1

- 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BAC KGROUND
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 summ arizes 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 pr oposed 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 co st. 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 esta blishment 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 seconda ry 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 the1

- 2

public welfare from any known or anticipat ed 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 revie w 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 in itiated 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 draft s 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. T he 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. T he EPA Administr ator is also proposing to revise the level of the current secondary standard to within the range pr oposed 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 p rimary 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 standard s . The Act requires the EPA, for each criteria pollutant, to1

- 3

set standa rd s 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 set ting of the primary air quality standard s , 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

- effectiv e 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 po tential 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 se veral 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 standa rd 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 th e 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 healt h 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 within1

- 4

this range that indicates exactly where to set a standard. S imilarly, 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, b enefit and cost estimates provided in the RIA are not additive to benefits and costs from other regulations, and, further, the costs and benefits identi fied 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 A ir Quality Standards OMB Circular A

- 4 indicates that one of the reasons a re gulation 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 s etting 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 R IA 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 revise d 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 cost

effective implementation strategies that might be undertaken to achieve national attainment of new standards. These hy pothetical strategies represent a scenario where states use one set of1

- 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. S IPs 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 inhere nt 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 Ex isting 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, increase d respiratory symptoms and pulmonary inflammation, effects that result in serious indicators of respiratory morbidity, such as emergency department visits and hospital admissi ons, and all

- cause ( total non

accidental ) 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 informa tion, the EPA is also soliciting comment on alternative standard levels below 65 pp b , as low as 60 pp b. In addition, the EPA is takin g 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 requisite1

- 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 ind ex 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 a ssesses 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 benefit s of reaching attainment with alternative ozone standard level s. T o 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 ( 7 5 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 a lternative primary standard levels

. Attaining 75 ppb reflects emissions reductions already achieved as a result of national regulations, emissions r eductions expected prior to 2025 from recently promulgated national regulations (i.e., reductions t hat 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 r eductions achieved as a result of state and local agency regulations and voluntary programs are reflected to the extent that they are represented in emission s inventory information submitted to the EPA by state and local agencies. We to ok t wo 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 nati onal rules reflected in the baseline. F or 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 Compress ion

- Ignition Engines (U.S. EPA, 2008 b )

 Control of Emissions for Nonroad Spark Ignition Engines and Equipment (U.S. EPA, 2008 c )

 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations (U.S. EPA, 2005b)

 NO x Emission Sta ndard 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 PM 2.5 , NO 2 , or SO 2 . 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 PM 2.5 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 oz one standard levels analyzed in this RIA and in the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS RIA are in California. The attainment dates for a new PM 2.5 NAAQS would likely precede attainment dates for a revised o zone NAAQS. While the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS RIA concluded that controls on directly emitted PM 2.5 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 th e 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 a ttainment 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 ex isting 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 develop ed 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 r emaining 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 att ainment 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

me et the existing standard by 2025 and may not be required to meet a revised standard until1

- 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 refle ct 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. W hile there is uncertainty about the precise tim ing of e missions 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 ac cruing benefits and f or 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

. I t is not straightforward to discount the post

- 2025 results for C alifornia to compar e with or add to the 2025 results for the rest of the U.S. W hile we estimate benefits using 2038 information, we do not have good information on precisely when the costs of control s will be incurred

. Because of these differences in timing related to Ca li fornia attaining a revised standard, the supplemental separate 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 estima ted 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 poli cy 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 att ain 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 PM 2.5 exposure, and an expanded uncertainty assessm ent. 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 emission s 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

- benefi ts 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 t hat 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 c ost

- effective application in the future.1

- 11

1. 6 Organization of this Regulatory Impact Analysis
Th is 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 chap ter, 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 202 5 after applying the control strategies.

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

- related benefits of the ozone - rel ated 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, eco logical 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 summariz es 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.ep a.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/ota q/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/co ntentStreamer?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. Av ailable 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 Q uality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R

- 0 5/004aF

- 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 Protect ion Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , 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, EP A

- 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. Environmen tal 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 Pr otection 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. Av ailable 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 Compression

Ignition 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. Environm ental 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 a t http://www.epa.gov/tt n/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Pr otection 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 Pro tection 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 EP A, 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. Env ironmental 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, S eptemb er 17, 2003, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/

- .pdf

.