits of several alternative 

standards.

 Chapter 9: Statutory and Executive Order Impact Analyses. This chapter summarizes the 

Statutory and Executive Order impact analyses.

 Chapter 10: Qualitative Discussion of Employment Impacts of Air Quality. This chapter 

provides a discussion of employment impacts of reducing emissions of ozone precursors.

1.7 References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1999. Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 

2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements. Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality. Available at http://www.epa.gov/tier2/frm/fr-t2reg.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway 

Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/index.htm.
1-12

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2004. Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Nonroad 

Diesel Engines and Fuel. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=09000064800be203&disposition=attachment&c

ontentType=pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. New Emission Standards for New Commercial Aircraft 

Engines. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f05015.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005b. Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best 

Available Retrofit Technology Determinations. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/July/Day-06/a12526.pdf and 

http://www.epa.gov/visibility/fs_2005_6_15.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2005. Clean Air Interstate Rule. Office of Atmospheric 

Programs, Washington, D.C. Available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-5723.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2006. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008a. Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis, US 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-452/R-08-003. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/452_R_08_003.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).2008b. Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420f08004.pdf. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008c. Control of Emissions for Nonroad Spark Ignition 

Engines and Equipment. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marinesi-equipld/bondfrm.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 

and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators. Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/129/hmiwi/fr06oc09.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2009f. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and 

Standards Division, Ann Arbor, MI. Report No. EPA-420-R-09-019. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09019.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Control of Emissions from New Marine CompressionIgnition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480ae43a6&disposition=attachment&c

ontentType=pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/icengines/fr/fr20au10.pdf.
1-13

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Office of Atmospheric 

Programs, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-08/pdf/2011-17600.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/R-11-

011. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 

2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanairactbenefits/feb11/fullreport_rev_a.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Federal 

Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 States; Correction 

of SIP Approvals for 22 States. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, US EPA, OAQPS, 2014, RTP, NC, EPA-452/R-14-006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014a. Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.1, 2011 

Emissions Modeling Platform. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#2011.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution 

Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants, US 

EPA, OAQPS, 2014, RTP, NC, EPA-452/R-14-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014c. Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle 

Emissions and Fuel Standards Rule, US EPA, OTAQ, 2014, Washington, DC, EPA-420-R-14-005.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4, September 17, 2003, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/-.pdf.